Do you believe that the design of the A330 (and the relevant training procedures) are already so perfect that they cannot be improved?
This is the point I was trying to make. It is a grievous error and frankly an endless game to design training around preventing the last accident. I have harped on this point before. Safety is a process.
And here we clearly have the problem. In the first quote a specific manufacturer is mentioned, why for what purpose other then to run down the manufacturer.
The second quote is intended to further enhance the position of far too many pilots that the airbus is somehow not really designed for them.
But there is hope because the last few words are safety is a process.
The FACT is that regardless of current design, regardless of analogue or digital, regardless of european or American or whatever, pilots when confronted with extraordinary circumstances, often miss the warning signs about a situation and then end up making a wrong decision. Safety is a process that will correct that in the end.
What the safety process won't do however is entertain you biased, uneducated comments specifically directed at one manufacturer. It may do if there is evidence or statistics confirming a significant difference in accident rate.
There isn't.
So don't mix issues. Everybody in aviation is committed to improving safety. It will be done on the back of facts and not emotions. Because if we did follow emotions and go backwards, safety levels will decrease.
The point I am making is quite simple and based upon todays facts. Apparently intelligent pilots keeping come back in a misguided attempt to prove that black is in fact white.
Stick feedback, throttle feedback, AOA indicators, direct law, normal law have had no effect on accidents for forty years. The weakest link has always been and will probably remain the human interface, the pilot.
Designers are working very hard to design a foolproof system. However one only has top read some of the posts here to comprehend what an impossible tasks they have.