togaroo, my first response did not go through too long???, but basically in a extremely short version of my original post I don't think its an airmanship difference, and certain facts of the air planes functioning are squarely on the engineer's back but reinventing the wheel is not always best, side stick is great ergonomically, those ten minutes you mention before are the most critical minutes T.o. and ldg?---- hours and hours of 'coventional flying' will not completely extinguish with 50 hrs of initial sim training
i'm sure i would enjoy a sim ride on the airbus but in a critical condition I'd want sensory redundancy too.
as a professional one learns too live the pros and cons and love their ship no matter what
no I woundn't want pilotless aircraft because I don't think it would know when to abort AFTER V1 overrun destroy itself and save as many as possible... or how too ditch in a fifty knot double swell and not hit the face by all means.
but,
I have no trouble with innovation electric pressurization bring it---a fair and square engineering problem of no concern to pilots, unlike flying qualities?
and lastly Boeing have a stable stick force v. 'g' gradient in the longitudinal sense
they also have a normal 'g' v. bank angle even the freaking engineers agree that the airbus follows g=1/cos[bank angle] rule?
so why if I had to jigger around in the winds with wing tips and engines near to the ground I want to command a bank angle--- the appropriate to the g's they will follow automatically? but I don't want roll rate in that situation.
I wish my prior more elegant post wasn't lost to cyberspace
