some actions cannot be directly mapped. maybe i extended it too far. but it is still valid for the PF monitoring.
but probably valid for some actions, that can me directly mapped from the flying computer to pilot controls (throttle levers movement etc)
You'd get it for cars ( at the moment ) for the same reason it made initial sense on airplanes.
mechanical linkage between control device ( wheel, stick, yoke, accellerator, ... ) and execution device ( axle, rudder, .. throttle valve.
Here in Germany beyond a certain speed capability mechanical linkage is still required for steering.
i know that in some military planes flight computers may use any control surface for the commanded action, sometimes there are not classic control surfaces (x tail, canards etc). lets move back to the pf monitoring, because he can do exactly the same actions as you, and you can monitor him with the same controls as he is using.
i know that it currently works, i like Airbus controls, but i still think that the joystick implementation is based on the price/complexity and not that it is actually better that joystick with movement feedback
Same for Airbus. The control system uses surfaces as required, and not necessarily in proportion to stick/yoke movement.
In other words, any feedback through the sticks would be entirely artificial. In order to know what the aircraft is doing, the instruments should be used. If the PM wants to monitor the PF, he should monitor the the movement of the aircraft, not stick inputs.
A non-moving stick is certainly not a cost-saving measure. Those things are very costly either way. It has to do with the Airbus control philosophy.
BTW we also never touch the pedals except on the ground, on landing and during an engine out. The rudder moves automatically to coordinate turns, with no feedback to the pedals. And yet no one complains about lack of feedback.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo