#7 is busy, and going in several directions. "Interface". This is a word. As such, it deserves respect, both for what the creator of it intended, and what , practically, it adds to the culture, in this case, aviation?
To me it implies transparency, facile communication, and HONESTY. From these flow what you have emphasized (
): CONFIDENCE. It is instructive, all these years on, that the dialogue remains unresolved.
It has been said: "And let the Humans figure out the UAS..." Well and good, and they eventually will (17 seconds too late, imo). My point from the beginning is that if the Computer is designed to reject speeds, drop the auto, and DEGRADE, somebody ought to tell the you know....Humans. It is not enough to quit, and expect a cold seat to pick it up without flaws in situational awareness, and attitude attitude.
Linguistics? Familiar. One cannot state a conclusion, (the pilots screwed up) by asking a question. "Why the chronic PITCH UP?" That is unanswered, and predates a logical conclusion, by definition.
As we see, the Pilot flying (for three seconds) appears to voice concerns about the accuracy of the aural STALL-STALL. Was it, actually, correct? It does not matter, the pilot was PREPPED to expect a faux STALL.
I reaffirm that: We know what the DFDR tells us. They did NOT know. Can anyone honestly claim that it is certain the Pilot was aware of the Controls LAW degrade? If only for a second or two, if he thought he remained in Normal LAW, his Pitch UP bobbles the airframe past a human's ability to "feel" PITCH. The displays, especially on his screen are UNKNOWN.
There is no certainty that the confusion that resulted
eventually did not start even prior to the a/p loss.
One CANNOT reject the PF's handling, from the report. To do so requires facts. Facts are lacking, the most important facts, of all. Just as it cannot be claimed the Pilots did all wrong, one cannot claim the a/c performed flawlessly. This is fair, and would set the table for improvements to both.