Pretty strong statement.
Convict the PF and hang him out to dry ?
What FDR data - we don't have any solid (hard / actual) data (evidence) yet - not re "the actual dynamic resonses of the aircraft" to those SS inputs - we only have "implied" outcomes.
I have to disagree your honour.
Would a rational pilot deliberately go for such a zoom ?
I doubt it your honour.
I fact, your honour, I am convinced, that there were other than PF influences, both external (air mass) and internal (systems - fbw autonomous inputs, and law effect confusion).
With regards to your SIM experiments, my gut feeling is that since it is a known fact that the SIM's don't have validated algorithms for outside the certified envelope, although such experiments may be interesting (even fun) to do, what (if any) value can you attribute to them ? Without flight test validation, what have we got, Garbage in - Garbage out.
I stated the bare bones of my theory on the upset in a previous post at
http://www.pprune.org/6361157-post3246.html
What has so far been released "from the BEA" has not caused me to change my mind re the prime scenerio, except to refine the "slow flat spin" part into a ""stalled mush" with slow right yaw" (as we now know the aircraft did a right 270 on the way down, and of the PF's long held left stick, apparently attempting to pick up the right wing, which, by the way, none of the bus drivers have explained or even addressed yet).
The BEA have released very time porous information for what was a very time dynamic event, nowhere near good enough.
A simple spread sheet (or simple delimited text file) with only nine columns of data would give us all that is needed (all of which they have) and would be very useful.
How about it Mr BEA ?
Hereby formally request a list of (from just before the actual upset to impact) 300 seconds (second by second, line by line) worth of data covering:-
"g_vert-u/d" "g_lat-l/r" "pitch_attitude-u/d" "roll_attitude-l/r" "SS-u/d" "SS-l/r" "pedal-l/r" and "AoA".