to Iceman50:
As for the design being wrong that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, what would be interesting to know is your experience/knowledge in making this statement. Having flown A330 and A340 for the last 16 years, I do not see it as a design problem. We do not need stick shakers nor pushers in Normal law and in ALTN law the A/C was shouting at the AF crew that it was stalled. That is until it was held into a regime that no airliner was expected to be put in by a competent pilot. Perhaps you should speak to the designers of all the new military A/C as most cannot be flown without the use of technology and the "pilot" only makes requests through a computer.
1. I flew he MD11, the 330 and the T7
2. I was not talking about shakers or pushers. I was talking about the other stick repeating the input.
3. Military aircraft are per design unstable, so fbw is vital. Not so airliners, they are supposed to be stable and flyable in direct law or similar, meaning without computer aided stability.
As for the "simple" red button that gives control back by switching off some Prims and Sec's, way too complicated and dangerous. How would it work with the MEL and if the pilot was getting totally confused and thinks by removing the protections he will be safer, stand by for some major accidents / incidents. As pilots knowing our A/C, no matter what manufacturer, is the only option and continuing the learning process not just sitting back accepting the paycheck each month.
1. A red button would not be dangerous, otherwise there would not be the bulletin instructing how to get to direct law by prim/sec switching. It would be on the contrary less complicated!
2. As for being more dangerous leading to major incidents: Just look at the irony you're raising. The pilot is supposed to be the last resort, even switching off all automatics to save the day. Now you're implicating that such a function is inherently dangerous! Either the last resort and responsible is the pilot, then he needs FULL authority, or he needs to be protected by the system not to screw up. But then let the system sign the log and the flight plan.
You can't have it both ways!!
I guess this is the fundamental philosophical dissent I am pointing at.
I can accept pilots liking the design. I don't, and by not liking it, I try to point out why, flak accepted.