I have to go along with fdr's previous post. If one moves back a notch in the armchair, has a coffee, and contemplates the flying universe .. then it becomes clear that when the JB's are doing their things nicely and when the failures are as practised according to Hoyle, things tend to be in the character of a "walk in the park".
Unfortunately, the combination of ever-increasing emphasis on JB solutions, and ever-decreasing pilot stick and rudder skills, can rapidly put us in a situation where the pilot is overwhelmed before he/she can start to get a picture of what might be going on when things go awry.
I'm an unabashed dinosaur. Yes, the pilot does need to be on top of the attractive and eye-catching bells and whistles but when things get too far out of the routine perceptions of line pilot reality, unless the pilot is able to do the stick and rudder stuff adequately, all might be lost very quickly. From some years involvement in sim training/checking (737) and throwing the odd curved ball at crews (pre-briefed no-hazard but, also, no details) I came to a firm conclusion that the crews which could/did dispense with the bells and whistles and put the system back in its simplest state did themselves a favour. From that position, they could figure out whether it was the basic hardware, or the superimposed software, which was trying to kill them and then progressively get things back to a semi-functioning arrangement. While it would be nice to trouble shoot and figure out just what was what, that may not be feasible or necessary. The need is to get back to something approximating a flyable aeroplane and then gingerly figure out how best to get it back onto the ground without killing all the players.
Even the basic aircraft have their ways. fdr mentioned the Cub. Well do I recall my checkout on the wonderful SuperCub many decades ago. For those who haven't flown one and, more particularly, haven't experienced the initial stick loads associated with a missed approach from the flare .....