Originally Posted by Rainboe
This implies that if the Airbus was fitted with a RA-operated automatic thrust retard mechanism at 27', the Congonhas A319 would not have retained power on No 2 after landing? This is exactly how all those opinions here wanted the 737 to be redesigned! It wouldn't have run off the end. Unfortunately it might have crashed on final approach instead if the crew had gone to sleep.
Which serves to illustrate the point that automation cannot be made foolproof and is notoriously hard, if not impossible to get "right". After every accident self-proclaimed experts know how to make the aircraft better and safer. But every change has its traps. A320 (a "normal" A320 at Congonhas, not an A319, btw) and B737 accident records are comparable, and both are very low. Both incorporate different design decisions, but apparently both work very well. Changing something because of a single accident is rarely a good idea. Who knows how many accidents the design decision in question has prevented?
A320 has automatic thrust retardation in autoland. Pilot still has to pull the levers back and is reminded to do such by the infamous "RETARD!" callout, which is generated in both manual and automatic landings.
Bernd