Hi RR
Thanks. Doubtful RHS had ever experienced an actual a/p loss in those conditions. So his response likely was precisely as if it was Sim setting. In exercise, one knows the drill, and the actions are "pre-programmed". His taking the controls was rote, by memory, and suffered by Sim experience. He likely did not Pause, and try to become "present" in the moment. Now that may sound "New Age", but it is quite old, "get the picture".
Following his instant "I have controls" was likely an 'expected' need to orient the airframe, hence inputs. Off on the wrong 'foot', could be....?
No one can experience the conditions exactly, but it is instructive to consider them anyway. RRecent posts have illuminated the cockpit environment.
There are at least two schools of thought, separated by a chasm of ego and 'wisdom'. UAS was badly understood, or was 'a walk in the park'. I submit that UAS, even if 'well understood' by the pilots flying, would be a serious problem.
Nothing is more important in high altitude flight than smooth, consistent input and reaction. Bad start, eh? A Sim induced 'muscle memory', that Pitched up an airframe that was already Pitching up on her own? "Lose no altitude".....? Who knows.
What a pilot knows, and 'feels' ( "I feel some crazy speed..."), drives the continued safe operation of the flight. Will we ever know why the PF continued his Pull to and through 1.65 G up to 380? I believe some things are missing that would help us understand why this a/c Stalled.
No one knows the displays....will we ever? Even if the Speeds returned, the flying pilot must re develop some confidence in a system that did, after all, dump the Flight Path into his lap without a 'Heads Up'. We assume.
An assumption can go either way, just as 'assume' good displays, so to, 'assume' bad data on the screens. They did not turn off FD's, nor did they control the throttle levers. They also did not unselect the AUTOPILOT. They were early guinea pigs in the search to get a handle on UAS......