The Amsterdam recent incident crashed much like that landing flat but with a high sink rate. If they were in a spiral dive and saw the ocean coming towards them in the final seconds they would attempt to pull out wings level but if they couldn't they might hit flat or even nose up with a very high sink rate at impact.
The Amsterdam airplane was configured for landing. Recovering from a spiral dive before impact would imply a high speed impact.
I’m fairly certain that the A330 is not susceptible to them; otherwise it would have a stick pusher
The DC8 example is applicable, but the A300 incident I posted a few pages back is closer to the 447 configuration. The roll reversals in the DC8 report can be thought of as partial snap rolls, and are useful in determining the configuration's ability to spin.
The A330 was certified with FBW and if I understand other posters, doesn't require stick pusher because of that. The FAA wouldn't require stall protection after multiple failures and degradation for FBW status. The A330 in baseline configuration will not enter a stable stall without gyroscopic forces for stabilization. Not to say the HS didn't depart or any of a number of other things to change the airplane from baseline. The aft CG at cruise could be enough for a spin to go flat and if that's the case, then it's unlikely the HS would be enough to overcome the condition. The VS would be blanketed by the HS, i.e., lack of rudder area below the HS, and would be useless for upright spin recovery.