surplus1, in recognizing your conjecture I believe that some of the emphasis and the correlations with previous accidents are misplaced; I covered some of these points in #3014.
You discount a stable stall condition where the wings remain relatively level. I proposed an hypothesis leading to this scenario in #2825
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ml#post5037329
Note that the A330 is reported to have good roll centering in ALTN law, which even with a roll oscillation could result in a ‘level’ attitude and a high descent rate. Hitting the sea at 100kts in a stalled condition, where pitch control might be non existent for a flare is still very fast.
The stalled condition above is not the same as the spin conditions which you and others relate too – the example, and ideas elsewhere invoke the loss of the fin which so far has been shown to be unlikely. Similarly, the example of a T tail stall is not applicable here, but I will check
ttcse's reference.
I do not discount control mishandling which could have resulted in a stall / spin, but without evidence, this line of thought cannot be progressed. Also, whilst attesting from experience of Cb test flights, the levels of turbulence can create many hazards, they do not in themselves cause the type of upset or failure which you discuss.
In general, the certification requirements provide for a range of extremes associated with inadvertent Cb encounter, which are based upon extensive aviation history (and accidents). As yet, we only have evidence of the aircraft being close to Cbs and not actually in one.
Many big
IFs lead to a range of alternative situations, each viewed by many people with their own views, and unfortunately at times, with bias (but not apparently in your post).
IMHO your analytical logic fails with the assumption that the pitot systems would see different air masses on each side of the aircraft. From experience of tests and often due to the architecture of the pitot systems (cross balance pipes) this occurrence is most unlikely. Also, IF the comparator software detected a cross system failure, then a subsequent comparator failure might then be comparing ‘same side’ systems for the next reported ‘failure’.