ALK A343: I don't want to sound rude, but while you say, it is trivial to know how to fly your aircraft, I could say, how it is trivial to follow some "industry best practices for user interface design, and why their benefits are trivial", and it is true for any system, from aircraft to nuclear reactor.
I don't want to point to the post about tech log Philosophy, but I would want to ask you kindly to understand when I speak about early warnings I am speaking about ways to predict the possible / probable future.
Thank you very much about reinforcing the point that the rudder shouldn't be used on flight level, which is a well known fact even for us "armchair experts", "self loading freight", etc. types, but I would like to remind you, using the rudder is an instinct for many pilots, and use of rudder in turbulence happens even if it isn't recommended.
And I would like to show the point: Current protections in FBW rules are mostly transparent, because noone in his sane mind would fly close to those limits. Yet they are present.
They are present and you seem to agree to their presence.
And even the people who say: pilots should have their final say, would implement similar protections with feedback. (Ie: if you want to do something unsafe, it should be harder, you get a warning, etc.) And feedback can be gradual feedback (If you get closer to the limits, it will be harder to move the stick that way, etc. which warns you before you reach the limits).
Why there are protections against dangers present only if you "ignore basic airmanship 101"? Because they proven themselves efficient. We agree on this.
But if we would stay with proven systems, that are considered good in an era, you would be flying a DC-3.
The nature of the technological advancement is to improve proven systems.
Currently the system only protects you if you do something that is dangerous right now, and it is out of specification of your aircraft...
If a system would tell you when you are getting "dangerously close to the limits" but wouldn't restrict you in anyway, that would be an extra layer of protection.
It would be just as transparent as the current ones, since you don't get dangerously close to limits, since you do know basic airmanship 101, so they are almost as unneeded as current protections, and they could get just as proven.
If the system would also tell you: With the analysis of various data, if we do this, you would get close to the limits in 5 secounds. You wouldn't trigger that added protection.
If the system would tell you, if we continue this way you would end up too close to a dangerous TS pretty soon, and would mark "potentially unsafe areas" on your wx radar if you select a mode, etc. you would avoid the TS just as well as you do now, and would never trigger a warning.
If switch to alternate mode would come with some very slight delay, and prevent you from reacting to speed data (or anything triggered you) by going after your instincts and using "too much force" without limits, and would give you a secound to think (and keep some protections based on last good speed data for this secound)? Not sure, but people who fly these aircraft probably know if they might need that extra freedom in that secound (if they aren't close to any limit when it happens).
Yes. For some of this, we need to analyze weather data first, to be able to improve algorithms that can utilize the processing power available now.
But I think that is a better waste of unusued CPU / GPU time, than looking for extra terrestial life that has radio equipment that is somewhat compatibile with our systems, and has enough power to broadcast any signal to us.