I agree with Safety Concerns, there will be no going back to the old design, but we need to get back the old functionality and interface quality of this old design.
(my bold)
Well, I also agree with this affirmation, t
here will be no going back to the old design, because it would cost a huge sum of money and effort, and would specially cost the "face" of Airbus Industrie's system design.
What bothers me, is not to see the need for the
functionality and interface quality the old design used to have.
To improve the tactile feed-back of what your aircraft is doing is to move forward. The challenge of today, would be to create a system much more "user-friendly" (Human Factors speaking) aimed at what would best suit the already identified weaknesses of pilot/machine interface.
When I say that if
it was not for men to be never content with what they had achieved, we would still be in the Stone Age, is to put in practice the ideals of men and women like Da Vinci, Einstein, Neils Bohr, Marie Curie, etc., who had the virtue of being open minded and were not afraid of criticism once their goal was to do the things they already did well, but wanted to do better next time (and not get lazy under the glory of their achievements).
There is always room for progression and if to progress one would have to use old stuff like feed-back functionalities or tactile feed-back, so be it!
Regarding the use of the UAS memory items (5º/Climb Thrust) in CRZ, I do agree with PJ2's idea that it is not worth to destabilize an aircraft that is already flying well in present conditions. Pilots who are used to hand-fly their aircraft to TOC do know what ATT they are handling at those altitudes (never more than 3º/3.5º, even overpowered A310's would use no more than 3.5º when reaching TOC or changing altitudes). An ATT of 5º is sufficient to slowly decelerate an heavy bird and bring it to the onset of a stall.
