Hi
airtren;
Perhaps we're talking past one another!
Are we?
... you can't just "decide" to climb, or descend to a new altitude or deviate off course for weather or anything else, without an ATC clearance unless there is an emergency.
They didn't get a clearance to climb but just pitched the aircraft upwards.
Therefore we have to conclude that the PFs intention, unchallenged by the PNF, was not to just climb to a higher altitude and level off.
Therefore his reasons for the pitch up lie elsewhere and that is what we need to find out.
And to drive a point home which I have been stating for some time now, when one loses the airspeed indications, one does NOT change pitch or power. As soon as one does that, one loses the pitch and power settings in which the aircraft was stable immediately prior to the loss of airspeed indications and very quickly loses situational awareness.
Without careful attention to attitude and power, loss of control can quickly result. A pitch-up of 15degrees in a transport aircraft operating at FL350, if held and not reduced, is, for all intents and purposes, a loss of control.
Whether the PNF knew about and understood what the PF was doing is not known and not discussed in the BEA Update. We will know, I hope, in the upcoming Report.
Does this help?
Yes it does.
You seem to feel very strongly about "not following a procedure/rule" being a reason of not being an "intentional" climb.
Yours, and the reason posted by Lonewoolf - no additional throttle during the climb - and above all - perhaps not a surprise to you - the energy conservation calculation showing that the kinetic energy at FL350 and FL375, based on the BEA text are matching the climb potential energy, showing that no additional power was applied, are convincing.
With the risk of repeating what was perhaps already said, the implication of the calculation results is that while it shows that no additional power/throttle was applied during the climb, it also shows that no additional energy came from outside the A/C, like from the air turbulence providing additional lift.
However, what the calculation cannot show, is weather the air turbulence had a downward gradient, adding a downward force to the A/C weight, and thus delaying the A/C pitch-up response to the NU command, in spite of the correct response of the control surfaces.
The effect of this can be that the PF entered a gradually more forceful NU command, proportional with the delay of the A/C response, which resulted at the time of the change of air turbulence gradient into a sudden, much more aggressive pitch than intended, and a more aggressive climb at 7000ft/min.
A factor of surprise for such a sudden response may have been the cause of the delay to the ND command, slowing the climbing vertical speed from 7000ft/min to 700ft/min.