A320 - landing with manual thrust?

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by vilas

In airbus you can keep ATHR with AP off. If an airline wants you to do manual flying only to maintain manual flying skill and automation for most of the time nothing wrong with it after all these are commercial flights and not training flights.

I’m training every day. It’s the same reason my doctor practises medicine.

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by Ollie Onion

Why stress about it, if the Airline wants you to use AThr at all times then why not just do it. I hate flying with those pilots who want to do everything manually on every approach. Funnily enough when I get paired with them in the sim it rarely improves their hand flying :-) I find the sim use of manual flight more than sufficient to keep my hand flying up to standard.

I’m obviously not as naturally gifted as you are. I need to do it regularly so I don’t lose the skill.

[Uplinker]

Originally Posted by Speed_Trim_Fail

Whilst I agree, it isn’t always possible particularly in the winter months. I’ve had tours where we have flown very few if any coupled approaches, lots of raw data etc but equally I’ve had months where a combination of busy 3/4 sector days and the usual tiredness that comes from constantly battling slots, tech issues etc as well as British weather has meant the opportunity is few and far between.

A couple of hours in the sim every month (or even every 3 months) with a trainer to try some non jeopardy manual flying and maybe even review/debrief some stuff I saw on the line…. My word that would be invaluable.

Yes I know, but the same is true of the 3 practice auto-lands every 6 months. 6 months is half a year - and not all of it winter, so there should be at least three days in that whole period when they can be safely practised. And if not, we had to do the missing ones in the SIM

[stilton]

Originally Posted by Uplinker

Unless it is an auto-land, the Airbus doesn't presume to know exactly when you want, or need, idle thrust during the flare. Very gusty wind conditions can require a longer flare while you get the attitude stabilised, and/or de-crab, just before the mains touch; so better to let PF decide, rather than chop the thrust automatically from underneath them.

The Airbus will remind us to reduce to idle by saying: "Retard.......retard......", (which I always thought was a comment on my mental state when I got it wrong !)
But it will not force the thrust to idle, and if you don't move the thrust levers, it will add thrust to maintain Vapp.

Auto-lands only happen with benign winds, so there is less of an issue. And the auto-land logic is cueing the auto-thrust from precise height measurements derived from both Rad-Alts - rather than looking along the runway, as the human does - and precise IAS measurements, ditto. So it does retard the thrust automatically and gets the 'retard' point right, since those measurements are not fluctuating significantly during auto-land conditions.
.

Interesting, thanks for the information although the retard ‘joke’ is not getting any funnier

[sonicbum]

I think we are still in good shape if, here on pprune, we have discussions about landing with ATHR ON or OFF.
In a matter of a few years we will be discussing about who is still allowed to taxi and takeoff without the Autopilot.

You Tube

[Uplinker]

Strewth. Makes about as much "sense" as driverless cars, i.e, none.

[172_driver]

It's dawned on me for a long time that aircraft manufacturing has become a playground for engineers and software developers. It's got little to do with what's actually needed anymore, auto TCAS, ROW/ROP, automated Take Off and other features to come.

[AerocatS2A]

Auto TCAS is pretty good IMO.

[172_driver]

Originally Posted by AerocatS2A

Auto TCAS is pretty good IMO.

Fair enough, now we are deviating off the original topic. Looking at the memory items for a TCAS RA it's an entire page of nested IF-statements and uneccessary comments, further complicated by AUTO TCAS available/not available. Eye candy to an engineer, sore eyes for an aviator. Also a testament to Airbus inability to write good user friendly manuals. Flying a TCAS maneuver is a short simple procedure and should be described as such. Can't see a situation where auto TCAS will ever save the day. The DHL/Tu154 midair was due to someone disregarding TCAS all together and the GOL/Embraer Legacy midair was a malfunctioning transponder, wasn't it? Just my opinion...

[Speed_Trim_Fail]

Originally Posted by 172_driver

Fair enough, now we are deviating off the original topic. Looking at the memory items for a TCAS RA it's an entire page of nested IF-statements and uneccessary comments, further complicated by AUTO TCAS available/not available. Eye candy to an engineer, sore eyes for an aviator. Also a testament to Airbus inability to write good user friendly manuals. Flying a TCAS maneuver is a short simple procedure and should be described as such. Can't see a situation where auto TCAS will ever save the day. The DHL/Tu154 midair was due to someone disregarding TCAS all together and the GOL/Embraer Legacy midair was a malfunctioning transponder, wasn't it? Just my opinion...

https://skybrary.aero/articles/asses...ing-radar-data

That link should be sobering reading then.

For those who don’t want to read it, in essence it refers to an EASA study of 1176 RAs in 2020 that found:

• The overall RA compliance (for all RAs) at 8 seconds after the RA 38% (Method A) or 55% (Method B) of RAs were flown with the required vertical rates, and at 12 seconds after the RA 55% and 54%, respectively.
• Opposite responses (i.e. those responses carrying the highest risk) at 8 seconds were recorded in 34% of cases in Method A and 1% in Method B. At 12 seconds 17% and 1%, respectively.

I always far preferred the Boeing “buckets” to the red/green VSI on the 320, but auto TCAS absolutely is a brilliant invention - I agree wholeheartedly on your comments about Airbus manuals.

[semmern]

Originally Posted by Speed_Trim_Fail

https://skybrary.aero/articles/asses...ing-radar-data

That link should be sobering reading then.

For those who don’t want to read it, in essence it refers to an EASA study of 1176 RAs in 2020 that found:

• The overall RA compliance (for all RAs) at 8 seconds after the RA 38% (Method A) or 55% (Method B) of RAs were flown with the required vertical rates, and at 12 seconds after the RA 55% and 54%, respectively.
• Opposite responses (i.e. those responses carrying the highest risk) at 8 seconds were recorded in 34% of cases in Method A and 1% in Method B. At 12 seconds 17% and 1%, respectively.

I always far preferred the Boeing “buckets” to the red/green VSI on the 320, but auto TCAS absolutely is a brilliant invention - I agree wholeheartedly on your comments about Airbus manuals.

The question for airlines, regulators and manufacturers should be; How did they create pilots who fly up when they should have flown down?

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by semmern

The question for airlines, regulators and manufacturers should be; How did they create pilots who fly up when they should have flown down?

By making them over-reliant on automation through SOPs like A/T on for approaches

[Speed_Trim_Fail]

Originally Posted by Check Airman

By making them over-reliant on automation through SOPs like A/T on for approaches

Is that the case though? I don’t deny that skill atrophies when it’s not used and that manual thrust/manual flight is a valuable skill, but the full research found that in fact airlines were the most compliant with RAs, whereas military/other operations and business were the worst, so there’s probably other stuff at play.

This is marked thread drift, but the full document is Here.

[Uplinker]

The question for airlines, regulators and manufacturers should be; How did they create pilots who fly up when they should have flown down?

Very alarming stats, and a very good question. Especially considering that we all practise TCAS RAs every SIM time, so we all know exactly what to do and how to react, without question.

I wonder if it is the same thing that causes drivers to ignore their car SatNavs which are telling them to turn away from their usual route - but actually the SatNav 'knows' that there is a traffic jam ahead on the normal route and is trying to help the driver.
i.e. pilot knows best - but they are not 'seeing' and tracking up to 16 other nearby aircraft in the airspace around, above and below them, whereas the TCAS is and does.

By making them over-reliant on automation through SOPs like A/T on for approaches

No, not if they are ignoring the automation. It is probably that those pilots have the wrong mindset and the wrong approach - "I'm not going to let some computer tell me how to fly.....What's it talking about, I can't see any conflict aircraft......Crunch......oh bugger it was behind and underneath me, where I couldn't see it......" Or it was dark and bad vis, ditto.

[tdracer]

All I know is that I'd wouldn't want to be sitting in the back on a stormy night and the A/T was INOP, and the pilot flying hadn't done a manual thrust landing in a year...

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by tdracer

All I know is that I'd wouldn't want to be sitting in the back on a stormy night and the A/T was INOP, and the pilot flying hadn't done a manual thrust landing in a year...

A few years ago, someone made fun of me (in good nature) for the amount of raw data flying I did on departure and arrival. I told him I was trying to keep my skills sharp.

Not terribly long after that, I watched him struggle significantly when the automation failed him. There was nothing to laugh about that second time.

[Ollie Onion]

Originally Posted by tdracer

All I know is that I'd wouldn't want to be sitting in the back on a stormy night and the A/T was INOP, and the pilot flying hadn't done a manual thrust landing in a year...

Thats a bit simplistic, I have seen some people who regularly practise hand flying balls up hand flying exercises in the sim and people who never practise blitz it. Hand flying practise does not automatically make for a better pilot and vice versa.

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by Ollie Onion

Thats a bit simplistic, I have seen some people who regularly practise hand flying balls up hand flying exercises in the sim and people who never practise blitz it. Hand flying practise does not automatically make for a better pilot and vice versa.

If you had to gamble, who'd you put your money on though?

If you were at the beach and needed to be rescued from the water, would you prefer the dermatologist who does his online CPR course every year or so, or the Emergency Medicine doc who may do CPR every week? Choose wisely; remember, just like tdracer, your life depends on it.

[Ollie Onion]

Depends, if the Dermatologist is a young enthusiastic professional versus the ER Doc who is a grumpy old Dr who is still in the ER as his skills can’t afford him any other role then maybe the Dermatologist. The point is, if a pilot is seriously saying they have to fly multiple manually flown approaches every week because if they don’t they won’t be able to do it ‘when it really matters’ then maybe they shouldn’t be on the flight deck. I said it before, the manual flying I do in the sim keeps me more than current to fly manual approaches (ATHR ON) on line, yes I still fly the odd one here and there but I don’t have too from a skill point of view. My Airline doesn’t allow Manual Thrust approaches, I don’t care, I know I still can do one if required. I worry that some out there might think that when not allowed by SOPs to practice manual thrust online the inevitable outcome would be a pilot who is incapable of flying one should it be required.

[vilas]

Originally Posted by Check Airman

A few years ago, someone made fun of me (in good nature) for the amount of raw data flying I did on departure and arrival. I told him I was trying to keep my skills sharp.

Not terribly long after that, I watched him struggle significantly when the automation failed him. There was nothing to laugh about that second time.

The issue is ATHR and flying without it is not much of an issue in airbus FBW which are flight path stable where pitch stays almost where it is irrespective what happens to thrust. In B737 which is speed stable and change in thrust or speed changes pitch(flight path) makes it more challenging . Also for this very reason in 737 it's mandatory to switch off ATHR if AP is off. Every manual landing in B737 is with ATHR off. So switching of ATHR is not an issue. It causes problem only if you loose the scan.