Re: Flying by Joystick
Although this incident is now over 5 years old, the story is quite educational, and incredibly sad for Flight Lieutenant Andrew Townshend, who I feel, frankly, was improperly treated. If interested, a new video interpretation of the incident was recently published:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl-Fl66Jfao
It appears accurate, and at the very least is entertaining, but at worst reveals a terrible DESIGN FLAW of the entire Airbus fleet.
From the start, Airbus has been insistent on a SIDE STICK design in their cockpits. Boeing maintains a YOKE, for such an important control. This is part of a major design philosophy difference between Boeing & Airbus which is well published. The virtues of a yoke (or, as in the American B-1 bomber, an actual flight control stick, as in most fighter aircraft) cannot be overemphasized: Yes, a yoke can be knocked-about when stepping out of the pilot's seat when leaving for the loo, or by any number of ways being directly in front of the pilots, but in that position, it is isolated from other sources of clutter (such as a camera, or a meal tray, or a checklist, or any number of things a flight officer legitimately handles... and I contend the camera WAS legitimate as it focused the pilot's situational awareness), AND is visible TO ALL ELSE IN THE COCKPIT. A yoke is Big. It is Heavy. It is physically connected to the other pilot's yoke, making it expensive. And any number of crashes & accidents have occurred BECAUSE the position of that sidestick is NOT visible, and is impossible for the other pilot to see or handle. IT IS HIDDEN, just as occurred here. But a sidestick IS cheaper.
So my contention is that this was a predictable event (as happened other times, such as Air France Flight 447) due to the side stick's use and location emphasizing an error of Airbus' ways: Joysticks are cheap & lots of fun for computer games. Just keep them out of aircraft cockpits, please.