[Pecos]

If I recall correctly, the pilot wanted to change altitude due to a large thunderstorm in his flight path. The updrafts in those conditions could have pulled the plane upwards at a high rate of speed. If the pilot then over-compensated, he could have put them into a dive for which there was no recovery.

[expat2]

Could be, but the stalling, if true, suggests otherwise. Also, see post 11.

[lefty-lie-spy]

The phrase “high rate of speed” irks me to no end. Speed is distance/over time. It is already a rate, or ratio, of one data compared to another. It is the same as writing 1:3, a ratio. Speed is a ratio, and therefore a rate. To write “rate of speed” would look like this, 1:3:5, in which the third parameter would have to be a value derived from yet another ratio in order to make any sense at all, which it clearly doesn’t: DISTANCE:TIME/X?

[pfflier]

An updraft with a strong vertical vector likely would not affect forward airspeed indications. It is plausible that the pilot might push the controls forward and that would put the plane in a nose down attitude. This would increase airspeed and could reach a threshold of causing structural damage. The location of the the main parts of the plane wreckage would indicate that i.e. large separation of wings, tail , fuselage secions would indicate break-up.

It is conceivable that if a plane is on the edge of it's performance envelope or encountering icing conditions a significant change in altitude could induce controlability issues.