Is it just me or does this seem to take an already complex system and make it even more so? I would think a much easier solution to all this would be to simply link the pilot and copilot controls together mechanically. You could still be FBW from the cockpit to the aircraft servos but you would eliminate the conflicting control inputs from two pilots, and also give the feedback for training. Granted this feedback would only allow one pilot to feel the movements of the other pilot on the controls but as already mentioned, with 3000 psi hydraulic pressure how much feedback could one expect to get from the aircraft? Maybe I am missing something and this is not possible.
I guess I am old school and I worry about electrifying and digitizing things that worked ok without. I work with electronic control systems everyday (FADEC) and I can say they do provide great benefits when working correctly but when you have an issue it is much harder to troubleshoot. I can see when a push pull tube is bent or broken but I can't see when electrons are leaking out of a wire at a bad connection. I don't know how many times I have gotten a call about an aircraft that "did something funny" in flight but the fault detection system reported nothing and the pilots have now lost confidence in the machine and dont want to fly it again until fixed. This is understandable in many cases but cleaning all the cannon plugs and a maintenance test flight that does not duplicate the problem doesn't always restore that confidence.
My point is that all of the computer technology we install seems great as much of it brings a significant added value. As long as the added value is there I'm all for it but, there has to be a point of deminishing return. I admit I know virtually nothing about the Comanche or an Airbus (other than how uncomfortable the seats are on a long flight), but I would think from my outside view that a simple mechanical linkage would do this particular job better or at least easier.
Max