vapilot,
Thanks for your reply.
The report should have included data and analysis of the several documented instances of unreliable airspeed and known pitot issues across the fleet to better understand how this critical sensor failure manifests itself in real life.
BEA's Interim Report no.2 provides a detailed analysis of thirteen preceding UAS incidents that were adequately documented. The judiciary experts have interviewed the pilots involved in some of these incidents and describe how those pilots perceived the situation.
The main body of the BEA final report contains some very detailed graphs of the areas that really matter. Other DFDR data are shown on a smaller scale in the appendix and include pitch, roll and yaw input and control surface deflection at the recorded sampling rate, which is equal to or higher than the values you mention. If you have difficulty with the graphical scale, use the 'zoom' function of your pdf viewer. The graphs do show all relevant parameters in sufficient detail to permit an understanding of what took place.
There is no indication of any abnormality in the engine behavior, nor of the pilots even looking at the engine parameters. So how would additional engine parameters contribute to a better understanding of what happened?
EDIT: As to AoA and airspeed being a mess - the plots show the actual data points as they were recorded, without any filtering or 'interpretation', except that the graphics software added a thin line connecting each data point to the next.
The report also shows, to the extent possible, what was to be seen on the EFIS, for both pilot's stations. What was actually seen by the pilots can only be derived from their comments as recorded by the CVR and documented in BEA's report.