quoting Bubbers44:-
"The reason AF447 had the problem is when the AP threw the flying to the PF, he didn't respond properly and zoomed it up into a stall. Knowing how to hand fly at high altitude acurately would have saved the day but apparently he couldn't."
Bubbers44, I don't think we can draw those sorts of conclusions from the fragmentary and incomplete information so far provided by the BEA. In fact, the more I read that Note the more convinced I become that it was deliberately framed to
suggest 'pilot error,' without actually providing much evidence. However, a careful reading reveals that the PF did NOT in fact cause the 'zoom climb.'
The first relevant paragraph says:-
"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 stall warning sounded twice in a row. The recorded parameters show a sharp fall from about 275 kt to 60 kt in the speed displayed on the left primary flight display (PFD), then a few moments later in the speed displayed on the integrated standby instrument system (ISIS)."
So the first thing that happened was the autopilot and autothrust signing off, and the speeds (and very probably other instruments) going haywire. The PF made a left nose-up input, probably to counter the aeroplane's incipient roll and maintain altitude. Please note at this point that the time that movement was made was '
2 h 10 min 05.'
The next paragraph of the note refers to a pitch-up some considerable time (at least eleven seconds) later. Please note especially the section I have 'bolded.'
"At 2 h 10 min 16, the PNF said "so, we’ve lost the speeds" then "alternate law […]". The airplane’s 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."
That paragraph does
not refer to noseup inputs on the part of the PF before the 'zoom climb' - indeed, it says the complete opposite, that he
countered the climb with nosedown inputs, and succeeded in more or less restoring level flight.
That, to my mind, leaves open the question of what caused the 'zoom climb' in the first place? The only thing one can say with any certainty is that, on the vestigial information provided by the BEA in the second quoted paragraph, it
wasn't the pilot?
Then, of course, came the stall warning. And the PF seems to have responded by carrying out the prescribed drill at the time - 'TO/GA power and seek to maintain altitude.'