max altitude according to WAT limits
BOAC, getting back to my question:
How is it that WAT has entered the conversation?
Why is "they climbed too high caused the stall" rather than "the AoA was held and maintained too high as airspeed/energy bled off so they stalled?"
What am I missing here?
Go back to the illustration I provided.
Had they begun at FL300, and pulled the same stunt (Held pitch 11-15 degrees and AoA increasing), the maintenance of that high AoA, and subseqent bleeding of energy still stalls them whether or not they reach FL380, or whatever WAT limit for the day was.
That they began closer to the limit was of course a contributing factor.
Why the shift in emphasis?
I do not believe from the report that exceeding the WAT is the cause of the stall.
Let me pose this another way. Were these gents in the goo at 20,000 feet, and held too high of an AoA, and bled energy off without remedy, they'd stall before reaching an altitude limit.
Right?