Gentlemen, you are missing the point and the arguments.
This is not a slagging match A vs B!
Adhering to the thread this is about an accident of a Airbus.
Sensors and computers will always be prone to failures or mishandling. My criticism is that with the Airbus philosophy, a failure leading to erroneous electronic inputs or commands is not easy enough to counter. We know this aircraft pitched erroneously before crashing. We all assume that this was not done by deliberate pilot inputs.
Many assume that it has been done by electronic inputs, or at least caused by such. The reason has to be determined. We also know that Airbus technology does only allow a override of these electronic inputs in special circumstances (alt or dir law). To reach such a condition, there needs to be some switching. With ADIRU faults there is a procedure (CB pulling) which is not suited as a emergency procedure, no CB pulling/switching is designed for such operations, therfore it is not suited for events like Qantas experienced.
To reach dir law, with switching of PRIMs or SECs, there is no ECAM or other procedure determined as how to reach such status in an emergency, therfore again it is not suited for an emergency situation.
Any other aircraft will allow a pilot intervention, with some force and by switching off the AP/AT and such a procedure IS suited for a emergency situation, as it is a natural, trained and instant manoever.
Airbus might come up with some drill or memory items to counter erroneous, rapid inputs of electronic flight, and I would warmly welcome such procedures. But as long as there is only CB pulling or overhead switching, I will uphold my criticism of the Airbus system as it remains prone to catastrophies for such situation, as remote they may be and as much they might be induced by non Airbus systems/outside human error.
The pilots should always be armed with a direct, instant and easy intervention capability.
That is my criticism.