Originally Posted by
Ian W
Logically your argument also supports removing all aural warnings as there are numerous examples of flight crew disregarding them.
Classic straw man argument - no it doesn't, because not only are those warnings necessary, but also there are plenty of incidents where they *have* worked. I'm sure there have been plenty of incidents where the override system provided by the sidestick design has worked to resolve a situation as well.
There is an argument for limiting the number of warnings at any given time - because of the Aeroperu and Birgenair cases, where the numerous and conflicting visual, aural and yes - tactile (stick shaker) warnings only served to confuse the flight crew.
I know that there's a lot of belief in some circles that the Airbus design was a deliberate attempt to design the pilot out of the loop and eventually out of the flight deck - this simply isn't true and never was. All the information you get from a traditional flight deck is there in some form or another, and if not, alternatives are provided. You may need to access that information in a different manner, but it is there, should you choose to use it.
No-one has even attempted to answer the question as to how the captain failed to deduce a stall situation despite the information right in front of him - asserting instead that if only the A330 had yokes he would have been able to. There's no evidence to back up that assertion, only supposition that it "might" have helped. The evidence available from similar incidents suggests that it's just as likely that it "might" not.
In a situation which is outside the realms of SOP and checklists, a good, professional aviator should use the information and tools available to resolve things. All the evidence suggests that enough information was there to do so, and the tools to do so provided. The yoke argument is a red herring here.