It is the technology that has to serve humans, therefore, it is the technology that has to be in tune with human factors.
That the throttle levers do not move to echo the fuel flow demand is (IMHO) another piece of almost criminal engineering ignorance and arrogance. So easy to incorporate that it implies a deliberate attempt to remove the pilot from the loop. The non-pilot’s dream of having control of an aircraft?
Someone has finally grasped the direction design is moving in (bold text).
The technology is in tune with humans but the ultimate or primary goal may not be to serve pilots interests. We are in a transition phase to pilotless aircraft. The significant influence which will determine how quick or how slow this is implemented will be public perception
Many of you will remember the introduction of computers and hand held calculators. Apparently they were rubbish because they kept making mistakes in their calculations. The mistake however was more often than not the user. Rubbish in, rubbish out.
Early FBW pilots used to complain the aircraft did this or that without their input only to find out on examining the flight data that they did in fact move the stick and they did in fact cause the input.
In both the above cases very occasionally the system was at fault. Despite all the complaints at the time, I doubt there are many that support going back to human filing systems or the abacus.
I am sure many of you have used the driversless trains at some modern airports.
This harping on about the good ol days will not achieve much. There is no safety case. Even older generation aircraft had their own character including the spitfire which suffered from handling difficulties if the c of g was too far aft. Pilots however tuned in to the aircraft.
Number of aircraft in service, number of flights, number of fatalities all indicate proven technology. Humans remain the weakest link. Until the safety case is proven I still believe the argument should be about training and not technology.