Far to many other factors to consider, stabiliser trim full nose down, throttles fully open etc. etc.
Agree. One needed to be an observer at the Singapore court case to hear the quite incredible opinions offered by one of the so called "expert" witnesses for the defence (Silk Air) When questioned why the pilot apparently chose to dive steeply at high power with speed brakes retracted and no mayday call or any other transmission, the "expert" witness stated the pilot was actually trying to pull out of the dive by applying high power since it is well known that if power is applied the nose of the aircraft will raise itself. The same expert postulated the most probable sequence of events were initially caused by the electrical actuation of the CVR circuit breaker followed shortly after by the electrical actuation of the two FDR circuit breakers.
He further postulated that in all probability a crack started across the windscreen caused by a "progressive" electrical failure. Warming up to his own argument the witness suggested whoever was on the flight deck panicked and selected full down stab trim while pushing the 737 into a steep dive and was too busy to make a radio call or select the speed brakes but when he realised his error he pushed open the throttles in order to get the nose to rise.
In addition, so the expert argued, as it was known the captain had in all probability left the cockpit for a short while, judging by the last recorded words on the CVR, the only person left in the cockpit at the time of the nose dive was the first officer. Ergo, the F/O was probably to blame.. His argument was accepted by the judge as one plausable explanation for the accident. Well, to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, he would, wouldn't he?