You’re sort of describing the fundamental gestalt of an aircraft: lift. Aerospace engineers (hello!) spend a lot of time on laminar flow about the wing because when it stops being laminar the flow separates and then the plane goes down more.
Not true, laminar/turbulent and attached/separated are independent descriptors. Flow can be laminar+attached, laminar+separated (e.g., laminar separation bubbles), turbulent+attached (e.g., the majority of boundary layers on large aircraft), or turbulent+separated.
You’re right, I should have said when state changes.
L/T:A/S are theoretically independent, but not independent for a given airfoil. (High-lift airfoils, common in gliders and most airframes with flaps deployed, are turbulent boundary-layer airfoils.)
Sure. My point is that if there's one thing aerospace engineers are constantly thinking about, it's fluid flow. Including, critically, when it's laminar and when it's not.