FBW
HC, actually, assuming that the design group is smart enough to NOT simply design a digital copy of the present electro-mechanical/hydraulic system, the new system should address the very issues you raised in the first paragraph. To properly respond to this item is probably a three page term paper!
While using FW FBW experience, there is also now a body of RW experience to take into consideration. Just a small example: the three axis Comanche cyclic. Could it be flown? Sure, and it wasn't that bad ( in fact that machine had excellent flying qualities ), but note that the newer helo FBW configurations have pedals ( an " I told you so " from the old CH-54 back seat community ). There are some remaining conceptual differences in the FW cockpit design approach between Airbus and Boeing, that have implications when thinking about RW standards.
Cannot but agree with your last three paragraphs. The challenge will not be getting the design data made available to the ground schools, but getting the operator/piloting community to buy into that level of education. We went that high road way in training the initial IP cadre for the UH-60A, only to find that 5 years later, the FT Rucker folks had dumbed it all down, with the excuse that it had been decided to do all but the very basics in the units ( and who, pray tell, was going to impart all that knowledge to the unit IP's? ). But you are absolutely correct that the pilot must be well schooled in the how and why, in detail, when it comes to increasingly capable controls.