Mixing and matching points
mm
AB will most likely make changes to the way problems with faulty air-data is revealed to the crew, but this is to be expected in line with progressive improvements to the software.
Now this could also be construed as further 'dumbing down' of the competency levels required to fly their aircraft.
If its in the interest of 'safety', then I believe most will manage to live with it.
Consider the pilot knows what's best and demands NU on SS, hence the Elevators follow and as the airspeed is bled off and the 'g' commanded is not being met, the THS commences its journey. It knows no better, only that the pilot knows best.
That is a sound basic design philosophy.
I note a few points from CONFiture that what the pilot "knows" when he is in "knows best" mode depends upon two things:
how in depth his aircraft systems knowledge is,
and what info he has available to establish his event particular knowledge.
They go hand in hand.
Another point made was that to get to
"I need to use the UAS procedures"
certain key bits of knowledge are needed. This folds into mm43's point.
While one is sorting that out, it would seem to me that basic airmanship includes a scan that would alert you to the fact that one is changing state.
"Heh, while I'm getting this squirrely little roll problem sorted out and regaining a few hundred feet, I need to get back to my desired/assigned altitude."
The above is a standard, novice level instrument flying problem. What AF447's crew had as an added twist was that airspeed as a cross check performance indication was missing. Since the AH/attitude indicator was working (as best as we can tell, supported by PF initially relying on AH/attitude indicator to get a grip on his roll excursions, eh?) ... that should not be too big of a problem.
Basic pilot skills tell you that if you have not yet changed power, nor configuration, your speed and altitude are trade offs for one another. Set an attitude, see what changes, adjust, see what changes, adjust, and so on. You are back to straight and level soon enough.
Basics.
Even though the pilot of the day has lost his speeds, he could know that with no power change, increase of altitude was going to slow him down. (and vice versa). Once the power changed as the problem proceeded, the above isn't the simple adjustment problem, but change in altitude still ought to be telling the flying pilot something about his flying performance.
I get the impression that flying the bird/FPV seems to have replaced a basic instrument scan. Maybe just in this case.
One cannot lay the blame for something like that at the foot of Airbus, or of Boeing, or any single design bureau. Such aids to instrument flying have been in the aviation business for decades, and very handy they are! They are an aid to an already developed skill, the instrument scan, and do indeed reduce cockpit workload.
This takes me back to: how often does the average pilot actually fly / practice his instrument scan with fewer features enabled?
For a given pilot, how long will it take to get you to restart your instrument scan when the standard (and generally reliable) features take some time off?
How prepared are you?
How often do you get to practice? <-- Does airline management understand why that last question is so important?