Originally Posted by
rudderrudderrat
If AB pilots had conventional control columns, I'm sure they would cope. I think the problem lies with the side sticks. They are good at telling the the computer what attitude you'd like, but they are hopelessly lacking in tactile feed back.
The only feel is the centring spring in the box, they lack the conventional back driven clues. The control forces required is measured in ounces rather than pounds. It would be like driving your car with the steering wheel replaced by a joy stick. Ok in a straight, but would feel horrible at speed through tight bends.
If what you're suggesting is that the sidestick response goes from balanced and gradual to "squirrelly" with law degradation, that is apparently not the case, and if I recall correctly it was PJ2 who gave the lie to that particular idea. He said the difference can be noticed, but is not that great that it would either cause trouble or could not be corrected for very quickly. I'm told the spring response is actually quite dynamic - this is not like your computer or video game controller in that it exerts more counteracting force the further you deflect the stick.
As I said before regarding modern back-driven FBW controls a la B777, if you've got a triple-pitot failure and UAS scenario, how do you know that the computer is applying the correct column/yoke backdrive?
As for BOAC's question, I don't think takata's point is a case of Airbus pilots not being able to fly an aircraft so much as it is the question of whether you'd want to have to suddenly take over manual pitch trimming - in turbulence, at night, with no speed indications and the fuel transfer system causing the need for regular adjustments.