Do most of the Airlines use the Airbus procedure what means ATHR is engaged until TLs retarded during flare?
In our company manual flight means AP and ATHR off which I really prefer over the Airbus recommended Procedure AP off but ATHR on!
Especially during rough weather the ATHR system is kind of slow and a bit behind the Aircraft!

The a/t systems on AB or B are a non-event if one is sufficiently trained and practised with them. Both are excellent systems but are different. Until my company "made it known" that if one disconnected the autothrust, one was "on one's own" if anything happened, I flew every approach on the 320 series and 340/330 series aircraft with manual thrust. It simply kept one "closer" to the airplane in terms of situational awareness and it is what I taught during line indoctrination training. The standard was, if one could get from fully automated flight in all flight regimes to fully manual flight and back to fully automated flight again without the passengers ever realizing there had been a "regime change", then one understood the system(s).

In my view, far too many airline managements have swallowed the line from manufacturers that the automation will look after everything and reduce the need for training thereby. It's a crock, and both safety reports and FOQA/FDA Programs, if they're actually listened to by management, provide sufficient evidence of this illusion. It's an airplane, whether it's an Airbus or a Boeing. There is nothing whatsoever that is complicated about either manufacturer's thrust levers/throttles or loud levers, (whatever) that a competently trained pilot cannot work with. If one doesn't like what the automation is doing, don't wait around for the engineers...disconnect the system and be a pilot, which includes understanding the system.

Probably the most sense I've seen written in ages...

But summed up in those 3 words... "...be a pilot..." - the thing we all strived to be in the first place. Not a "systems monitor". I like to believe that pilots "fly". Not "watch".

Well said, that man :ok:

Good point PJ2.

It's quite possible the BA777LHR crew would have noticed the problem much sooner had they been flying with A/THR off.

As more airlines move towards full automation, I'm sure we'll see more off these incidents that will replace pilot-induced incidents of manual flight.

PositiveRate876

What a load of ****e. Mate, they still don't know what the problem is a month after the accident so how will the A/T being out have saved them?

Harry

Nothing to see here, move along!

(Wrote this entry in the wrong thread) :rolleyes:

Silky
 

Hi there,

Of course you are correct regarding alpha floor not being available below 100' AGL, otherwise we would have a pretty hard time landing these things...;)

Cheers

Gents et al,

AB auto thrust works perfectly fine. Adding a few knots to app speed in windy conditions is what all aircraft manufacturers recommend anyway, including Airbus. I've seen the same speed increment logic in AB, B, and MD. This is regardless of airspeed mini, autothrust, manual thrust, or aircraft of choice. This is simply a function of approach energy, which is based on aircraft mass and ground speed.

Anybody with proper training on high bypass engines understand that a) it takes some time for the engine to spool up, and b) if a throttle is left at a high thrust lever angle for a long time, lots and lots of thrust will develop. If this is done on approach, a large increase in speed will result, and if low enough, this will result in a high energy approach; probably a go-around.

Airbus, and all intelligent TRI's I know, teaches to nudge the throttle beyond the climb detent for a moment or two (i.e. leaving autothrust mode, and relying on thrust lever angle for thrust control), and then back to climb detent (i.e. fully automated autothrust). Don't wait for the thrust increase, you know it'll come. Just bring the throttles back after a second or so. After a few moments thrust comes up a bit, speed recovers, and autothrust then brings the thrust back to an appropriate level. Speed is exactly where you want it. I don't see a problem at all with this. It's a question of training.

The same kind of theory applies if you want to turn a 350 ton airplane, versus a 1000kg airplane. You apply the necessary force, wait a little, and return the controls to a semi-neutral position, whereas in the little airplane, you get instant reaction. If you used the same technique on a large airliner, you'd be all over the place.

As far as the particular incident in BHX, I don't see where there's any indication that it was Autothrust related, and I'm truly flabbergasted that the post have turned into yet another Airbus vs Boeing charade. Nothing new under the PPrune sun I guess.

As far as my information goes, the guy at the controls simply tried to stick it in on a reasonably short runway for a widebody, and misjudged it. With a bit of wind it could happen to the best of us.

As always, I rely heavily on luck, backed up by an attempt at skill and knowledge.

And when the minimally-trained MPL machine-minders come along, how well will they cope?

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5...terslt5.th.jpg

...all the while exclaiming prhrrrfeckt, awwsssome, uh-huh...

In truth, an MCPL would be wrapped in metal along with everyone else.

From what I read in Flight today they will be just as well qualified as any low time pilot at flying the specific aircraft type, and probably better able to to manage all the other CRM situations.

...and?...