ELAC
The problem with this discussion is that, in the absence of any further facts, it has drifted so far off base that we've come to the point of discussing the merits of plumb-bobs of all things. The contributions now seem to fall into the categories of: Declarations regarding the certainty of some critical flaw in design or concept; Various home-brewed plumb-bob solutions to said flaws; Validation of same by anecdotes or experiments in a Cessna, and; Occasional efforts to bring things back to the known facts about the aircraft and the accident.
It would all be quite humorous were it not for the fact that it is actually setting back efforts to understand what did happen to AF447, which is a very important question to those of us who fly the aircraft as pilots or as passengers. All one has to do is read the articles appearing in various media sources (such as those posted here from The Times and The Australian) to see the reverberation effect of inaccurate conclusions stated here becoming magnified and reflect back to us as "consensus opinions of professionals in the field". That's a fault of the media as much as anything, but it does shape perception of what happened and it should be a reminder that this is a "Professional" forum where there's an expectation that what you suggest in your posts is at least a speculation informed by knowledge of the aircraft/crew/accident and supported by the facts available.
Bingo
I don't mind opinions but they belong in a technical thread not in an accident thread. Even the well advised among us sometimes get too far ahead of the investigation to the disservice of the public. I have no problem in making other pilots aware of possible issues, but there has to be a more delicate way.