since many of you are pilots… just want some thoughts on this… is it safer to fly-by-wire or its not safe to fly-by-wire… e.g. Airbus use fly-by-wire system while Boeing maintain hydraulic and mechanical controls etc. 
Opening a can of worms on this one, as it’s sure to break out into an Airbus v. Boeing war.
My personal opinion, is that both are safe, as both have impeccable safety records. One isn’t better than the other, if both can get me to where I want to go. But let’s take a look at the trends for a second.
Airbus: with the exception of the A300 and A310, all of their commercial aircrafts use FBW.
Boeing: Starting with the B777, Boeing uses FBW. The B787 will be FBW. The B747-8 is supposed to use the same engines and flightdeck/cockpit technology as the B787, so it may be FBW as well.
Embraer: The E-Jets (E170/175/190/195/Lineage 1000) are all FBW.
Bombardier: The CSeries jet, set to compete with the E-Jets and B717, will be FBW.
Sukhoi: the Sukhoi Superjet 100 will be FBW.
Seems that the trend is learning towards FBW, so there must be some sense of safety to it…
BL.
if that’s the case, my pilot friend might have no idea what he is talking about… he said airbus use FBW while Boeing don’t… so his advise is try to avoid FBW plane because in an emergency situation its less likely they (the crew) can try to manually control where the plane is heading and more likely to crash (he gave the example of Air France crashing into the sea because its FBW?!)…
my this pilot friend… he build plane for a living… only that he build do custom build WWI planes… so perhaps he is outdated… 
Are you suggesting a 757 could be flown after a hydraulic system failure? I seriously doubt it. The best you could hope for is the outcome of UA232 (Sioux City, 1989). They ended up flying the aircraft by throttles only, and it worked remarkably well – a miracle in my book. They still crashed.
I think maturity of design comes into it, i.e. how well each system has been compartmentalized and isolated from mishaps in other systems. Once the FBW systems have a decade or two of learning behind them, they’ll probably be at least equivalent in safety to the traditional planes of today.
so… through ‘trial-and-error’ (plane crashes - people die… etc.), they (the airline manufacturer) learn to design a better system? i am scared!!!
Less likely? AWE1549 should nip that in the bud, with both engines failing, and they had manual control of the aircraft the entire time. Same with JBU292, JST20, and most importantly, TSC236.
No, but you can’t use the ‘newness’ of FBW as an excuse to be less safe. UAL232 is a great example of that; something 20 years tried and true still failed. Think about all those old B732s, B733s, and B734s out there that still have that PCU/vertical stabilizer issue that caused USA427 and UAL585 to crash.
BL.
When you think about it, yes.
Another item related to fly by wire…
I’ve heard the Airbus 320 will shut down an engine automatically if it’s damaged. If you ingest a goose the engine shuts down to prevent further damage and to prevent throwing parts into the cabin.
If you ingest geese into both engines the computer turns the 320 into a glider, then a float plane.
Compliments of a friend who flies an Airbus!
The Hudson River airbus still had some electrical systems operating and therefore was still FBW not manual reversion.
There is no such thing as “manual” control with a FBW Airbus. There are only varying degrees of control law which the flight control computers move control surfaces under predetermined, programmed conditions.
Did y’all (specific Saudi term) see the thread where somebody’s best friends cousins girlfriends father flew a 320 and claimed it has manual reversion? I think he flunked the oral and now flies for either Colgan or Gulfstream… 
John in Saudi
But that is my point. it is useless to argue something like this when Boeing, Embraer, Bombardier, and Sukhoi are all going to be using the same thing.
Oh, one more thing:
And if AFR447 turns out to have had the same problem as CAL611, then FBW has absolutely nothing to do with the handling of emergencies and being more likely to crash. Different systems requiring different actions. But there would be nothing they could have done if the plane broke apart mid air, Boeing, Airbus, hydraulic, FBW, or otherwise.
BL.
I just read the CA611 from wikipedia, it seems it all has to do with maintenance, and I do agree with that… whether or not FBW… if its ill-maintenance then its deem to crash sometime… In the future flying commercial won’t be so easy, not just based on price, but has to look deeper (e.g. recent maintenance news - Qantas has been bad recently), as its not like a bus crash you more likely to die if you seat in the front than at the back, sit on top than on the bottom… etc. But if a plane broke up midair everyone die… … 
so much trouble for flying…
A inflight break-up was BL’s point. In that event, it matters not what the control system design is.
how often is inflight break-up compare to FBW crashes?
Borat? Hey I’m a huge fan!!! 
Now don’t make me break out another facepalm pic…
the whole point of this thread is to find a balance in life… find what’s risky (exciting, rewarding) and what’s not (boring, safe)… no this is not buying stock on the stockmarket… its find a safe way to travel and not landed in piece intact or feeding the fish of the sea…
if i could drive my car from here to USA i would… even if it takes 3 weeks! but its not possible, so we can only fly… so what’s the most economic way and safest way to travel?.. FBW or not FBW planes?
I’m in a mood… I can’t help myself on this one…
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/1/19/Notagain-jeez.jpg/466px-Notagain-jeez.jpg
By foot - provided you don’t take more than 3 steps with a three minute period.