LW_50;
Regarding what the PF saw..., CONF iture asked the question a while back about whether the QAR would have the CAS parameter displayed on the F/O's PFD.
There is no easy way to answer the question for, as discussed in the post on data frames, QARs are different animals and are subject to more variations in what they record and how they record it (in terms of rates). The parameter is certainly available and, optimistically, I would think it would be on the QAR, which of course is primarily used for FOQA/FDM analysis by the airline's safety department. A lot of other stuff will be there as well and being solid state it may have survived even in water.
We can't say for sure whether the three airspeeds failed in the same way because we don't have the data. But I think they did fail the same way. I think it was gums posted an A300 manual's schematic page which showed very clearly what happens downstream and over a short period of time to airspeed indications when the pitot head or drain holes are plugged with ice or water. It is more difficult to imagine differences than it is similarities although until the data is available, it is possible.
What would cause the ADRs to read a higher speed and send it to the DMUs which display same on the F/O's PFD, that permits at the same time, the loss of airspeed on the Captain's display and the ISIS, and the uniform increase in AoA parameters to 16deg and beyond?
The questions concerning the attitude, sideslip, altimeter and IVSI are good ones, and we need to understand what else the PNF saw and perhaps said. None of us here expect that this release was not closely vetted.