airtren: ah, visual cues.
I think both pilots understood the relationship between the cloud/turbulence, possibly ice in contact with the windshield, and the loss of speed, and considered the first Stall Warning at FL 350 in light of that,
and possible the one following at approx FL375, as only the left speed was showing a reasonable speed, as the ISIS came back in sync with the left speed indicator only a minute and some 10 seconds or so later.
OK ... but ... if the intent is to climb, where in the sequence is the initial power and pitch change to climb from 350 to 370/375?
Consider: they had recently slowed down to turb air penetration speed. (I presume by using A/P functions).
That is why I asked: do you believe that the nose was used to climb on the assumption that auto throttle would pitch in on time and allow the aircraft to climb at appropriate airspeed/Mach/energy state, rather than by trading airspeed for altitude?
bear:
The initial NU I take to be PF directed. The Left Roll command as well. So does BEA. So the a/c was ND, Rolling Right at the switch? Logical?
Maybe, but if there was a roll/nose drop at AP disconnect, would not the FDR give BEA a hint of that?
As to the Rolling (L,R, between 12 and ten degrees). It would be interesting to know which direction the Rolls were.
If one was consistently of different input than the other, one could infer an asym configuration of some kind.
Configuration asym ... such as ... what control surface(es)?
On the other hand, it may have been an attempt to slow down, due drag.
What? Use wing roll to slow down?
They have a throttle quadrant.
They have nose attitude control.
I don't see rolling as a deliberate "slow down" maneuver, no.
The BEA know what was going on.
I wonder. They are trying to piece it back together.
As above, not sure what they know, and what they've been able to infer to fill in the holes where facts are not available.
BEA is not giving it up.
Yet.