PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
View Single Post
Old 26th Sep 2007, 11:57
  #2458 (permalink)  
Lemurian

Sun worshipper
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Christiaanj
And I would like to see the discussion to go a bit more to how that could be prevented.
And not by computer software trying to guess what's going on, please.
Our main subject has to do with Throttle handling.
Throttle handling abnormalities are treated at length during sim sessions, at length and with all the configurations one could think of.
However, we have two philosophies about single engine operations :
  • one which leaves the *dead* engine throttle alone at idle, and
  • one which advocates, after the *Shut-Down* procedure has been completed, to re-gather both throttles and operate them as in normal operations. In this case, the flying pilot has to remember that throttle actions are in fact to be used with an amplitude that is (about) double the normal.
I have to say that I am in favour of the second solution...
BUT
Things start falling down if the auto-throttle is used :
  • In the first choice, if it's an Airbus FBW airplane, that's the configuration, easy to use as at A/THR disconnection, both T/Ls would be at idle...procedure is straightforward. If it's another brand of airplanes, the autothrottle motor and the friction will slowly drive that T/L out of idle, one would have a stagger (The *benefit* of moving throttles falls apart, already). So One would need to re-gather them, then disconnect the autothrottle, retard...etc...
  • In the second choice, all airplanes would have throttles to-gether, but it's against AI philosophy (the dead T/l should be in idle) and on the other brand, the moving *dead* engine throttle once again indicates a n engine output that is not coherent with it's state.
As one can see, the choices are not that black and white, are they ?
Now the warning.
I am not really keen on the addition of another warning, especially one that tries to save a situation that is already complex in terms of crew failure interpretation. The AI proposal would only appease the polotical branch of the society and the uninformed public.
What I would like to see is
  • A continued *RETARD* voice call, which will then become
  • *RETARD ENGINE ONE *-or TWO- after the identification of one missing T/L in the *Idle* detent, along with a warning and caution chime.
Have to go,
Cheers all.

Last edited by Lemurian; 26th Sep 2007 at 16:11. Reason: some atrocious spelling
Lemurian is offline