Examining computer behaviour through detailed parameters in this case, is, I think, going to be all after the fact, that they had nothing to do with the pitch-up. Further, if the initial causes of this accident actually lie in the electrons and decision gates, we're all doomed because compiling software or building chips without mistakes is something no one doing that work can or will claim as possible.
When working in maintenance (since i was 15) i learned we canīt be biased because can led you to fail. In one case i considered impossible a fault to be caused by a certain part. After several days fighting to understand the reason of a "glitch" in an engine and after "intense parts swapping" i realized the culprit was a brand new item, with a manufacturing defect. The only one i considered "certainly good". On "the initial causes" i would like to know what was PF "seeing" during his "persistent NU". "we're all doomed " makes me remember a training on EMI/EMC i had when the instructor told us about EMP. (the electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear blast). This is really serious. The "decision gates" could be transformed instantaneously in "diodes"
and the data buses in "DC bars"
For a plane, not so near to the blast.
(the real "butterfly" sensation, butterflies in stomach)
That does not mean that confusion about the aircraft's situation is improbable. I think it is quite possible and very probable, and the sources of are long before and well beyond the cockpit.
I prefer to wait some few weeks. We must be prepared. The first (LF) leak was very clear, assertive and very fast. Letīs wait.
What we should expect is that the computers do not prevent the pilot from doing his or her job. I know of no case in transport flying where the computers prevented the pilot from flying the airplane and doing what he or she needed to do to maintain control and prevent an accident.
I have a different perception on that. And will comment some cases IMHO directly related to the System (the highly reliable redundant "computer"). But first we must define what is the computer? A non optimal interface can be considered "part of the computer"? IMO, Yes. For us, designers itīs very easy to implement a very reliable computer. Specially for simple tasks. The art, IMHO in the Aviation industry is on "how it work together" as a reliable partner (i fired the "crew member"
) specially during unexpected, critical, urgent and complex situations. In the a/c, the computer is just an element. As you said, one that is prone to fail. So much that you need 3 or for certain functions, 5. Therefore a non reliable element. What the crew need is a reliable partner. It came to my mind Albert Schweitzerīs phrase: "Confidence is the greatest asset of any successful enterprise. Nothing useful can survive without it"