[spangry]

It's not so straight-forward.

Mechanically linked dual controls, like those on this aircraft, do give you indication that the other pilot is operating them (i.e. your controls physically move in tandem with their inputs). The problem is that if you both provide exactly opposite inputs at the same time both parties can interpret the physical resistance as jammed controls. An audible warning could be useful, but it could also fail if you're in a critical situation that has triggered other audible alerts (e.g. an audible stall warning). Audible warnings also carry the danger of not being comprehensive - if pilots come to rely on warnings of input conflicts instead of training to use explicit verbal communication, they may mistakenly assume that the absence of a conflicting input warning means there is no conflicting input (which may not be the case if the warning system is not absolutely comprehensive).

Another approach here is to have a mechanism that allows one pilot to lock-the controls of the other pilot, coupled with some sort of visual/audible indication as to who is in control. This is sort of a different spin on the 'explicit communication' approach.

[Workaccount2]

It seems a unique haptic feedback given to both pilots controls would work well here.

[gukov]

How does a fly-by-wire system deal with dual inputs?

[formerly_proven]

Warnings and the possibility to override

This thread is kinda funny because generally aviation threads on HN like to shit on airbus for their sidesticks and tout linked controls as obviously superior.

[badcppdev]

Rather than saying: "aviation threads on HN" have you considered using the usernames to identify the individuals with negative comments and positive comments and determine whether it's a small number of accounts saying the same thing repeatedly or a large proportion of the users?