_Phoenix;
Yes, agree - for FBW systems the computers determine actuator movement through both FBW & Airbus protections.
The action/result of the flight controls is transparent to flight crews in the sense that, (hopefully without conflating the description!), something like CWS, control-wheel-steering in Boeings and the Lockheed, the airplane stays in the last set position, albeit, for the Airbus, without the control surface movement to maintain 1g. Minor corrections to pitch & roll attitudes during manoeuvering are natural pilot inputs.
The feedback/feel of the SS would be the same for both sticks as a function of the design of the SS mechanism itself, which provides the required amount of pull to maintain altitude when bank-angle is > 33°.
To your third, again agreed, (same reasons as your first). But I would hasten to observe that informal, (marketing) remarks made by Airbus a "long time ago" are not in, or part of the AOM and FCTM, nor are they part of formal training curriculae. I would emphasize that understanding the EFCS of the airplane through the usual training & checking regimes is key, just as it is with any type and design.
The AOM and FCTM cautions when in Alternate or Direct law are abundant and clear: protections are degraded or lost: in all ways, fly the airplane as one would a conventional transport aircraft, respecting all airframe limitations, cautions and warnings.
Last edited by FDMII; 19th Dec 2015 at 17:45.