hetfield,
I debated whether to respond to your post 777,
The point is, many accidents with AB happened 'cause the pilots did not fully know/understand the aircrafts systems. You can't wipe this away, it's a fact.
for a number of reasons. First is that you're erecting a straw man. No one is trying to "wipe" anything "away", least of all me. Second, there are lots of accidents with complex systems in which a lack of understanding of the systems on somebody's part played a role, and these accidents are not restricted to Airbus machines. They are becoming increasingly common with increasing use of digital electronic systems in aircraft. Third, even if a lack of understanding played a role in an accident, there are two non-trivial questions: what to do about it; and whether the systems bring rewards that outweigh the occasional critical lack of understanding. To this second question: many consider that the latest generation of aircraft with complex digital-electronic automated systems are overall much less prone to accident than previous generations, and consider this judgement to be borne out by (say) the annual Boeing statistical review.
I don't propose to address these issues further here, but I will indicate my reasons for not considering the A330 flight test accident similar to whatever turn out to be the causes of the TAM Congonhas accident, since you wish to question this lack of similarity.
The A330 crew
* deliberately allowed an abnormal flight condition to develop, probably in the knowledge that it would lead to loss of control if allowed to go too far
* apparently suffered autopilot mode confusion
* apparently suffered a lack of both visual and instrumentational attitude reference
There is no indication, and not even speculation here, that any of these three factors was present in the TAM Congonhas accident.
PBL