Preface: We don't know if FBW played any part in the chain of events. We don't know if crew response played any part in the chain of events. We'll hopefully know by tomorrow.
The comments below are my personal views as a pilot, and may differ significantly from other pilots.
the engineering disciplines behind the systems that are there, which are designed to assist the pilots - and nothing more - are every bit as stringent, if not more so, than the mechanical and hydraulic engineering disciplines
That maybe the case. However, there is more to performance than "quality". There is a fundamental difference between how "software" performs and how the other systems you mention behave. I believe it was
RR_NDB who brought up Taleb's "Black Swan". So I'll invoke that concept. Hydraulic pressure cannot go to infinity. Similarly the pressure cannot go zero 0 in zero time. See
RR_NDB's comments below about analog systems. Yet, it is too easy for this sort of nonlinearity to crop up in software systems, especially at the points where the software system fails/degrades (a.k.a bugs).
So why is it that it's considered OK to bash FBW Airbus designs on here with absolutely no evidence that software had anything to do with the accident?
Perhaps conditioned by the blue screen of death. I kid. I understand this was the point you were trying to make that mission critical software systems are not like your average windows pc. In my book this only means, its damn hard to "beat" these "ultrareliable" systems. However, when they do fail (for whatever reason) they exhibit the same kind of nonlinearity that any old windows computer would.
We donīt know "the algorithms" used.
I am assuming the Pitotīs are not "transformed in "altimeters", etc." immediately. The events are gradual, i guess. And we need testing to understand how the sensors "freeze" (temperature. and valid signal) This is an "analog world" with the "richness of mother nature".
But do you see the problem here. Completely agree that pitots, ice accetion, pressure changes etc. are all analog "systems". Let me also point out, so are we. This may be why we can "feel"/"sense" some of these forces ourselves with surprisingly high sensitivity. However, what happens when you put a computer in the middle.
Lets look at this explanation from
infrequentflyer789.
As I read it, the computers will tolerate a transient (<10 seconds) period of dodgy values and revert back to normal if everything comes back into line - but if the values stay out of expected range, you are in alternate law etc for rest of the flight.
Observe that the so called dodgy values could be a set of values that are gradually decreasing or increasing. Observe further what happens when the values don't come back to within tolerance levels within the time frame, the system "clicks" into a different mode. This is not a reflection of the analog behavior of the malfunctioning pitot. The "algorithm" has changed the smooth function of dodgy speed values into a step function for mode change. This in my view is the crux of the problem.
PS: I know fluid dynamic systems can exhibit nonlinearity, as in say, the soliton wave, popularly known as a tsunami. But I think we can safely, discount these extreme cases from the operating ranges of sensors like pitot tubes.