Automation helps but can create very dangerous situations as all of us know. This danger increases when the designers creates “tools” to help the operator introducing a “partner” with high hierarchy. Protections are excellent when designed to preserve limits (e.g. Rudder Travel limiter, etc.) But can generate adverse effects not to mention the “de skilling” potential.
Think you would be confused?
IMO, under stress (normal in many situations) even a designer would be confused.
Make no mistake, I do not advocate a simple, direct control of the various aero surfaces such as some here believe would save the day.
All good Engineers apply confidently WHAT IS NECESSARY to implement a required function. My concern is concentrated in the Top System Engineering approach simply
because impacts everything. And cannot be corrected (or tweaked) by SW or even HW fixes.
My problem has always been with the "autopilot" type functions and protections that seem inherent in the 'bus FBW design and its reversion modes.
They are learning and their leadership in this area requires more R&D. My concern is if the commercial success will allow the investment in areas with clear room for improvement, as you mention.
I bring the Finite States Machines because the "partner" introduced to the crew has this structure. Very powerful and increasingly present in our lives. And because they must be well designed and normally requires evolution.
This was not the case in TAM 3054 plane and the other similar cases before.