Should you have a bad day, with the EEC failed and having to do a GPWS pull up, there is a good chance the Max Rated 22k and Max Certified 24k will be exceeded. Was the engine overboosted (as in a fed with a critical high pressure in the compressor)? Or would it be more accurate to say the "thrust limit was exceeded"?
OK, intentionally being a bit anal here, but since you're pointing out inaccurate (although commonly accepted) nomenclature...
FADEC EECs don't "fail", at least not and keep the engine running. With FADEC, if the EEC is failed there is no engine control and the engine will quit. What happens is some fault (or combination of faults) causes the EEC automatically revert to Alternate mode control - which is fundamentally different than "failed". The terminology likely dates to the early 'supervisory' (aka PMC) EECs that used a conventional hydromechanical engine control - the EEC would 'trim' the hydro to prevent 'overboost' and give more linear throttle response. If the EEC failed (which it literally could do), the engine still ran fine, but without overboost/over thrust protections provided by the supervisory EEC.
I'm currently a bit over sensitive to people saying 'failed' when an EEC auto-reverts to Alternate mode as there was a very recent 767 event where both engines auto-reverted to Alternate mode in suspected Ice Crystal Icing (I haven't seen the data yet but I'm reasonably sure the inlet total pressure probes iced up). The airline 21.3 report said "both EECs failed" - which caused several people to go absolutely non-linear since "both EECs failed" would literally mean a dual engine failure.
I'd taken a day off which allowed the resultant panic to spread far and wide before I came back and was able to stamp it back down.
BTW, yes I agree that if contact with terrain is imminent, I have no problem with a pilot intentionally overboosting (over thrusting) an engine. I recall concerns during the early days of FADEC that allowing the EEC to protect thrust limits could be a problem during an emergency such as wind shear. But analysis at that time concluded that the ability to overboost/over thrust was only of minor benefit in such an emergency. 25 years later I'm unaware of any accidents where the ability to overboost/over thrust the engines would have made a meaningful difference. So it sounds like that analysis was correct.
