GY
Why wouldn't I be advocating for more automation? Or a better fit between what exists and the crew? Isn't that what this is all about?
If this airframe thinks enough of itself to protect the Rudder from inadvertent and harsh deflection, why would it not also want to protect itself from a TRIM trapped STALL?
If more than 8 degrees Rudder is not available at certain speeds, why would -13 PU be available? This is the "disconnect" I see from the outset of this thread, some logic here, some logic there, but something short of a continuous path in all directions.
It can be explained, but excuse me, pulling out the book and trying to get task specific recurrent in these conditions is insanity.
Knowledge plus experience equals wisdom. Substitute the word intuitive for wisdom, and there you go. Nothing that can occur on this aircraft can be permitted to be anything short of fluid, intuitive, and absolutely resistant to failure.
And that is the goal for when things are difficult, and doable; to say this argument is justifiable at all when problems of a familiar nature are involved is frankly outrageous.
It would be so nice to simply say PE. That is not any longer acceptable if one also expects to take credit for a failure resistant a/c when faults are so readily apparent?
We read here from guys who dream this stuff and live it. But there are real people here, and when some assume a posture of haughty self satisfaction that makes my fur hurt. The aircraft has holes, fill them.
all the best