pontifex
The constant carping that takes place on this web site does nothing to enhance its status and merely give journos false ideas with which to titillate the public and drives the majority of readers to the more intelligent discussions in the Military section.
Your argumentation does even less to enhance anything, especially safety, even if its status is admirably high it can always be enhanced. Unfortunately not with arguments like yours.
The carping happens because the industry stubbornly refuses to accept flaws in their products. The reason is simply cost and makes such refusal cynical.
Take B with the speedbrake issue, other designs being far less prone to error. Take the AB’s absence of tactile feedback, many accidents and inquiries do not directly blame it on this flaw, but any sharp reader can deduct that if it was present, there would have been a higher chance of not leading to catastrophe.
In both products a simple adaptation of the philososphy would increase resilience to incidents, and basically this refusal by pretending that it would not, brings out all the carping, because it is cynical.
It is to a certain extent understandable because of the cost involved. What I will never understand is that professionals sing the same lame song. They should demand and welcome any measure that enhances safety, or they come out to be either lobbyists or to be not that professional after all.
As an example let me cite you once more:
an hour in the sim and the non moving throttle can be regarded as an advantage if its principles are understood.
Any design with room for error can be regarded as advantage from a certain angel if its principles are understood, even if the advantage is only weight reduction ……
But if we want to increase safety, then we must take into account that understanding principles has its limits with the actual state of training and experience of pilots, and this state is certainly not improving! So such an argument resounds cynical, because it takes away blame from designs, from engineers, and puts it squarely onto the end-user, the pilots.
Designs can be overcomplicated or not adapted to human behaviour and such designs should be exposed.
Even small flaws can be changed, but to call professionals who expose flaws ‘carpers’ only disqualifies the caller.