I appreciate your thoughtful comments and questions. I am not claiming to have all answers but yes, questions are being raised about airline safety. It is time for questions of all kinds- about airline safety, banking practices, product safety, resort forum selection clauses, maritime jurisdiction "waivers", and every other kind of "protection of business versus people's safety. The sad fact of two back to back Airbus crashes has scared travelers but the real issue is not about Airbus as much as commercial safety checks, pilot credentials, maintenance records, and training of crew.
Yes, there are aircraft, such as the Airbus A330, are not equipped with "traditional" levers, and therefore unable to accommodate a manual override as you've described. It's not that simple though. Many aircraft are built similarly in the modern ay (i.e.- within the last 15 years).
I think, as many do, questions remain, but to question safety records of airlines, of products, of anything, is ALWAYS a good idea.

Mo- I am not in any position to know what may or may not be hidden at this point, or, if what you suspect is true, if there are security reasons for the lack of disclosure. What I think is the bigger issue and more universal to all airlines and plane manufacturers, is the lack of information leads to media (and bloggers like myself) to begin to create theories about what might have happened. We do this because of a lack of consistent information. Companies are so accustomed to creating a "safe" message to allegedly insulate themselves from liability, that in situations like the Air France flight the fact that as information is learned the company must "change" their earlier story. This could be simply innocent, but the fact of the matter is that if a company fails to share information (for any reason) and an accident/death is involved, then it doesn't LOOK good. It causes us to be suspicious. For those companies that actually DO attempt to conceal wrong-doing, and then that hidden information is discovered, that is when a case changes and becomes a cause. Let's hope that is not the case in the recent crashes.

Thanks for your post.

oh- and one more comment... because I am so inspired by it.
I am absolutely fascinated by the story of the sole survivor, Bahia Bakari. Sadly, Bahia is the lone survivor of the Yemenia Airways flight that crashed with 153 people on board as it was approaching the Comoros Islands. She floated on wreckage for approximately 13 hours before being rescued.
See More ...
It is such an incredible story and one that reminds us of the lives that were lost and the grace of survival.

Burt- to respond to your post I divided your topics (or parts):
Part 1- Manual Override? An important distinction should be noted between a Boeing and an Airbus flight control system (FCS): Boeing allows a complete switch-off and total pilot command. However, Airbus, which we are talking about now, does not. The Airbus A330 allows for manual control as long as the pilot operates within an “envelope” of protections.
Once a plane ventures outside the envelope (or safe operating limits), the FCS overrides the pilot’s attempts to maneuver the craft. The Boeing system, on the other hand, allows the pilot to be the final determiner in any situation.
So in the situation with the A330, the pilot would have had less leeway to manually try to resolve the predicament. It may or may not have made a difference. What's clear is it does limit the manual override capabilities of the pilot.
According to Airbus.com: “The fly-by-wire controls allow the pilot freedom within the aircraft’s operating envelope, which protects against overspeeding, stalling and maintaining operation well within the aircraft’s structural limits.”
Here is a description of the envelope and the FCS: More ...
Part 2: Your position that "current aircraft wing boxes are stronger than conventional designs by a significant margin, and this applies to the rest of the aircraft too.”
Well, the real question isn’t whether composite is strong, but rather how it holds up in flying conditions. And that is still being examined and questioned. Strong (often heavy) materials do NOT equate necessarily to safer planes.
According the magazine Popular Mechanics: “Both Boeing and Airbus are betting their futures on new composite aircraft, the 787 in Boeing’s case and the A350 for Airbus. Composites have weight and structural strength advantages over aircraft aluminum, but aviation officials say that much remains to be learned about how they degrade over time.
Earlier this month the FAA issued a draft Advisory Circular aimed at changing the certification rules for composite aircraft. In the document the FAA notes that the “nature of composites can make the determination of critical structural failure loads, modes and locations difficult.” On Tuesday Boeing announced another in a series of delays for the 787 program as engineers worked to resolve structural concerns, widely believed to involve delamination where wing meets the body, following load testing.”
More ...
Part 3: Scare-Mongering: To question the safety of flying after multiple crashes is normal and necessary. No one is saying that flying isn’t "safe"- but to ask questions about the recent flood of commercial crashes is something people outside the industry are doing, whether you like that or not, so is it such a bad thing if people INSIDE the industry ask questions too?
I always thought the free flow of ideas, and exchange, and QUESTIONS, was how we make adjustments and improvements- to every industry. That goes for plane manufacturers, airlines, and equally for lawyers.