Maybe a good time for philosophy while we wait
Well thank you, De Sitter, and hope I am one of the 'real" pilots.
So maybe we take a break and actually discuss philosophy involved with the design considerations and the training and the so-called CRM ( we called it crew coordination). And BTW, Doze brought up the best example of CRM most of us have ever seen. TY.
Unlike Smilin' and 'bird and Retired, I actually flew the grandfather of the FBW systems. Unlike the Airbus folks, we called our "limits" limits, not "protections". But make no mistake, we had one feature that was intended to prevent us from getting into a spin, and another that 100% disconnected us from the stick ( our deep stall). Nevertheless, our limits were intended to enhance our mission capabilities and not make things easier for us.
There is no doubt in this ol' feeble mind that crew error will be the major finding. There is also no doubt that the Airbus control laws and reversion sequence will get some scrutiny. As another contributor points out - why allow the THS to reach full deflection? And the system seems to ignore some valid inputs because other inputs are considered invalid. Sheesh. What do I have to play with?
I would hope that training is improved for the folks flying the electric jets. The basics still apply - both aerodynamics of the jets and proven pilot responses to strange/unusual situations that have served us very well for a century. There is no substitute for being exposed to unusual attitudes and aerodynamic conditions you may never encounter. Just a few training hours, or even minutes, will come back to you when the real thing happens. I never had the responsibility of two hundred folks depending upon me, and I never wanted it. But if forced to do it, I would want to know everything I could about the plane and how to fly the thing in every imaginable situation, wouldn't you?