AF447

[PEI_3721]

surplus1, {post 3358} you appear to have misunderstood the difference between the flight control system (FBW) and the autoflight system. The airbus follows a similar concept as conventional aircraft, except as stated that the technology used in flight control system is FBW.
See A330 Flight Controls.

With the autopilot engaged, if the aircraft’s reaction to a gust in turbulence is beyond certain boundaries (pitch +25, -13, roll 45, speed, AOA, well before the constraining ‘g’ limits of the FBW system), the autopilot disengages (with alerts) and hands a fully functioning aircraft (controls) to the crew, there is no change in control law. Your assumption of a change of law is incorrect.
In manual flight the control system limits the manoeuvre within the constraining boundaries.
See A330 Auto Flight.

Changes in flight control law are generally the result of computational system failure and/or input failure, this includes electrical failures.
In this accident the comparator functions of the ADC inputs appear to trigger the conditions which would cause a change in control law.
See A330 Flight Laws.

The limits of the normal law (protections) are no more likely to be exceeded when flying in any other law, than they might be exceeded in any conventional aircraft, excepting gross differences in the underlying aerodynamic designs. ‘IF’ turbulence caused an upset then it could have happen to any aircraft, and even exceeding the stated limits, it does not imply that control will be lost.

Your subsequent speculation about airframe failure is just too extreme, both from the scarce evidence available, and extensive research and previous turbulence encounters, which form the basis of certification standards.
This does not mean that ‘it’ cannot happen; just that it is most unlikely. In order to strengthen your speculation, then the reported weather would have to be correlated with other aircraft upset and failure events, and the assumptions within the certification requirements.
Although the reported storm cells appear to have been very large, they were not as large as some that have been recorded. There is no evidence that the aircraft entered a Cb.

Re post 3368, you might find your tenuous argument easier if you described the aircraft motion after a structural failure as ‘spin like’; who knows what the actual flight path modes would be without a fin or other large pieces of structure. Please do not cite the A300 accident; there are not enough similarities to be valid.