Now I wonder if you are just being argumentative.
- I have often thought that too, but on balance I don't think PBL understands what we mean by 'raw data'. To me (as a pilot) this means that although the data has passed through many ICs and the like it is essentially the 'truth' and not some software programmer's interpretation of what he/she THINKS I should be seeing and in the case of control functions it should be what I ask of the system. My training should then govern what I ask.
I am now old and 'retired' but I grew up in a world where I could stall an aircraft if I wished, exceed the g limitation where necessary to avoid dying, choose which of 3 differing inputs I wished to accept and expect my control surfaces to do what I actually ask. It now appears that these choices are being removed, and while there is no logical statistical argument for 1 and 2 in the civil world, 3 is vital and should not be delegated to some programme with some 'acceptable' level of error and 4 is 'ideal'. I am, however, delighted to be given 'information' on what HAL thinks is wrong, but I don't want him interfering, Dave.
The problem comes (in line with my thread) when pilot training and ability becomes so degraded to make pilots 'system operators' only, when all the 'interferences' above become essential and we route inexorably towards the Airbus Captain and dog world.