Sources
Quoting RWA
"In my case, from the very first press reports on the accident, plus subsequent amplification?"
Unquote
SIGH
Wouldn"t BEA Interim report 1 and 2 be a better source of information?
Quoting BEA Interim reports 1 and 2:
"twenty-four automatic maintenance messages were received between 2 h 10 and 2 h15 via the ACARS system. These messages show inconsistency between the measured speeds as well as the associated consequences,"
Unquote
Nowhere is there a mention of ATTITUDE information problems.
Do not mislead yourself by thinking that FLAGS on the PFD mean that there is a problem with ATTITUDE INDICATION. An FD flag means, NO FLIGHT DIRECTOR, an FPV flag mean NO FLIGHT PATH VECTOR, etcetera.
The PFD in fact is a display that combines MANY flight instruments and annunciations in one display screen. The attitude instrument has not been reported as faulty in any way.
Have a look at Interim report 2, page 36 and onwards (pdf page numbering, otherwise page 35 and onwards, if you look at the report numbering - the pdf counts the cover page as a page, the report text doesn't). Report can be found on the BEA site.
Attitude indications are compared (by a COMPARATOR) between the three Inertial Reference Units. Absence of any ATTITUDE FAILURE indications mean, with a fair amount of certainty, that there were no problems with the ATTITUDE INFORMATION.
That the aircraft somehow ended up in a problematic attitude, 15 degrees nose up above FL350, is a completely different subject.
On page 48 (pdf count) of mentioned report, you find an illustration of a PFD with failure flags - in that picture, you have a completely functional attitude indication, any pilot should be able to work with that, and see through the multitude of failure flags.