cp;
I think PJ2 may say however, that a 'happy airbus' will "go around again after a bounce' but the 'unhappy airbus' will just roll over and have a cigarette - not sure what that means,
I wouldn't have said it as I don't know what all that means either!
However, I question the testimony above which claims the airplane is "unflyable". Perhaps an airplane may not as easy to fly as in Normal Law in smooth air in daytime but describing an airliner as "unflyable" is a serious statement/accusation that can't be taken at face value. In certain hydraulic system failure cases the airplane is not as easy to fly but it is emminently "flyable" all the same. An aft CG is less desireable than one that is more forward but as you point out, the airplane is certified. I discussed the reasons why I didn't think an aft CG wasn't "in the running" as a primary cause and I think those comments require addressing by those who claim the airplane is "unflyable" or even seriously compromised before any other claims can be made. Nor do I think the "drug company certification" metaphor works - it's biological vs pretty basic, well-understood physics - not even in the same arena.
My understanding of the certification process (from reading, not experience), flying an airliner in all it's normal and degraded possibilities should not require greater than "average" skill. "Average" here does not mean "mediocre" - it means the high degree of handling skills that a line pilot would be expected to possess and be able to demonstrate in normal operations vice a pilot trained and experienced in certification and test flight work in which "normal" is a long way from familiar/routine line experience and the necessary, trained skills to maintain controlled flight at the extremes.