HN39;
With all due respect to you both, I cannot fully agree with your views. In my view, disregarding ECAM messages has to do with setting priorities and the different roles that PF and PNF have at times of crisis.
I believe the prime motivation for "pitch and power" does not lie there but in flight dynamics. A string of incidents and accidents in the early years of jet transport operations led to the insight that chasing airspeed and altitude in turbulence very quickly leads to combinations of pitch and power (e.g. high pitch, low power) at which the airplane is very vulnerable to the next gust, frequently leading to loss of control. It was quickly realized that the better strategy is to concentrate on maintaining a safe combination of pitch and power, while allowing airspeed and altitude to float (within limits, of course).
Unless I have misunderstood your comments I'm not sure where or why my views weren't clear on pitch and power. I think we agree completely on this, so permit me to clarify, and if I have misunderstood your thoughts, please help me out,
Specifically on your point regarding 'the better strategy', contrary to trying to control either speed or altitude within tight limits and short time frames, letting airspeed and altitude "float" in response to turbulence sufficiently strong to displace the aircraft has been an SOP and a trained response for a long time.
From the FCOM, the Turbulence Penetration SOP, in part, reads:
When encountering turbulence, maintain wings level and smoothly control pitch attitude. Use the ADI as the primary instrument. In extreme vertical wind currents, large attitude changes may occur. Do not use sudden or large control inputs.
. . . .
THRUST AND AIRSPEED
Set the thrust to give the recommended speed
(Refer to QRH). This thrust setting aims to obtain, in stabilized conditions, the speed for turbulence penetration.
Change thrust only in case of an extreme variation in airspeed, and do not chase your Mach or airspeed.
A transient increase is preferable to a loss of speed that decreases buffet margins and is difficult to recover.
I haven't said anything about 'chasing airspeed and altitude in turbulence' and in fact indirectly stated the opposite by saying a number of times to "do nothing", meaning leave the pitch and power settings where they were before the UAS event and don't touch them, especially if one enters turbulence, and waiting to see what is needed to further stabilize the aircraft. I was implying but didn't think it needed stating, that this action does let the airplane "ride", ignoring minor variations in speed and altitude.
As I responded to Machinbird, "doing nothing", means leaving pitch and power alone until the QRH can be brought out and the PNF can read and supply the UAS cruise numbers has been my expressed view from the beginning. In fact, except for heavy turbulence and sustained changes in wind speed or direction, the variations in airspeed and/or altitude in moderate to light turbulence generally are small and one would certainly not make pitch/power changes to 'chase' those kinds of variations.
Small changes are going to occur anyway, but as long as such alterations center around a 'nodal point' (ie, even their effects on airspeed and altitude out so as to remain a neutral influence), then one has a stable airplane. Would you agree with this or have I truly missed something?
My main point in the post in response to Ian_W's comments was, the first order of business is to stabilize the aircraft.
This means, no drills or checklists or ECAM actions are begun until the aircraft is clearly under control. That means that the ECAM is not as high a priority as stabilizing the aircraft.
It is my view that at no time was the UAS event an "emergency" which required an instant response in the same way an engine fire, failure, depressurization, loss of energy would. That said, it absolutely did require careful, disciplined crew coordination between PF and PNF but the correct sequence of responses remains control, then drills/checklists.
Maintaining a pitch attitude and a QRH power setting would stabilize the airplane, and would then provide lots of time for the crew to then execute the necessary drills, should they still even be required.
In heavy to severe turbulence, one does one's best, difficult though that may be, but does not change the priorities or the SOPs.
If the pitch is displaced upwards dramatically for whatever reasons, one provides sufficient sidestick input to get the nose down quickly, to the QRH-supplied pitch attitude. Regarding pitch-ups caused by spurious or rogue computer behaviours, in all EFCS (FCPC) - directed pitch-ups (for speed or AoA), the only one in which ND sidestick input is inhibited until the aircraft is below VMO/MMO is the High Speed Law when in Normal Law. The Alpha Protection Law does not apply in Alternate Law, (notwithstanding the scenario proposed in which one PRIM stays momentarily in Normal Law and the others in Alternate Law which I do remain curious about but doubtful), and the High Speed Protection Law in Alternate Law which does permit pilot ND intervention.
HN39, I do understand that the pitch/power matter is flight dynamics and that ECAM actions are important and I hope this clarification helps you understand my post better.