These crews who were not capable of correct recovery techniques, deserve some sympathy as essentially they were not qualified to enact that recovery.
1) I do not know of any simulators that have the correct algorithms to represent aircraft handling characteristics at high altitude.(Set to about 15000 ft airiest height)
2) No in general pilots do not handle the aircraft at high altitude, especially in alternate law on an AB. (note example Roll rate inc from 15deg sec to getting on for 60deg second) The companies and legislation essentially forbids it.(they are aware of the possible consequences)
3) Handling at high level is quite different to low level. Stall recovery is the same as far as technique is concerned BUT to get the aircraft to position itself to that; is quite different. (For instance try hand flying a clb from 38 to 40 thousand in an actual A330 or a B767 or similar)
4) Ergonomically a side stick is far easier to over control than a yoke. (example how often do you "hit" the rolls stops on a rough approach? Quite often on a side stick rarely on a yoke)
5) If the aircraft departs the flight envelope, the aircraft is in un charted territory that even the test pilots probably have not seen.
We all believe we are better than the next man. It is the nature of being a pilot, however in general it is not the case.
Essentially all these crews were suddenly confronted with an odd handling aircraft probably in turbulence and trying to re- invent the wheel with no prior training or experience of flight at that level.
And IMHO training high altitude manoeuvres on a simulator that is only representing "feel" of 15000 ft is negative training and probably compounded the errors.
The much quoted Elephant in the room is the various certifying authorities allowing aircraft to be flown by un trained pilots.
