Guess we have to have a few here that have flown the mechanically-connected sticks/yokes as well as the system implemented in the 'bus and the last jet I flew, where there was no visual or force feedback as to what the nugget in the other seat was trying to do.
I fully appreciate the views of those who make the point that "feedback" between the dual controls can make a difference. OTOH, with many, many circuits flying close chase in single-seaters, and then in the family model of the Viper, I can tellya that seeing and feeling what the jet is doing compared to what it is supposed to be doing counts a lot more than the connected flight controls.
The engineers will say that everything was working as designed, so why the crash?
I maintain that basic airmanship counts more than all the "protections" and AP modes and auto-whatever. The recent SFO crash showed how a seemingly perfect system, operating as designed, cannot protect a careless or whatever crew. I also see a trend in the AP/FMS/FLCS connections that do not help the credw when various sensors or malfunctions come into play.
We must have some common core flight control logic and autopilot logic and such to depend upon when things go wrong. Made my case on the AF447 threads, so 'nuff said. Asiana sems to confirm my beliefs.
If the law would allow ( too old to do it legally now, heh heh), and we had two planes with good comm between us, I would take any pilot up and fly chase, do patterns, and land successfully.