Why did Airbus design and develop it if it was so inadvisable, Bernd?
I don't know.
It may surprise some people but I do not work for, and I am not paid by, AI.
I thought it might be a good idea, but the information on it, apart from what you quoted, is sketchy. And PBL tried quite hard to find something more substantial.
In my view the Taiwan Report points to a clear area where the design could be improved and made more 'fail-safe,', in that currently, even if only one throttle lever is actually retarded, the 'Retard' warning cuts out. An even more straightforward mod. would be just to have the warning stay on until both levers are retarded; but the Master Warning is probably the better approach.
Yes, I think it was Lemurian who was strongly in favour of this one, augmented by the artificial voice pointing to the respective thrust lever: "RETARD TWO!" But it's really not my call to make.
PS Sorry, crossed with your next post. You're surely not suggesting that we extend all runways at all airports to Heathrow or Kennedy standards? If a given aeroplane needs a longer runway it's certification should presumably be changed? What we are looking at here are four incidents involving the same (very unusual) mistake being made within quite a short timescale in a single marque of aeroplane. Surely a revised warning system is well worth trying?
I agree. I am not trying to prioritise causal factors, so training, warning systems, runways, certifications, should all be examined.
I was trying to make the point that the number of accidents of a type does not, specifically not in this case, point to the aircraft when looking for a "primary" cause. So even seemingly similar criteria for prioritising causes may lead to different results, when done by different people.
So my point was trying to show that one should not prioritise.
I rest my case.
Bernd