Cause and Effect
Stall warnings are not connected directly to stick movements, they are caused by airplane condition (angle of attack).
Initially the speed was normal. The yank back on the stick then pointed the aircraft 15 degrees nose high. That ATTITUDE at that ALTITUDE caused massive loss of speed, that loss of speed reduced lift, that loss of lift caused the aircraft to adopt a downwards flight path, the backstick of Bonin caused the ATTITUDE to remain very high, the attitude and flightpath together make for a high angle of attack, that causes stall warning. And of course the low "maximum angle of attack" at high Mach number makes for the possibility that the stall warning already went of during the pullup, while real airspeed was not extremely low yet.
If just around that time, an abrupt stick forward movement is started, but already stopped when reaching approximately neutral stick, then the aircraft does not really have time to react by decreasing pitch attitude.
Crucial mistake in your reasoning is, that the sounding of stall warning at the moment of forward stick movement, would convince Bonin of the need to pull back again. For every pilot, it should be bread and butter, that stall warning requires relaxing of back pressure, requires forward stick movement, not aft stick movement.
The only instance of stall (warning) requiring you to pull, would be in a negative stall (that is, with so much negative g applied, that the negative angle of attack is too great - however, that condition can only be concocted in an aerobtic aircraft. In a civvie airliner it could only occur when the horizontal tailplane has broken off and the wreck is then pitched forward by the negative pitch moment of the wing alone - and the wing would soon fail structurally - read accident report of Itavia DC-9 near Ustica in circa 1980 ).
Quote
Once in very high AoA, any Nose Down produces remarkable acceleration and negative g. Sufficient to cause reversal by pilot of ND command. The record shows this? Add to this the return of STALLSTALL, and recovery is foreclosed, demonstrably....Unquote
Application of forward stick would not magically produce negative g and massive acceleration. First, the whole aircraft would have to react (that takes time), the g load would decrease a little bit, slowly the angle of attack would decrease, thereby decreasing, slowly, the enormous amount of drag from the extreme angle of attack, and then initially slowly, the speed would increase. Then of course, matters would pick up pace and then again, carefully, aft stick would be applied to keep acceleration reasonable, acceleration (that is g!!!, not the increase of airspeed) reasonable, so as not to stall again, etcetera etcetera.
Perhaps you are under they impression that, while having the airplane act as a piano, falling through the air, that the crew was subjected to zero (or perhaps a little) negative g. Not so, it was falling steady state, more or less, and everything inside would be pulled into their seats by gravity with the normal load of approximately 1 g.
Last edited by EMIT; 31st Jul 2017 at 18:35.
Reason: typo