Clandestino,
In your eagerness to respond in a single post to several pages and many contributors, you have a tendency to select snippets of text out of context, and comment rather dismissively on them. In doing so, you misrepresent the contributor's argument. (I'm wondering if you suffer from a short attention-span - not unusual in hot-headed youth...)
Quote from me (replying to PJ2), as quoted by you about 18 hours ago:
As I've said before, I also wonder if the APPARENT sudden loss of about 300 ft of altitude (due to the removal of correction for airspeed when the IAS went AWOL) might have provoked a knee-jerk (of the wrist) response.
Your response:
I only wish it were so - there would be general mushing around new indicated FL350 but not a few thousand feet climb.
You have ignored the rest of my paragraph.
This is what I went on to say:
But the realisation that this was just another of those UAS events should quickly have dawned, followed by a return to the familiar pitch-attitude for cruise flight. As you say, simply maintain the status-quo...
Inappropriate initial reaction is one thing, but what happened after AF447 had completely vacated FL350 climbing was irrational and inexplicable in a competent pilot who had spent many hours monitoring the flight instruments in the cruise and step-climbs on dark nights - much like the one in question.