Last two posts sum it up.
This is a system safety failure rooted in poor design and engineering. A good design accounts for the human factors likely to be associated with conceivable failure modes. In this case, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realise that a highly stressed crew presented with multiple warnings (visual/aural/tactile/seat of pants) is not the right basket to be putting all of ones eggs in when it comes to recovering the situation. Add to that the likely confusion caused by two separate but equally obscure stabiliser trim-based stability augmentation systems and the reliance by the manufacturer on a non-normal checklist that was designed for a different type of failure entirely, and it becomes a tough ask for the average crew (let alone the lowest common denominator that the aircraft designer should have in mind).
Last edited by Cloud Cutter; 30th Apr 2019 at 19:16.