Dutch M, regarding the energy calculations you're asking questions that don't quite make sense in physicist terms.
If one wants to get VERY technical said airplane has an incredible amount of energy, and angular momentum, if calculated referenced to some as yet undetermined center of mass of the total observable universe. It's tiny speed changes won't change that energy more than a wiggle many decimal places out. It's not worth it to try to make that calculation simply because we don't observe it from that point in space time. We measure it typically from a reference on the Earth's surface. And the numbers in that sense work.
You mention stopping the Earth's rotation. For an Earth based observation that vastly changes the energy of the plane. Observing from the plane it makes no change, the energy is zero because the plane is not moving relative to the plane and is at zero height relative to the plane. Of course, this skirts the issue of what happens to the air mass over the Earth on the scale of the plane? I'm not sure it's fruitful to discuss this. By the time you appropriately account for the shifted frames of reference it all washes out anyway. It must or the physics that make your plane fly wouldn't work.
Referenced to a point on the Earth, conveniently directly below the plane, you can calculate an instantaneous "energy" value, mgh plus mV^2. (Note that squaring a velocity vector erases the direction part and leaves speed squared.) At 35000' and a given velocity it has one energy. At 37500' and a new velocity it has a new energy state. We also must consider the thust of the engines over time and the drag over time as two distinct energy inputs, initially balanced and more or less balanced once the plane is at the new altitude. What additional drag happens to subtract energy from the aircraft? We don't particularly know. And I certainly don't know how "more or less" my blithe "more or less balanced" is. Would it be accelerating once it levels out or not?
I certainly don't have the knowledge of the aircraft to handle these extra energy terms. BEA should. What I can do is work out the values and wave hands. It appears the altitude gain and speed loss were "sane", meaning there was no mother of all wind influences on the plane. It does not rule out a 100 mph level or smaller influence, at a semi scientific wild assed guess level of accuracy. The BEA phrasing doesn't tell us whether PF felt a downward movement and tried to counter it or not. It does imply a possibly unusual lag between a very serious climb and application of climb command on the stick.
What more can we say?
Edit: We can say that the ascent rate was about 84 miles per hour. So my 100 MPH wind level swag might be excessive.
Last edited by JD-EE; 26th Jul 2011 at 22:42.