AF447 would not have happened if the pilot doing the flying had actually been a pilot. There is no world in which the control inputs he made, and sustained, make any sense. I see his being there as a result of the decision by airlines to dumb down the entire piloting world...largely so that they can pay less.
But, Airbus are hugely complicit in this. The lead designer of the A320 was quoted as saying that his aircraft is so easy to fly that his milk man could fly it (or words to that effect). So, he's quite happy with the idea of flying becoming a video game, and pilots becoming gamers, and not pilots.
His aircraft show lots of signs of being designed by the engineers, for the engineers, with the pilots' desires being discounted. Deliberately removing as much tactile feedback as possible (you don't need it, you can look at the gauges), is something an engineer might like, but never a pilot. Switch layouts that look tidy, but place many identical, dangerous, switches in close proximity is something else that shows the lack of pilot input...or even thought.
Basically, I see Airbus as incredibly arrogant. They've tried to engineer the pilots out of the equation as much as possible, and in so doing have made aircraft that are, in some circumstances, much more difficult to fly than needs to be the case.
The auto trimming in alternate law is unnecessary, but goes with what seems to be their philosophy of removing trimming as a pilot function. You cannot trim pitch in normal or alternate laws...but, in direct you need to. But, in no case can you access any roll trim functions. The sidestick actually has a flat portion on top, where a 'coughed hat' trim control could be installed, which could give access to both roll and pitch trim...but no, pitch trim, if needed is on a hard to find button on the central console. You don't normally need access to roll trim, but in some failures the aircraft will be substantially out of roll trim, and you won't have any way to reasonably correct that. That goes back to the Airbus engineering motto which I suspect is "it will not happen".
So, sidesticks that give no feedback, and are designed so that they actively hide the control inputs being made by the autopilot or other pilot. Thrust levers that don't move with the auto thrust, and so have the effect of disconnecting the thrust lever position as a control in pilots' minds.
There is much that I like about the Airbus, but all of that is outside of the coughpit. I think that their man-machine interface is appalling...but it is intentionally so.
What would I like to see:
1. Interconnected sidesticks, that move with either pilot or autopilot input.
2. A thrust lever servo, so that the levers move in accordance with auto throttle commands
3. Proper access to trim, in all axes.
4. Flight directors that work in other than normal law.
None of these will ever happen. I'll bet that there was an engineering meeting early in the design stage of the A320, in which all of those items were specifically selected as not being wanted!
