It is a matter of some consequence...."Flight Law changed at approximately 2:10:05...." per BEA.
This is a word that invites doubt, and conjecture. It is an inappropriate statement, and not consistent with accepted levels of research. Alone, the phrase is amateurish, and there is no further refinement.
What prompted the statement? How was it derived? What is the Data referenced to prompt this speculation?
The only data I can find re: the LAW degradation is by the pilot, PNF.
"We have lost the speeds, ALTERNATE LAW."
Which ALTERNATE LAW? It remains unreported by the crew, or referenced by BEA per DFDR. The comment was made sixteen seconds later, after loss of A/P and A/THR.
Of some importance would be the record of airspeed loss, rate and value.
I continue to doubt ICE. A sudden loss of all three ADRs means simultaneous blockage. This is preposterous. A more probable problem would be turbulence, by way of windshear, or blanking of probes similar to a WS alert. OR AoA excursion WITH ROLL.
Clandestino: The fact remains, PF input a PITCH motive, and this defines PITCH, as in PITCH/POWER. It is most definitely possible his stick at two seconds after loss a/p was a preface to P/P. No?
idle bystander. You misunderstand. It is only remotely likely that these pilots were unqualified. By law, they were. This accident is not understood, and do NOT form conclusions as to safety from what you read here. There are perhaps a half dozen events that happened in the correct sequence that downed this a/c. Not that they happened at all, but that the sequence itself occurred. Incredibly remote. You may not believe, but knowing what I know now about 447, I would board with comfort this same flight, pursuant only to the fact that this crew also knew what happened.
The Devil has surprised us all. He saves up for generations to ennable such a catastrophe.