Dozy,
Your continued rhetoric is becoming old, very old.
Your Quote:
Here's a short list of things that came up on this thread and it's predecessors - none of them true, but nevertheless fervently believed by those who posted them
To be clear - all of the below assertions are provably false
Airbus have weaker vertical stabiliser attachments than other mfrs
The Airbus FBW flight deck was designed as the first step towards pilotless airliners
The infamous Habsheim A320 crashed because the computer thought it was in landing mode
With a connected yoke, pilots will automatically see poor handling and take control
Airbus pushed hard for more automation, and their airliners are more automated than any other types of the same vintage
The Airbus A320 was designed by engineers and computer geeks with little or no pilot input
Airbus FBW computers will command an attitude change opposite that of pilot input
The Boeing FBW design is simpler than that of Airbus
The BEA deliberately steer investigations to protect Airbus
The last one came up recently, with the poster lamenting that the BEA is not an NGO - but neither is the UK AAIB - and the US NTSB, while nominally independent, remains a government agency.
These are not assertions that are provably false, they are simply
Dozy's opinions that can be provably false in part or whole. Each can be challenged and debated and have been and will continue to be.
As an engineer speaking, there is no man-made aircraft, engine, control system, software or whatever, however you want to cut it, that can't be improved upon, period! And so goes it with Airbus and their FBW aircraft. In fact, the technology of the A-320 is old technology today (1984), if it hasn't been improved upon or changed from the original concept.
Your quote:
Someone referred to you as "Orangefreak" in an earlier reply - I figured I'd make the "Organ" aspect clearer. (see also: "Farfisanut", "Voxadorer" etc. )
This is not the informative "technical" Dozy posting that were worth reading.