Hey RAT, that is interesting, there might be a lot of truth in what you suggest, I don't know.
For what it's worth, my two penn'orth is that in my experience, Airbus is very poorly taught. They are so keen to get us into the air and learn how to do ECAM, that basic handling stuff is really glossed over, and in my case was not properly taught at all. All that was said about the side stick were really stupid things such as "pretend it's a docker's dick and don't touch it unless you have to", or "only hold it at the top" or "only hold it at the base", and other such useless comments which did nothing to actually explain how to use it. We have never been taught or shown how to do turbulent approaches in the SIM or for real. PIO's on FBW Airbus are therefore mostly a result of poor training in my view. I eventually taught myself how to use the side stick correctly - after watching a video of a Tornado pilot. Years later I explained how to use the side stick to a TRE who had trained me !
The one thing you cannot do in an FBW Airbus is 'follow through' on the controls - i.e feel what inputs the trainer is making - since the sidesticks are not mechanically linked. This is a shame because that is a valuable way to learn to handle a plane.
I have not flown Boeing apart from in the SIM, and my previous types were non auto thrust. However, from a handling point of view I did fly the BAe146, and many was the time I could feel myself overiding the servo tab controls and hitting the mechanical stops on the control surfaces when I needed to reverse control direction as I flew a turbulent approach. I have never needed to do this on an Airbus - well of course it's hydraulic not servo tabs - and you just centre the stick when your input starts having an effect. So I probably find the Airbus easier than the dear old 146. The Airbus side stick needs a different method and the knowledge that the FBW is helping you and doing some of the work for you.
I have flown A320/321/330, and their response is similar thanks to FBW, but the 330 is obviously much larger, has more inertia and is less upset by the atmosphere, like any large aircraft.
The idea of a hybrid system of having moving thrust levers from Idle to CLB and then detents for MCT and TOGA is interesting. Of course we must bear in mind that even moving thrust levers are the input, not the output of the system - which can only be seen on the N1/EPR gauges, so a scan of the engine instruments is still required. You can select the engine instruments onto your ND in the A330 which makes the scan easier on short thermally finals if the A/THR is being lazy', though it is not SOP.
Last edited by Uplinker; 13th Aug 2015 at 12:58.