It's a good exercise. But not being able to tell what the pitch and power was does not mean that all is lost and "5deg" is the only answer.
Certainly not, indeed. But 5°/CLB has apparently been deemed stable enough. Why not 2.5? Perhaps because you don't have an associated stable-in-all-conditions thrust setting?
I'm not advocating 5°/CLB should be applied at all time when UAS. Neither am I sure the authors of the procedure meant it that way.
If the safe conduct of the flight is affected => if above FL100 => 5°/CLB => QRH
If the safe conduct of the flight is not affected => maintain current => QRH
What means "safe conduct of the flight is affected" is, IMO, where the "problem" lies...
Originally Posted by
bubbers44
They would have been fine if they hadn't pulled up into the obvious stall.
Once again, this is not related directly to AF447 as we have no clear indication they tried to follow any (part of) procedure.
That doesn't mean the procedure should not be improved. It should.