It would seem that Airbus, Lockheed Martin (ex General Dynamics), Dassault, Sukhoi OKB and Cirrus are not believers in ergonomical unacceptability of sidestick.
OK, lets not confuse the issue with military references, I'm not silly enough to suggest that a sidestick is not
the solution at high lateral and vertical 'g' loads in a confined space. It's also rather ignoring the fundamental of left & right propensity, since there'd only be one in amil a/c and whichever it was, you'd get used to it...
Ever tried hoola hooping ?
Which is your 'normal' direction - clock or anti-clock ?
Are you as good at it clockwise as anticlockwise, can you keep it up both ways ?
Unlikely, and what you are comfortable with, definitely helps in an emergency - one of the few times you'll be manual flying at altitude soon.. an emergency.
The Cirrus stick looks like you could almost use either hand - an interesting half way house?
I am very sure that the s/s, whilst it may (should) be mentioned in the final BEA report as a contributing factor (in the confusion at least, if not in possible overcontrol and climb (UP) fixation)... will never be condemned nor changed in ABs
.. because very much on the whole, it is satisfactory for the purpose intended and the vast majority of AB pilots are used to it, proficient with it and would not let it affect their flight control, whether left or right seat.
All this is
not the same as saying that its innate ergonomics and possible l/r positioning for PF (and/or PNF) did not come into the safe conduct of flight after 2:10:00 for AF447 - because very clearly, in this instance, it did!
Shutting eyes to
any facet involved in such a serious aircraft accident is never a good idea... whether 2,500 other aircraft have that facet or not... or even 250,000 others.