We are all impatient, but about a list of knowns and unknowns? (Aside from the obvious, why was AF447 fatal while other similar incidents were survivable - we won't know this one until ABC informs us, probably). I have no interest in clear out assumptions; incorrect and unstated assumptions that hinder understanding and analysis are none of my concern (anything that is not explicitly "known" or "unknown" is an assumption). Who cares? ABC puts out their spiel and so it must be...
ABC knows all, sees all, and are all.
1. The ACARS messages indicate system faults and point out areas for possible maintenance. ACARS messages are not intended to be crash diagnostic. As I understand it, they would not report systems returning to normal.
2. We don't know the activities of the Captain during the incident. He would likely have been in the crew rest area, and he was ejected from the aircraft at impact/breakup. Other than that, nothing.
3. We don't know which pilot was actually flying the aircraft.
4. We don't know when the recorders stopped recording - at impact, or before.
5. We don't know whether AF447 made any course corrections. We have no evidence that they did, but the evidence we have is not conclusive.
6. We don't know exactly how the aircraft struck the water. What was its forward speed? Generally "flat", but belly first, nose first, tail first, wing first?
7. We know that Airbus has issued change notices related to AF447, including pitot tube replacements. The notice published shortly after the recorders were ready was simply "nothing new at this time" and no more than that.
Is there anything else that we really, truly, certainly know?
Oh, wait, we know ABC is golden.