Quote from DozyWanabee:
"Understood, but please humour me and try to explain. I'm not debating the desirability in this instance, I'm just not convinced - and it seems neither were the pilot engineering team at Airbus - that it's a necessity. I'm fairly well-versed in the Airbus perspective, all I'm asking is help in understanding the other side."
Fair enough, and I'll do my best! But please also read my post of January 02 @ 1959Z.
There are, I guess, two advantages to the traditional interconnection.
1) Tactile feedback to the PNF for monitoring, but that only applies if he/she is touching the stick. That needs to be done very gently and carefully, as it can make hard work for the PF. In practice, therefore, we tend not to do it unless we are contemplating a sudden takeover of control. (However, I do remember once or twice, as a PNF trainee, being invited to “follow through” the training captain as he demonstrated the PF job.) This care would be particularly necessary with the sidestick, which the PF best handles with fingers and thumb: NOT the gripped hand. The advantage of the conventional yoke (and this also applies to old-fashioned joysticks in tandem cockpits), is that (peripheral) vision of its movements gives the PNF some idea of what’s going on.
2) The ability of the PNF to takeover control without pushing a button. Pilots are very reluctant to do that, because it would be a clear expression of no-confidence in the PF‘s handling. However, without pushing the button of your Airbus sidestick, you cannot counter a full-deflection on the other stick; only neutralise it. And that would be a recipe for loss-of-control.
Must finish by pointing out that these tricky situations are rare on a well-trained pilot fleet, but not unknown. The reluctance of the PNF to interfere applies on traditional types also (see above). The frailty of the human condition is not unique to Airbus cockpits! But momentary intervention (like correcting an undesired wing-drop on a gusty, crosswind landing) is easier on traditional types. Having said that, the Airbus in Normal Law is, IMHO, a more forgiving aircraft to fly “manually” than most of those. Can’t (and won’t) second-guess the Boeing version.
That's my take on it. Can current pilots comment?
In 14 years of line flying the A320, starting from type-certification, I never found myself in other than Normal Law.