The test with a load of fuel was made in 1984 so I would hardly say 20 years later would make it an experimental project.
Not sure exactly what you're getting at, but what I'm saying is that this incident was kind of proof that our reliance on automation and technology was seriously flawed. Airbus designed the pilot out of the loop to eliminate "pilot error", and just introduced computer error into the loop. I don't doubt that they are trying to develop hijack proof software, however, that sort of thing wasn't on the radar ten years ago. But trust me when I say that all the computer magic in place today, and that still being developed, is mainly to maximize efficiency, to cram as much aluminum into as little airspace as possible. Pilots have to program ever increasingly complex flight management systems, possibly sacrificing the actual management of the airplane. The Colgan Air accident in Buffalo has been repeated in pilot check flights in simulators on many occasions, both before and after the fact, and what they were doing was fairly routine. Though there were many causal factors in that incident, including fatigue, the task of programming flight management systems is a very distracting task that leads to the crew mismanaging the airplane. In that case the autopilot tried to maintain altitude with insufficient power to do so and stalled, the pilot reacted incorrectly exacerbating the problem with disastrous results. It is a scenario that has turned up in simulator sessions over and over, with technology being more of a distraction, an impediment even, rather than a tool.
Believe me too when I say that because of cost and time constraints, more time is spent in training dealing with the correct programming of flight management systems than having to deal with unususal emergencies and actual hand flying. But hey, everyone wants that $49 fare to Newark, so the airlines have to skimp somwhere, you do get what you pay for, but again, I digress, sorry.