Do we need more accidents to prove the thesis?
The thesis requires proving, not that way of course but through the usual examination, data, studies then statements, etc., and, as part of the process, needs challenging by those who have the knowledge and experience to contribute to the thesis.
At present there is almost no research available regarding human factors and the actual transition from 'normal', (
which is a protected airplane), to Alternate I/II, and possibly to Direct Law depending upon system losses, (
a conventional airplane in theory and, I have discovered, in practise).
Such absence in and of itself may speak to the question - it doesn't appear to constitute a primary problem, particularly for those experienced in manual flight. I've flown the aircraft at cruise altitudes many times - the A320, A330 & A340 fly just like any other transport, and as you'd know, you must absolutely be gentle with the controls.
However, inexperience, need-to-know knowledge levels, and low or absence of exposure (the case in both these accidents) to abnormal attitudes does not leave much 'resourcefulness-in-reserve' when faced with such circumstances, especially for those entering the profession now. I think there may be something to the apparent sensitivity of the controls which speaks to training issues regarding handling the stick.
Nor is there anything informal regarding the transition. Those who have trained-on / flown the Airbus do not seem to find the transition (from Normal to Alternate I/II / Direct) problematic, nor are two samples in millions of flights, statistically significant.
I think what alf5071h has to say under "
zero-experience autopilots", above, would be a more rewarding area of examination.