> By eliminating loss of control as a failure mode
I think this is a flawed view of the problem, even with an industry-grade FCS to work with. If you're in the air, you should know how to break out of a stall, belly-land in an emergency, or route around turbulence as it crops up. These things happen, and preventing someone from doing a loop-de-loop won't eliminate a category of failure-modes.
This is something I very much wish would be a reality one day, but you'll be kicking yourself with every incident report that blames bad piloting. One can only hope that they wouldn't risk their own life trusting an untrained pilot.
Most accidents occur because the pilot makes a bad decision somewhere and a chain of events leads to an accident (in GA--commercial is a completely different beast). Our hope is to break that chain by making it as easy as possible for the pilot to continue flying the airplane and bring it safely to the ground in a high-stress emergency.
Even when the tools are available, pilots need the training to know to use them. How many NTSB accident reports include non instrument rated pilots getting disoriented in IMC despite having an autopilot with a "level" function? If your system can keep them out of this kind of trouble without them even having to take action, it will save lives.
I think this is a flawed view of the problem, even with an industry-grade FCS to work with. If you're in the air, you should know how to break out of a stall, belly-land in an emergency, or route around turbulence as it crops up. These things happen, and preventing someone from doing a loop-de-loop won't eliminate a category of failure-modes.
This is something I very much wish would be a reality one day, but you'll be kicking yourself with every incident report that blames bad piloting. One can only hope that they wouldn't risk their own life trusting an untrained pilot.