Hi,
They had time to carefully select and release the "right information" taking into account
all all possible implications. Trying to secure a big and comfortable "room to maneuver".
From 2 h 10 min 05 , the autopilot then auto-thrust disengaged and the PF said "I have the controls". The airplane began to roll to the right and the PF made a left nose-up input....The airplanes pitch attitude 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.The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left. At 2 h 10 min 51, the stall warning was triggered again. The thrust levers were positioned in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs...The PF continued to make nose-up inputs. The airplanes altitude reached its maximum of about 38,000 ft, its pitch attitude and angle of attack being 16 degrees...The PF made an input on the sidestick to the left and nose-up stops, which lasted about 30 seconds..."
Their text, lacking important details, seems typical of
PR instructed to deliver "the right information" for that moment making easier for BEA to "navigate" the
"turbulent environment". The lack of important details does not allow a more precise analysis. And this also may prove later to be against BEA mission because seems showing a preliminary bias with the emphasis on "NU from PF".
And in emphasizing persistent NU commands seems as to considering as the "major cause",
coherent to LF leak, deviating the focus from plane malfunction(s). This was IMO a tentative to gradually prepare public opinion and timely to the big "interests involved in Paris Air Show". The seriousness because the LF leak was too early (IIRC in the Monday subsequent the first analysis during the weekend). Probably an opportunistic attitude from one(s) representing the huge interests" behind. With risk (and probably, intentions) in creating a "frame" for BEA "output".
Human machine interface issues, "software issues", etc. would be considered "machine faults"?
System processing of "ridiculous Pitot redundancy" has chances to be considered "machine fault"?
All this are "against crew" and makes easier the work of the "high rocks" at FR government and itīs personnel (including BEA top managers).
Most of us yet now could imagine the Report and itīs recommendations. Certainly BEA is "ahead of the schedule" on that.
They seems to be navigating very well in this turbulent weeks since wreckage location.