Progress, then. You take note of ISIS' accuracy by stating "because the Captain makes reference to it". Slight praise, and poor foundation. It was the duffward descent of the panel that caused the crash, do you not agree? Just as PF lost his PITCH sense when he first articulated the stick, the flight went South from that point. Are you conversant with the length of time the a/c was responding to its own problems with the incorrect speeds prior a/p loss?
For the record, I'd like to suggest a different perspective on the AirBus operation re: Pilotage. A pilot trains to fly, as a platform is built to be programmed. Once qualified to pilot a commercial a/c, he is typed.
Just like typing is necessary to program a platform, so is typing necessary to meld Human/Bus. Perhaps other a/c as well. My suggestion is this. The Airbus is NOT just a conventional aircraft, and for different reasons, it was not intended to be similar.
The deadly enemy of airborne pilotage is Surprise. People spend years and small fortunes to learn the craft, most of which is directed at "staying ahead" of the airframe. Each of the UAS incidents, and this accident, are extreme condemnation of the Airbus busted approach at mitigating a known fault. Without belaboring this conclusion, suffice to say there is ample proof.
Not a single one of the UAS problems recorded inspires confidence in the platform. A generic foundation for criticism is the aircraft's tout. All aircraft will bite. This one has had a generation of marketing, and 'training', attempting to diminish the harsher side of the platform's performance.