That was the early theory, last year. The latest data shows a controlled descent. The airplane was pointed nose up, at a very high pitch (35 degrees?) and as result only a fraction of the engines' power was used to generate forward motion (that creates lift.) Most of the power was used to hold the airplane in the air, like a rocket... and you can do it only in a powerful military airplane, and only for very short time.
So the airliner was on a controlled (though unwanted) descent right to the moment it touched water. The next report, with more data and probably with simulations, is expected in July.
What I do not understand is why they ignored the stall, instead of pushing the stick forward to regain airspeed.
The stall warning system malfunctioned because of wrong airspeed. There were two warnings, but I have no idea which of them were true and which weren't. This is something only the investigators can tell.
“The stall warning system malfunctioned because of wrong airspeed.”
______________________________
Well, I have no clue as to the stall warning system on a
commercial jet, but in my first plane, it was just a simple little movable flap of metal on the wing.
It connected to a switch that would sound the stall alarm.
Of course, if it iced over, it would fail to do anything.
It had no heater to prevent icing, but in my case, if icing was that bad, the plane would crash anyway.
I practiced many controlled stalls, and the recovery was just to let the stick go.
Could the Air France jet have gone into a flat spin?
I understand that they are not recoverable.