We are in Initial training (full-flight). But our Aircraft Operating Manuals are very well-written and both our training syllabus and the Instructor Pilots are the best around,in order that guys like me can have a good chance to get through ok
.
The daily briefing study guides help condense much of the important information.
Was much of this system designed only to allow a small (weight) cost saving, or did the designers intentionally disregard test pilot input regarding normal pilot interface, assuming that it was present? From the studies of the factory pilots' A-320 airshow accident (no advance to TOGA detent) and the A-330 test flight, what a cruel irony, somehow.
The B-757 autothrottles were nothing like this, and I doubt that the system interrelationships on the B-737, F-100/28 and the Dornier 328 can compare to the various complexities, i.e. go-around at an intermediate altitude, with or without an autopilot and/or flight directors. I.e... Go momentarily from CLB to the TOGA detent, then back, but check also that the FMA says .........and a missed app. altitude is set on the FCU/FMA......This is not how pilots with traditional airmanship skills think, that is, those with 10-20 years flying real aircraft: DC-9s and 757s etc. Maybe airmanship skills were also disregarded during the A-320 design, allowing an extremely low level of experience to be substituted by technology (thereby never allowing additional, significant airmanship/flying skills to be acquired nor developed in this type of aircraft...never mind total "in the loop" awareness).
How do aircraft designers decide to incorporate unnecessary complexity and disregard the safety implications? Were weight savings the ONLY priority?