Seems to me they were having serious airspeed/handling problems, that first minute of the graph is key.
~330kts at 2,000 ft is far too fast and will likely cause structural damage.
Flaps are typically still out at that altitude too and at that speed they aren't staying in one piece.
This is kinda true.
In fact, in Houston a few years ago they experimented with relaxation of the 250kts below 10,000 rule to expedite moving aircraft out of the local area, and we were regularly above 300kts at that altitude!
Flaps are raised AT CERTAIN SPEEDS, so as the aircraft speeds up, the crew raises the flaps. The normal “acceleration altitude” for aircraft is 800 feet after takeoff, with the noise abatement altitude acceleration altitude being 1,500 feet, so even on an ICAO Noise Abatement Departure (which I highly doubt this was, but am not certain) they would have been raising the flaps. In addition, this aircraft regularly takes off at either Flaps 1 or Flaps 5. With an F1 takeoff, the flaps would be up very shortly after the 800’ is reached. At F5, possibly 30 seconds to a minute later.
In addition, there are Flap Overspeed warnings for each flap setting, which would have alerted the crew to the requirement for retraction well before any speed approaching 330kts. TYPICAL flap speeds for this aircraft are about 190kts for F5, 210kts for F1, which means above 210 you are in what is called a clean configuration (no flaps or slats extended), and max operating speed can be reached...and 335kts is my airlines maximum climb/cruise speed, so this aircraft was thisclose!!!
HOWEVER...with the loss of crucial inputs into the air data complex of the aircraft, it is WHOLLY POSSIBLE that the aircraft could accelerate beyond all the warnings that would NORMALLY be in place, because those warnings depend on the data that, in this case, may not have been provided to the cockpit indications.
Without knowing what the EXACT ANOMALY was, it is impossible to know what the pilots could see and not see. Regardless, the basic pitch/power/performance physics remain in place and, as I indicated in an earlier post, 4 degrees nose up on the standby attitude indicator (which is electronic on this aircraft) and about 75-80% N1 on the engines, which appear to have been generating plenty of thrust based on their speed, keeps you inside the envelope, with minor changes required based on your feedback from the standby instrumentation, which is often one instrument on newer aircraft.
I have to believe that based on their altitude and speed before going in, they were struggling to figure out their speed and were trying to get the aircraft “under control,” which is often mistaken to mean “hold an altitude.”
Given the (bright orange) “black boxes” have been recovered, the data WILL be known, and reconstruction should be relatively straightforward given the level of data on these latest generation recorders. From there, politics WILL matter. Anytime the NTSB is not involved, I always worry which industry and political groups MIGHT control the post-crash, accident investigation, narrative.
Excellent discussion and many of the posts here are of great interest to me as someone involved in this industry, and having only flown this specific new aircraft model twice, but with over 100 of them coming online at my airline in the next few years, I’m sure it will become commonplace.