DW @franzl (RF4) and TD:
The test was primarily to determine *systems* behaviour, and does not attempt to answer questions outside of that scope. The question was whether forward stick would be enough to either overcome or counteract the THS position in the time available, for which the answer was affirmative.
There is no evidence at all, that such system behaviour can be evaluated in a simulator outside the designed envelope, therefore your test proves nothing. If BEA would be as certain as you are, they would have made the same test and would have come to the same answer.
In addition, the recovery procedures we attempted were performed in the early phases of the stall - right after to the point where the THS rolled back. We did not hold the stall to the point where the sim behaviour would deviate significantly from the real thing due to the data from the real aircraft never having been gathered in those conditions.
There is no evidence, at what point your simulator would behave different to the actual A320, despite the fact that we are talking about an A330 here. Itīs no difference wether we talk about somewhat stalled or sustained stalled, as the simulator has no validated database for either one to do that.
It was an interesting experiment when no other values where available and BEA had its cards still hidden, but now the final report is out and i see no sense in supplementing the report with own non proofed experimental data like they are real hard facts. .
BEA clearly states that the aircraft was not tested outside its normal flight envelope and that no data are available, period. We have to accept that and work from there.