Again, context is key. I said they did not perform a similar *test* to the one they performed on the A320 sim with a conventional equivalent like a B737. The quotes are from completely different sections of the report.
Note the use of language - "might" and "may":
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...
But the kicker is that this section is speculative - it would seem that if it were a BEA report you'd be admonishing the above section for lack of clarity. In this section they are talking about conversion training - not line flying, as the gist of the report highlights the fact that the PF was not, in their opinion, sufficiently well-trained to be on the line yet.
If you pay attention to the wording of the AAIB report, you'd note that when they refer to the actual *test* they did in the A320 sim, the TRE was explicitly instructed *not* to act as an instructor, but to behave as if he was a senior line pilot in the PNF role. They did not then perform a test in a conventional-layout sim for comparison and thus are not trying to definitively compare the two. Some would argue that the Turkish B737 accident at Schipol illustrates that conventional controls didn't make any difference, because neither of the training pilots noted yoke or thrust lever position despite both being of the articulated kind beloved by the anti-Airbus brigade.
Oh, and I noticed this earlier:
Originally Posted by
Capn Bloggs
I know you're on "our" side, Gums
CB - this makes me very despondent, because there shouldn't be any "sides". For what it's worth, gums and I have had some very civil and enlightening chats away from the public boards and while our backgrounds differ, meaning that we approach the subject from different angles, there's no animosity there.
As far as I'm concerned, we're all in this to try to make flying safer. While I won't hesitate to call out positions that I know to be misunderstood or misinformed, I don't do so to get into a slanging match - in fact it upsets me when things deteriorate to that level.
Truth be told, if it were up to me I'd be all in favour of having you guys handfly as much as you want as long as it is safe to do so, and I'm all in favour of the industry compelling more sim training in the nuances of handflying - especially for those who have had less opportunity to do so on the line. More to the point, I have always held this position - take a random dip into my post history if you don't believe me!
Where my position differs from some is that I think it is counter-productive to get into the blame game, especially as far as automation is concerned. What I find especially saddening is the adoption of an "us and them" siege mentality, usually defined as a nefarious collusion of airline management, engineers and the dreaded "beancounters" versus pilots. At the very least it's not that cut-and-dried, and I for one don't think it's even true. As a techie and reasonably frequent SLF, I have no problem with the use of technology in terms of making your lives easier and civil aviation safer and more efficient. But I'm just as opposed as you are to misuse of that technology to drive down costs and deprive you of the ability to keep your basic piloting and airmanship skills well-honed.
Surely, by any reasonable measure that puts me on your "side", if it must be put that way.