Look, fellow Pro’s: Sarcasm and making fun of critics is a poor argument in this thread. It’s about differences in control philosophy, I thought.
Feedback is a essential tool in safe aviation. You can get it by audio, visual or tactile means. There’s the printed version (often after some landings…) but it’s as slow as the never used feedback through scents, as the human is not well equipped to take them in.
My point was, that the tactile feedback is faster than the visual one and that it’s absence represents the main concern/criticism of pilots regarding the Airbus philosophy. Following that, my quest was to bring up ANY argument as to why such absence (and reluctance to reintroduce it) should represent a increase of safety. Generally this should be our main concern. Technically there’s no obstacle as any Nintendo-Joystick can produce such a feedback. It would not take away ANY gimmick Airbus has added to it’s flight protection envelope and i already stated that the feedback could be artificial and non symmetric. All it should give us is IF there’s a input and in WHAT DIRECTION it is done.
So again, please, give me any valuable and professional reason as to why the absence of tactile feedback should increase safety.