CONF iture;
Yes, I recall the Bulletin.

My comment re manuals was in reference to present-day publications, a number of which I surveyed and reported on and included an acknowledgement that the procedure has it's problems as per Chris' comments. Some of them referenced the procedure, some didn't, so likely your last statement from the FCOM is the preferred response.

My apologies, I should have been more specific; I've read the bulletins and I agree that procedure works well above 100 RA. If you somehow manage to get into flare with low speed and high RoD then it's too late to apply it. That's what I meant by "at last second".

Personally, I have never had to chance to check how it works: I have never been allowed to use ATHR with manual flight or to autoland unless flying actual or practice CAT II/III ILS. It's a company restriction I was quite comfortable with.

Clandestino,

Are you saying that your airline mandates manual thrust when flying without AP?

Correct, it's a policy that predates the introduction of 320 to our fleet. It was applicable to 737-200 too.

Clandestino;

Thanks for the clarification - I agree with your comments completely: In the flare is too late to add energy without risking other untoward outcomes. The response can be quite aggressive.

I like the two mandates your company requires. I can recall a few times when my F/O disconnected the autothrust but left the autopilot engaged. THAT didn't last long.

PJ2

PBL
Would you have a link for that, I would be very interested to read what he had to say.

Can I see some contradiction in your argumentation as you acknowledge more automatics bring more possible situations, known or still unknown, but in the meantime you see more automatics as the ultimate solution ... !?

Sorry, I don't. I'll see what I can do about quoting you the relevant bit, but it will take me some time as I have two deadlines I am working on into next week.

Contradiction, no; tension, yes. To put it crudely, there is a big juggling trick in all this. My blog post of 3 September 2010 suggests that, if things continue to go the way they appeared in 2010 to be going, automatic execution of routine manoeuvres might improve the safety figures. Another interesting article of which I was recently reminded, by Bob Charette in the IEEE Spectrum in December 2009, Automated to Death, for which I was also interviewed, contains some interesting views from engineering psychologists, as well as from my colleague Martyn Thomas.

PBL

BAOC. sorry mate, l do get confused. Take care.

This thread shows up the gulf between those who advocate more automation and those who take a somewhat different view. Some operators are now apparently banning hand flying!
The Airbus A320 autothrust is reasonably ok for most normal ops where the wind is not too strong. However it is slow to respond to speed loss - just observe how it allows the speed to decay below target in an Open Descent. The non- moving levers don't help the pilot's intuitive assessment of what it is doing and have been at least slightly implicated in a number of incidents and accidents.
However, it is what it is and pilots and operators have to find a modus operandi that works for them. Personally I want pilots to be both able to use the automatics and to be able to comfortably hand-fly the a/c with or without the autothrust. I find that even the modern young computer-game ones actually enjoy doing it as soon as they get some practice.
So let's use all our resources, both automatic and human, and try to ensure we keep both in tip-top condition!

Hang on, that's a completely different aspect of the autoflight system, since in open descent autothrust commands idle power and pitch controls airspeed.

I agree that the A320 can be a bit thick when it comes to speed control in open descent, particularly at higher altitudes with an increasing headwind. There's a tedious inevitability about the way the speed ticks towards MMO with no response from the aeroplane to pitch up and arrest it, yet when you do intervene manually it's a tiny input to sort it out.

My experience is that the autothrust on approach is very capable and I can only think of a couple of occasions where I've disconnected it on the grounds of not being happy about how it's managing the power.

Having said that, our fleet is entirely CFM. Having only flown an IAE equipped 320 once (and floated down the runway during the flare), I wonder if the engines have slightly more inertia when it comes to spooling up or down, which would give the impression of autothrust being slow.

I hate to say this but automation dependency is here to stay particularly when cadets with barely 250 hours are employed as second in command on transport jets and brain-washed into full automation from the very first simulator trip. .

Fine, if the airlines want to continue that way but at least give pilots a chance to gain manual flying skills (including no autothrottle and no flight director) by ensuring that 50 percent of each simulator session is raw data manual flight. Not 90 percent automatics as it is now.

The bloody truth about this incident was that after the hard landing at LPPD the crew flew two more sectors and only wrote it on the technical log book at Lisbon.