This thread has certainly given opportunity for the Airbus-knockers to get on-song again... One wonders if there might be a covert budget somewhere in Seattle! Ever since Airbus pioneered civil FBW (roll spoilers) and ECAM on the A310, 25 years ago, the wise guys have been taking the Mickey out of Airbus logic.
I also loved eagle21's sharp turn of phrase, though, and there's a lot in what he/she says. No doubt Airbus will be looking at their "aircraft on the ground and staying there" sensing logic, and considering introducing some more 'AND'-gates and 'OR'-gates. There's certainly not a shortage of available sensors. How can a non-VTOL aeroplane maintain 1g (vertical) at a negligible angle of attack (and IAS) if airborne?
Can Boeing aficionados assure us, however, of the infallibility of Boeing's logic in similar scenarios?
This aeroplane was indeed crippled, and the nose-gear weight switches (yes, they are fitted, but used for other systems) are arguably more vulnerable than the main-gear ones.
As for the mysterious Griffone, of dubious intent, he must be gutted that he was the leaker of non-news. But Airbus needs to avoid any accusations of being less than transparent, as in the A340 engine-run accident at Blagnac.