Completely agree, on the 737 for instance, when the aircraft is about to throw in uncommanded rudder and roll on its back as it does time and again there should be an additional set of pedals to counter it.........
.....
I agree, but there you go yourself with the A vs B slagging.
The rudder design of the 737 proved to be a serious flaw and, i believe, has been corrected. Therefore I would have hoped that Airbus might consider its design not adequate enough (i.e. Qantas incident and eventually this one as well) and provide us with a solution. I don't know how easy it would be.
Let's face it, the same faults on a, say, 777 could have been overcome with switching off AP/AT and some force. This is instinctive and instantanoeus. I disagree with the presumption that this is possible with a Airbus. For that I say again you would need some overhead PRIM/SEC switching. There is no procedure for that and overhead switchings is not instinctive and instantaneous.
Pointing at other aircraft designs, failures and subsequent accidents does in no way let anyone off the hook with their own design. If weaknesses are detected, reported and therefore known, operators, crew and passengers have a right to expect the manufacturor to come up with a viable and flyable solution. Bulletins and accident reports may be a lead to that, but they are NOT the required solutions.
For such events and for the average pilots (that would be me), the situation in an Airbus and having to expect the unexpected, today this design lacks the as I said instinctive and instantaneous possiblity of intervention.