Lemurian, you are probably right, maybe the chap was talking about sideslip, and not how to achieve it, but there are many contributors to this thread who really do appear to think conventional control inputs work for an A 320, including all those who talked about into wind aileron.
I remember many years ago a thread running on the BA/BALPA compuserve forum which started with some A 320 chap complaining about the lack of roll authority and how this was the first aircraft he had flown that required full aileron in gusts and how that often wasn't enough. Many others joined in to agree (some to their credit didn't) and the discussion droned on until it was abruptly shot down by the intervention of none other than Bill Wainwright, then Airbus CTP (how did he get into the private forum?). He patiently explained as was done earlier in this thread, that full stick gave 10 deg/sec roll rate, but that the controls were capable of much more (did I see 25 deg/sec?), and that a roll rate control just wasn't the same as aileron after the intial application. That shut everyone up. But the real issue is how on earth did such erroneous ideas take hold in the first place. What were the guys being taught? I think someone in Toulouse should be thinking very carefully about the standard of understanding being shown here, and what to do about it. There is a lot to learn when one changes the fundamentals of flying (and a lot to unlearn when one converts back to a conventional machine). With any luck , there are many A 320 crew who have read this thread and are thinking about what they do, but what about the rest out there?
Note for potential flamers out there, I am not saying there is anything wrong with the machine or the way it works, just that it needs to be taught properly and respected. I fully agree with Lemurian:
Perhaps have we gone too far in trying to insist on how NOT different the 320 is ?