Would Air France Flight 447 never have crashed if it had been a Boeing because Copilot 2 would have known what nonsense the other was doing?

At Boeing, the steering column is mechanically connected to each other so that everyone immediately checks what the other is doing, in the case of flight 447 it would have been immediately clear that the pilot making the pilot pulls up the nose of the plane without warning despite the stall warning. But in the Airbus Playstation cockpit with fully electronic sidesticks, the non-controlling copilot knew nothing of the nonsense his colleague is currently doing

It is likely that the most serious mistake would have been recognized earlier or would have been different. Timely interception is therefore realistic.

Regardless of the tax input, there was a total failure of the crew in the AF447 without any real emergency. It is not sufficient to pinpoint the catastrophe to individual actions or technical peculiarities, and therefore the final report does not.

1) Yes, no, maybe! Ask your other nicknames - or should I be wrong? However, the question suggests Latinlover, yampyrette and others.

2) What a strange question, but we know that. What does the aircraft type have to do with suboptimal CRM? Boeing's are falling too.

3) the accident happened a few days ago and nobody is interested in the background - apart from the experts, of course.

4) You can read everything in the official BEA investigation report.

5) You can also read everything in the trade press. Just go through the archives.

6) The sidestick was not pulled "brainless". At most, some of the questions asked here are nonsensical and brainless.

7) A few facts from the Lufthansa safety information from 2012 for reading:

High noise level in the cockpit. Under stress, the brain first switches off the hearing. Then people can no longer perceive acoustic stimuli.
The A330-200 can also trim itself in the barn, you seem to have missed that. This was already known at the time of approval, but was classified as "acceptable".
Then there's the design of the fly-by-wire controls.
The unreliable speed method was only ever trained near the ground in the simulator. However, no ECAM warnings are generated. The crew therefore had no trained experience.
After about a minute, the pitots were ice-free again. The speed display rises again. In connection with the strong driving noises, the impression of acceleration could have arisen. It is now known that pilots fear overspeed (the BEA has evaluated reports worldwide), although this should no longer be an issue with the modern, super-critical wings.
The Airbus also issues a so-called "inverse" stall warning. This is related to some technical peculiarities.
The ECAM knows symptoms, but not the causes, so it is not of much help.

8) You also seem to have missed the fact that there were contradicting advertisements and thus the chance of the pilots doing wrong. CVR and DFDR were evaluated and 85,000 pictures taken!

9) I could now list a lot of points that led to the crash, but I'm running out of letters. It is also pointless to answer questions about an accident whose cause is more than ten! Years ago.