bearfoil, mm43, JD-EE, fascinating discussion; thank you for taking the time to place your arguments thoughtfully and clearly for non-engineers such as myself.
Originally Posted by bearfoil
wouldn't the aircrew have almost instantly turned for land?
No. Such a decision is not made "instantly".
First, training and cockpit discipline prevent hasty decision-making in emergencies and abnormalities.
The kinds of circumstances and possibilities which a crew may encounter cannot be listed but establishing control of the aircraft, executing drills, securing the remaining systems and then, if stablized, tending to the navigation of the aircraft, resolving between all crew members that the situation was stable and then communicating with ATC, then company, all mitigate any tendency towards sudden, hasty action. The order will vary slightly because no emergency is the same as another, but this is the general nature of any response.
Unless the obvious requires it, (TCAS, EGPWS, actual stall), one does not normally make changes in configuration, change aircraft configuration or start any other maneuver with an unstable or questionable airplane while an abnormality is being handled, especially without crew consulation and especially not without the captain on deck.
This may seem at odds with what many consider to have been a dire emergency but I don't think that it initially was such an emergency, but a gradually degrading series of circumstances which, by paths we do not know yet, ultimately led to loss of control of the aircraft.
We know from past incidents on the A330 (discussed earlier) that loss of airspeed information in and of itself does not and should not lead to loss of the aircraft. Clearly something else intervened and we have posited these circumstances many times now.
The discussion is indeed fascinating and not at all "academic", but not far from our minds, I know, will be the question about
why the loss of control occurred in the first place.
It may very well be that loss of control only occurred after the airframe was somehow compromised but there are problems with that scenario including wreckage/body distribution, size of the recovered pieces and telltale signs of high, uniform vertical 'g' loading on parts from widely separated locations on the aircraft. I know you all will have read the reports thoroughly so you will have solid reasons for alternate views, which again, make fascinating reading.
Specifically for a moment, I disagree that the spoiler broke off in flight. Such devices are certified through dive speeds and don't break off from forward slipstream exposure. The FCOM does not state whether they are designed to blow back but I suspect they are. There is an MLA - Maneuver Load Alleviation system and a Turbulence Damping system which affects the flight controls in terms of reducing airframe (wing) loads. The system is active above 250kts and at about 2g. These systems will have been taken into consideration, I'm sure.
PJ2