From the info it does seem that for this specific failure mode the Boeing design is better. That may be true for other types of failures too. But from what I've read before the Airbus system of software checks/info on pilot inputs can actually prevent a great deal of failure situations as well. The description of the Hudson landing not long ago included references on how the A320 helped the pilot maintain the optimum glide path and generally fly the plane better even in a much degraded situation. I also remember an article that detailed some accidents or near-misses and the Airbus system got mixed reviews, in that sometimes it was better than a conventional one, sometimes worse.

It's easy to have a gut reaction to these things. It sounds like the story for all kinds of advanced technology. Something solves a bunch of common failure modes while adding risk to extreme cases that are hard to test. On balance it may be a positive change and save lives but we are understandably uncomfortable when we see the freak accidents caused. Would you still prefer the Boeing planes if Airbus had a better safety record? They seem to be doing slightly better according to this:

http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

Looking at "Hull Loss Accident Rate per Million Departures" (page 21) for recent planes:

- 737-300/-400/-500: 0.54

- 747-400: 0.53

- A320/321/319/318: 0.36

- A340: 0.5 (this is a single accident)

- A330: 0 (this only goes to 2008, would have to be updated)

I haven't done the math to see if this is statistically significant. The upside to all this is that the graph does seem to show planes are getting safer. All the technology does work after all.

that was something i didn't really understand, to be honest. it seemed that the airbus computer goes into a "minimal" (ie "dumb") mode when it detects inconsistent inputs. the implication being (i think) that it does no more than support basic fly-by-wire. so it's not clear to me how that is so different from turning off the computer in a boeing. in either case you're effectively flying "unaided".

if the airbus computer had crashed, or had some kind of fault, then sure, better to not have a computer. but that didn't seem to be the case here.

and yet, at the same time, it seems that the plane simply stalled and fell out of the sky. when i was fascinated by planes as a kid i learnt that a stall was easily recoverable in airliners, unless they were the old "T tail" design (the rear controls end up in the turbulent wake from the stalled wing and you need to side-slip into a kind of flat spin to recover control). so if they had control, why didn't they recover? and why bother rebooting the computer? there's a suggestion that the pilots were simply incompetent and lost without the computer enhanced controls.

Does the 777 count? It is a fly-by-wire plane, but has never had a fatal accident.