jcjeant:
I don't know (or on what they base their feeling) why many people think the pilot perpetuated command to climb ... as the BEA note is clear about ...
The airplane’s angle of attack increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started
to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs
BTW .. exactly like the Perpignan pilote made.
What does this mean then from the very first paragraph at the START of the incident:
The airplane began to roll to the right and the PF made a left nose-up input
What do you imagine this did if it didn't precipitate a climb?
Perhaps I'm way off here, but clearly this ISN'T the first time an AP and AT has dropped out while in cruise at FLxxx (please, correct me if I'm wrong), but given there are no other reports of those aircraft not making it to their intended destinations, my assumption is this is not considered a particularly problematical situation in the normal run of things.
Agreed this situation was precipitated by a loss of pitot data, resulting in a loss of speed inputs, but the point is at moment (x) the airplane is cruising fairly normally under full auto control and some short time later (y) things have gone rather wrong under PF command. The BEA have provided what they consider is key relevant data/information in the form of the published note, with the full understand that this document was likely to be hyper-analyzed by some small segment of the aviation community in particular, knowing that eventually the full details will be released. So it seems very implausible that the information provided is not the fundamental framework of the whole event.
AP/AT off, roll to the right, PF left NU input, climb....
I think trying to paint a mysterious picture on top of this is erroneous and misleading. My presumption from what you have written, your are implying the climb was NOT of the pilots command? I can see nothing to support that assertion.