Armchair
Thanks NIgel. And yet when I suggested some ways back in the thread that the A320 should be reprogrammed to accept that a Full Stop is the only recourse when T/R is deployed. And to allow the pilots access to GS and all other facilities to enable Full Stop to be quickly achieved and/or even to actuate max autobrake by itself once weight is on both main bogeys and T/R deployed. But some pilots said they preferred to have the option of taking off again even though T/R deployed .
IMHO that is reporamming too far - into a "permanent state" and/or trying to guess the future decision making potential of the crew.
Read my post again, I did not say I would never GA after T/Rs deployed. I just said it goes against all the instincts / planning. However, who knows what I may come across tomorrow with my colleague? People criticse the AB for being "too clever", however, if between you and it you get into a "hole" there is invariably a "quick way out" to achieve what you want. What you are proposing is a system that makes these options unavailable.
Take the conjecture of CGH as an example. Throughout the whole landing roll, one single action could have either started the stopping process (#2 TL => Idle) or GA (#1 T/L => TOGA) i.e. the pilots were "in control" of the situation. It is unfortunate that they maybe were confused / led down the garden path / aware too late of what was happening. Training / SOPs and maybe some logic amendments may help prevent this again...
Compare this to your suggestions. They are second guessing the pilots, making their future decisions for them, and removing "options". Say they touched down, just selected Rev, and saw an aircraft crossing in front of them...? Your suggestions force them into trying to stop... Even the Airbus currently gives them an option, even against all I said above
Think static v dynamic / current situation versus future etc...
NoD