Originally Posted by dozy
What they explicitly do not do is compare the A320 setup with conventional controls in a similar test - I'd be prepared to bet that more often that not, the same scenarios in a B737 sim would have the same outcome.
That's implicitly what they do by purposely setting the test on the A320 and not on an aircraft with linked flight control commands.
The Airbus sidestisk philosophy suppresses valuable information to a PNF.
That's explicitly what they mean by the following :
Originally Posted by P13 - Sidestick issues
During the landing phase of flight, an instructor pilot monitors the approach by assessing the aircraft's performance, ie, by visually scanning both the flight instruments and the ‘picture' through the flight deck windows. In addition, in a ‘traditional' aircraft, where the flight controls are fully interlinked, the instructor might also be able to monitor the direction and magnitude of any, albeit relatively small, control inputs made by the student by sensing their movements in a tactile manner. By doing so, they may be able to prime themselves for the flare motion on the control column and, if the motion is late or absent, make an appropriate input in sufficient time to attempt to avert a heavy landing.
In a fly-by-wire aircraft fitted with sidesticks, the instructor also monitors the approach by assessing the aircraft's performance, but does not have an option of sensing control inputs made by the trainee. By the time it is apparent that no flare, or an incorrect flare, has been made, it may be too late for the instructor to intervene and the aircraft to respond before a possible heavy touchdown occurs.