Hmmm, I couldn't agree more with the sentiment expressed in the extract.
I know there is an argument running along the lines of 'keep it (mechanical management in the aircraft) simple' presumably so that there is less to go wrong. However, we now have such sophisticated, powerful, and cheap electronic systems for monitoring virtually everything that it would surely be possible without too much extra cost to provide a primary and secondary fuel/engine management system on GA aircraft. The principle should, of course, be extended to all those aircraft systems where pilot interface problems occur, e.g. carburettor heating, CO emissions, etc.. Integrated systems, with standardized, consistent human/machine interfaces are needed.
There are, I understand, several instances where this sort of system is being designed into new aircraft, but what is really needed is a path (i.e. I mean manufacturer, engineer, and licensing authority) to get such systems into the legacy of existing aircraft at such a cost as to make it attractive to owners and operators to upgrade.
No doubt some would say that such systems would remove the direct, 'hands on' aspects of flying, and put the pilot at a remove from the raw experience. I can see the point, but I think, on balance, that there is more to be gained from increasing safety for all by utilizing modern methods in an appropriate way.