To those that want to divert this thread with idle speculation regarding what the passengers may or may not have been aware of - knock it off. This has no place within this thread (remember: this is the Tech Log...?) and can serve no useful purpose. Lawyers will no doubt play that game to the max when the time comes, but within these pages I can see nothing but theatrical imaginings - leave it alone, please.
to rudderrudderrat for the airspeed calc a few posts back - you seem to have hit the numbers on the head.
JD-EE: Do you not think that (a) the BEA will in the fullness of time produce a full report, that would leave them looking like a bunch of incompetent idiots unless the majority of the recent note is essentially the meat and potatoes of the incident? I mean it's going to be hard to take them seriously if they suddenly switch story-lines. What we have been given is the frame upon which, no doubt, the fine print will become overlaid. I find it hard to imagine anything being added that is so astounding that collectively make a virtual 180 with our thinking here. (b) You seem to believe that Airbus is the only player that has a significant hand in this game? Do you not think that Air France might also be rather interested in what the BEA are saying? At the end of all this a large and ugly lawsuit is lurking and some large $$$ are about to discussed, so I really can't see the BEA being pressured to apportion blame (implied or otherwise) without the data to back that up.
Several mentions have been made a 'deep stall' - why? This is a specific stall condition mostly defined as "A condition such that the turbulent wake of a stalled main wing "blankets" the horizontal stabilizer, rendering the elevators ineffective and preventing the aircraft from recovering from the stall." Neither the BEA note, or any of the more 'thoughtful' contributors believe this aircraft was in any kind of "deep stall" I think it fair to say.
For 'gums' and his musing on the Viper deep stall, I would characterize that as something different, largely due to the non-stable aerodynamics of the aircraft, that the FBW system normally kept under control - you bad boys just found a way to get into a flight condition that I figure the designers didn't think you'd find!
Finally, there has been some speculation that the pitot issue bay have been drain blockage leading to an increase in airspeed indication... where is this imaginary event coming from? Does anyone here rationally think that the BEA would not mention this? If this gradual speed increase was occurring, the AT system (prior to disconnect) would normally be attempting to compensate I would surmise? I am pretty sure that the information released would have mentioned this, since it would have been precipitous to the whole accident sequence. Finally, the zoom-climb energy calc would not work, unless the aircraft speed was not as declared (275kt).