@ Phoenix.....
Seem to be a current poster but maybe a long time lurker. Can't tell from user info ( sheesh, the intell folks can find us easy, so my bio and such is clearly exposed. Ditto for SPAM webcrawlers and so forth)
The AF 447 debacle brought forth a super discussion here about systems, piloting, corporate interests, crrew management, and more. Wish you would have been here since 2009 to see the thousands of posts and such. Also know your background.
I continue some philosophy and such while still addressing Phoenix.
Was fortunate to fly one of the first computer jets back in 1971 - the A-7D. I was a single seat dude from 1967 until I retired in 1984. We had to be able to fly the jet, but we also had to monitor and program and use all the computers because we didn't have a second troop to help on basic stuff. Those suckers really reduced workload once in the air, and they allowed navigation and weapon delivery options we had never seen. The HUD really helped with IFR approaches and seeing flight conditions ( attitude, flight path, speed, AoA, altitude very fast). The integrated inertial/doppler and projected map was a miracle. We also had super radar for ground map and such. All that aside, we still had to be able to fly the jet and fly it in bad weather, navigate if the computers failed, and so forth ( not going to get into refueling at night in a storm, diverting to another base, dealing with battle damage, and all those other things we dealt with).
So I take issue with the qoute by Phoenix:
Basically in normal law, the FBW aircraft can be flown by grandma, the controls are used as mouse&keyboard that input the computers. We know well that in fact the computer flies the plane. Perhaps for this reason the pilot is seen more and more as a computer operator and his role in the cockpit is increasingly impaired. If we look at the other side of the double-edged sword, if the plane leaves the normal law, then you need the superman in the cockpit. Well, you can not have both of them in the same skin.
I and thousands of other pilots in the military adapted to the computers and still maintained our "pilot" skills. This was primarily among the single seat folks, but the "crewed" jets also adapted.
In defense of the "heavy" pilots here, they cannot program all the computers and then sit back to watch/monitor. It is true than many portions of the mission can use the autopilot and such, but the critical phases require good pilots.
My problem with the industry is the emphasis upon automation versus the basic skills to fly a plane.
The FBW laws are not the problem for the most part. What I have seen is a buncha engineers trying to make a fool proof system that does not account for a human being that knows how to fly!! Sheesh.
I like AoA protections. I like rate pitch/roll gradients and maybe some other features of most FBW systems. But it looks like we are trying to provide too many "protections" and then invoke too many back-up modes/laws and such when we lose a few inputs to the FBW computers. The simple fact is that embedded sensors in the flight control computers can provide body rates, gee and attitude and such without depending upon any aero sensors or nav sensors or..... So no reason to panic if the air data goes tango uniform for awhile, such as the AF447 crew did.
Sorry to rant.