I think that was just an error of grammar. To avoid any confusion, in all airliners, the take-off is always flown manually.
It wasn't a grammatical error, though perhaps the use of "Whereas" would have made the point more clear.
It is interesting to read that not much changes, apart from rudder input. I find it very interesting, and reassuring, that the certification for engine failure on take-off means there is no need for quick, corrective action to avoid a dangerous situation developing. They're clever, those people at Boeing and Airbus.
I don't think any reply indicated that quick corrective action isn't required; if one doesn't use rudder, the airplane may depart the runway. Depending on the point at which the takeoff is continued or rejected, decisive action is required to meet the necessary calculated performance. If one experiences the engine failure prior to or near V1 and rejects, no delay should be had in executing the rejected takeoff. Timely use of braking, speed brakes, reverse, etc, are very important (though the stopping distance isn't predicated on reverse). If one continues, then decisively continuing, rather than hesitating or diverting one's attention is also required. The engine loss on takeoff profile doesn't allow one to be a spectator; a potentially dangerous situation has already developed. Proper action is required to prevent it from becoming any worse.
Yes, the folks at Boeing and Airbus (and Embraer and McDonnel Douglas, etc) are clever. More clever than or as clever as the rest of us, anyway.
If, as you say, the pilot does not reduce the angle of attack or increase thrust after the engine failure, am I right in thinking the aircraft will however accelerate more slowly given the reduced engine thrust?
If the engine fails at V1, there's no angle of attack to reduce. If it fails with the nose already in the air, one doesn't do a thing; one pitches through the rotation, albeit slower than normal, and flies off at and maintains V2.
Increasing thrust sets the takeoff calculations out of balance. The takeoff numbers, specifically V1, Vr, and V2 are predicated on the preplanned power numbers. If these are altered, the numbers are invalidated. When we calculate takeoff power, we do so with an engine failure in mind. Increasing power increases the assymetrical thrust imbalance, and one may find one's self short of rudder. No need to reduce angle of attack or increase thrust. The airplane has adequate climb performance after takeoff, as calculated in advance, to meet the obstacle climb gradient criteria and escape mother earth. This only applies to transport-category aircraft, of course.
Am I also correct in thinking that the engine failure certification and take-off performance calculations ensure that, even if you do not reduce the angle of attack, there is no chance that the speed will stick at Vr or even decay towards a stall?
When I review the takeoff data, I look at the power setting and the criteria that were used to determine it. I look at the preplanned pitch angle. We have a 10 degree limit on rotation; above that we risk a tail strike, so if we reach 10 degrees and it's not off the ground, we've probably rotated too quickly, and we hold it there until it comes off. My takeoff calculations also include a target pitch atttitude after takeoff; this pitch attitude should hold my target V2 speed with an engine out. With all engines operating, I should be pitching a little more than the target, but the calculations are always planned with an engine-loss during the takeoff at some point.
If the airplane isn't accelerating at all, if it's not going to fly, then something more than a powerplant failure may be occurring, and one may have no choice but to reject the takeoff.
In your simulator training, do you need to train for and practise engine failure at V1 and Vr separately, or is the rudder input sufficiently similar that if you can handle one situation, you can handle both?
We train for engine failures before V1, and after V1. When the failure occurs after V1 isn't significant; our concern is whether we're going to reject the takeoff, or continue. Continuing is safest, but if a failure occurs shortly before V1 is called, we may have insufficient runway or ability to accelerate to Vr or V2, and therefore the takeoff is rejected. Whether an engine failure occurs at V1 or at Vr isn't really a concern; so long as we know the decision to continue the takeoff is happening, it's all the same, really.
There really isn't a "both," because it's the same situation. An engine failure after V1.
Yes, we do practice and train for engine failures at various times during the takeoff, including various times before V1, and various times after V1. If it's before V1, it's a rejected takeoff, and if it's after V1 and the airplane is still capable of going flying, then it's a continued takeoff, with no significance between the engine failing at V1 or at VR, or any time thereafter.