Hi Again.
From reading the posts till now, I learn a few things.
First, this has gone from the old Airbus-v-Boeing thread to a discussion about static side-stick and throttles vs. conservative interlinked moving controls, in terms or cross-checking and monitoring capability.
CONF, and others like us who oppose the still sidestick do not oppose Airbus, or FBW, and not even the sidestick, but only the STILLness of it, and the throttles.
By reading the "pro-airbus" or "pro sidestick" posts, I can learn that airbus has managed to achieve an acceptable (at least by some) system of monitoring other pilot's input. They had done so by introducing new instruments (either 'maltese' or 'luftwaffe' cross) and new procedures ("monitor the cross, but do not use it for rotation" or "if you are clairvoyant enought to know you will need to disengage the a/t, do it above 1,000'....").
According to the posts in this thread, the still sidestick and a/t may provide the same level of cross-checking and monitoring as conventional controls. fine.
But on one, NOT A SINGLE POST, has made a point on how they might be BETTER!?! Isn't new technology supposed to be better? If it can match the old technology only by adding instruments and procedurs, isn't it actually worse?
Don't get me wrong. I thing FBW technology is the way forward, and brings safety and performance.
And the sidestick is good as well, especially during meal service, and during these moments in cruise when you feel you need to stare at the bottom of the HSI.
If only it would move when my buddy or the a/p was doing something, and if only the engine power would match the thrust lever position...