HazelNuts
I think BEA is saying that, if this was a movie you had been watching, at this point you would give up all hope of a happy ending.
EDIT: What was lacking was 'a good understanding of the situation'. With that they should have known what to do about it, and would not need a 'purpose' to do it. The quote is from the part of the BEA report that is "mainly based on the results of the work of the Human Factors group". IMO it speaks more of the HF than of airframe technicalities.
What are you getting at?
I cited the discussed matter word for word out of the BEA Final report, or do you have a different one? It does not cover the creation of a script for a movie, but this report is the work of experts with a lot more data at hand than we ever will, created over a two year period for the sake of safety. .
What evidence do you have, that it is the result of the human factor group, which is covered in the report under point 1.16.8?
The above cited statements from BEA is found under
2. Analysis
2.1 Accident Scenario
2.1.3 From the triggering of the STALL 2 warning until the end of the flight
Bolding by me
2.1.3.5 End of the flight
At about 2 h 12, descending though FL 315, the aeroplane’s angle of attack was established around an average value of about 40 degrees. Only an extremely purposeful crew with a good comprehension of the situation could have carried out a manoeuvre that would have made it possible to perhaps recover control of the aeroplane. In fact, the crew had almost completely lost control of the situation.
Up until the end of the flight, no valid angle of attack value was less than 35°.
If it would have been a simple stall recovery maneouvre, why did BEA use those cryptic words?