A320 - landing with manual thrust?
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere
A320 - landing with manual thrust?
Hey folks,
our company (legacy, Europe) is kinda forcing us into landings with the a/thrust on with the argument that almost all other airlines land 99% with the a/thrust on.
As per our OM-B, using the a/thrust is recommended during the entire approach until landing. Although there is a provision that the a/thrust must be disconnected if it doesn't work well (due to gusts etc.)
Our fleet management interprets it in a way that when it's recommended, it has to be followed and you basically have no other choice. Moreover, they also claim that usage of manual thrust also produces higher amount of hard landings and unstable approaches.
What's the a/thrust policy in your company on the A320?
our company (legacy, Europe) is kinda forcing us into landings with the a/thrust on with the argument that almost all other airlines land 99% with the a/thrust on.
As per our OM-B, using the a/thrust is recommended during the entire approach until landing. Although there is a provision that the a/thrust must be disconnected if it doesn't work well (due to gusts etc.)
Our fleet management interprets it in a way that when it's recommended, it has to be followed and you basically have no other choice. Moreover, they also claim that usage of manual thrust also produces higher amount of hard landings and unstable approaches.
What's the a/thrust policy in your company on the A320?
Popular Reply
4th September 2024, 23:17
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 937
Likes: 67
From: USA
Although there is a provision that the a/thrust must be disconnected if it doesn't work well (due to gusts etc.)
What kind of upside down backwards perversion of logic says that manual thrust is too dangerous in normal circumstances when you can choose the time and place for easy conditions, low stress, low workload etc., but at the same time expects you to do it off the cuff right when the conditions are most difficult and you have no practice at it?!
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 255
Likes: 3
From: Close to you
Hi there!
I can count on 1 hand how many times I landed with the thing ON.
I was on the 320 in "the" Scandinavian "legacy" carrier before the pandemic and we did not, and still don't enforce A/THR.
On the contrary, our fleet office encourages hand flying with or without A/THR.
Have one close friend in the German legacy carrier and they have a policy of "manual flight, manual throttles" on all their fleet, including ALL of the airbuses too
I can count on 1 hand how many times I landed with the thing ON.
I was on the 320 in "the" Scandinavian "legacy" carrier before the pandemic and we did not, and still don't enforce A/THR.
On the contrary, our fleet office encourages hand flying with or without A/THR.
Have one close friend in the German legacy carrier and they have a policy of "manual flight, manual throttles" on all their fleet, including ALL of the airbuses too
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 937
Likes: 67
From: USA
Although there is a provision that the a/thrust must be disconnected if it doesn't work well (due to gusts etc.)
What kind of upside down backwards perversion of logic says that manual thrust is too dangerous in normal circumstances when you can choose the time and place for easy conditions, low stress, low workload etc., but at the same time expects you to do it off the cuff right when the conditions are most difficult and you have no practice at it?!
Last edited by Vessbot; 5th September 2024 at 03:14.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 240
Likes: 8
From: B.F.E.
No restrictions. Encouraged to maintain proficiency in both ways and all levels of automation (or lack thereof). Flaps full landings personally prefer manual thrust, unless tired or flying an approach with a last-minute alignment maneuver. Flaps 3 tend to use A/THR a little more often, especially with crazy winds (almost NEVER use A/THR in wild winds with flaps full on the rare occasions that landing distance does not allow a flap 3 in such conditions). But that is personal preference, and others do different things, all (should say most) of which are fine.
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 63
Likes: 3
From: Here and there
At the Pink ULCC, it was not allowed to use manual thrust except in line training(left or right seat) whzn I was there. Many captains would refuse to fly a/thrst inop aircraft. And somehow PW1100 engine software were to slow to react during final so we would often use vpilot to adjust the speed margin for a/thrust.
I fly Leap engine now the difference is visibile even during cruise with soft cruise precision.
I fly Leap engine now the difference is visibile even during cruise with soft cruise precision.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
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.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,166
Likes: 86
From: Planet Earth
Never flown any kind of Airbus so I’m trying to educate myself, from what I’ve read even with auto thrust on it does not reduce thrust to idle before touchdown but cues the PF to do so whether it’s a manually flown approach or full Autoland?
Joined: Sep 2022
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 328
Likes: 183
From: Perpetually circling OCK for some reason
I’m quite happy with mandatory autothrust, it gives me a ready excuse every time
!Edit: this is the 320 family I’m talking about. No experience on other Airbus types, but I can talk about Boeings for ages as long suffering colleagues find out in the cruise/bar.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 602
From: Dark Side of the Moon
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.
Joined: Sep 2022
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 328
Likes: 183
From: Perpetually circling OCK for some reason
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.
Appropriate manual flying can be a lot of fun, that’s mostly why I do it and encourage others to do so. It does build confidence particularly in First Officers; on the 737 it sometimes felt as if people were afraid that they would disconnect the AP and the jet would be fighting them, rather than disconnecting and having a perfectly in trim jet that was a delight to fly. The bus is of course something else entirely.
That is purely my opinion of course, I manually fly mostly because I love flying.
Joined: Nov 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,150
Likes: 744
From: UK
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.
.
Last edited by Uplinker; 5th September 2024 at 09:52.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 154
From: Having a margarita on the beach
Hey folks,
our company (legacy, Europe) is kinda forcing us into landings with the a/thrust on with the argument that almost all other airlines land 99% with the a/thrust on.
As per our OM-B, using the a/thrust is recommended during the entire approach until landing. Although there is a provision that the a/thrust must be disconnected if it doesn't work well (due to gusts etc.)
Our fleet management interprets it in a way that when it's recommended, it has to be followed and you basically have no other choice. Moreover, they also claim that usage of manual thrust also produces higher amount of hard landings and unstable approaches.
What's the a/thrust policy in your company on the A320?
our company (legacy, Europe) is kinda forcing us into landings with the a/thrust on with the argument that almost all other airlines land 99% with the a/thrust on.
As per our OM-B, using the a/thrust is recommended during the entire approach until landing. Although there is a provision that the a/thrust must be disconnected if it doesn't work well (due to gusts etc.)
Our fleet management interprets it in a way that when it's recommended, it has to be followed and you basically have no other choice. Moreover, they also claim that usage of manual thrust also produces higher amount of hard landings and unstable approaches.
What's the a/thrust policy in your company on the A320?
Someone else could argue that it is appropriate to disconnect the ATHR if the approach procedures do not require its use for example. We can argue that decreasing the level of automation for the purpose of practicing will increase the workload, hence create additional threats, hence increase the risk level, hence exposing ourselves to more undesirable aircraft states.
We can also argue that not allowing pilots to regularly practice hand flying raw data when conditions permit will, over time, degrade the pilots' FPM skills, which in turn creates an additional threat, which in turn increases the risk level.
So who is right and who is wrong?
Well... everyone!
Operators must take actions to anticipate threats. They know that pilots fly 900 hours a year and wake up at 3 am for 5 days in a row. They know the effects of latent fatigue and associated risks. They know that on sector 4 of an 11 hours fdp day, when you are on short finals on a lovely weather day with no winds, you will be more likely to commit errors as you have lowered your guard and that's when Low energy warning will kick in because nobody noticed the speed decay in manual thrust.
On the other hand WE know (I have never been in flight ops management, but over 20 years in training management and that's a biiiig difference
) how quickly we loose our handling skills with lack of practice, be it with 200 or 20000 hours.Over the last, say, 10-15 years the industry has noticed that pilots are generally much more proficient when coping with complex events that require a high degree of analysis and of problem solving and decision making with all automation working (thanks CRM!). But on the other hand pilots are less proficient and more "stressed out" by simple events that require full use of "stick and rudder", mainly due to lack of practice.
In the end we have to consider statistics: what are the chances of ending up flying an approach raw data ATHR OFF nowadays with the equipment we fly on? Slim.
How could we make everyone happy? Simple answer: give every pilot a free-non jeopardy 2 hours "handling" SIM session every month to practice and let the line operations be flown with high automation.
Who is paying for those SIMs? Are they required by the Authorities? Ok we understood each others...
Joined: Sep 2022
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 328
Likes: 183
From: Perpetually circling OCK for some reason
It is a very interesting discussion, as there are several valid reasons to go one way or the other for the Operators involved. Airbus Golden Rule Number 2 states: "Use the appropriate level of automation at all times". One could argue that a fully serviceable ATHR doing its job satisfactorily should therefore be kept ON.
Someone else could argue that it is appropriate to disconnect the ATHR if the approach procedures do not require its use for example. We can argue that decreasing the level of automation for the purpose of practicing will increase the workload, hence create additional threats, hence increase the risk level, hence exposing ourselves to more undesirable aircraft states.
We can also argue that not allowing pilots to regularly practice hand flying raw data when conditions permit will, over time, degrade the pilots' FPM skills, which in turn creates an additional threat, which in turn increases the risk level.
So who is right and who is wrong?
Well... everyone!
Operators must take actions to anticipate threats. They know that pilots fly 900 hours a year and wake up at 3 am for 5 days in a row. They know the effects of latent fatigue and associated risks. They know that on sector 4 of an 11 hours fdp day, when you are on short finals on a lovely weather day with no winds, you will be more likely to commit errors as you have lowered your guard and that's when Low energy warning will kick in because nobody noticed the speed decay in manual thrust.
On the other hand WE know (I have never been in flight ops management, but over 20 years in training management and that's a biiiig difference) how quickly we loose our handling skills with lack of practice, be it with 200 or 20000 hours.
Over the last, say, 10-15 years the industry has noticed that pilots are generally much more proficient when coping with complex events that require a high degree of analysis and of problem solving and decision making with all automation working (thanks CRM!). But on the other hand pilots are less proficient and more "stressed out" by simple events that require full use of "stick and rudder", mainly due to lack of practice.
In the end we have to consider statistics: what are the chances of ending up flying an approach raw data ATHR OFF nowadays with the equipment we fly on? Slim.
How could we make everyone happy? Simple answer: give every pilot a free-non jeopardy 2 hours "handling" SIM session every month to practice and let the line operations be flown with high automation.
Who is paying for those SIMs? Are they required by the Authorities? Ok we understood each others...
Someone else could argue that it is appropriate to disconnect the ATHR if the approach procedures do not require its use for example. We can argue that decreasing the level of automation for the purpose of practicing will increase the workload, hence create additional threats, hence increase the risk level, hence exposing ourselves to more undesirable aircraft states.
We can also argue that not allowing pilots to regularly practice hand flying raw data when conditions permit will, over time, degrade the pilots' FPM skills, which in turn creates an additional threat, which in turn increases the risk level.
So who is right and who is wrong?
Well... everyone!
Operators must take actions to anticipate threats. They know that pilots fly 900 hours a year and wake up at 3 am for 5 days in a row. They know the effects of latent fatigue and associated risks. They know that on sector 4 of an 11 hours fdp day, when you are on short finals on a lovely weather day with no winds, you will be more likely to commit errors as you have lowered your guard and that's when Low energy warning will kick in because nobody noticed the speed decay in manual thrust.
On the other hand WE know (I have never been in flight ops management, but over 20 years in training management and that's a biiiig difference
) how quickly we loose our handling skills with lack of practice, be it with 200 or 20000 hours.Over the last, say, 10-15 years the industry has noticed that pilots are generally much more proficient when coping with complex events that require a high degree of analysis and of problem solving and decision making with all automation working (thanks CRM!). But on the other hand pilots are less proficient and more "stressed out" by simple events that require full use of "stick and rudder", mainly due to lack of practice.
In the end we have to consider statistics: what are the chances of ending up flying an approach raw data ATHR OFF nowadays with the equipment we fly on? Slim.
How could we make everyone happy? Simple answer: give every pilot a free-non jeopardy 2 hours "handling" SIM session every month to practice and let the line operations be flown with high automation.
Who is paying for those SIMs? Are they required by the Authorities? Ok we understood each others...
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 154
From: Having a margarita on the beach
If I ever get a position of serious authority I will make sure to take You onboard! 
Joined: Nov 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,150
Likes: 744
From: UK
I have often suggested that in the same way that we had to do three auto-lands in any 6 month period to keep our currency up, and keep a record of that; we should be required by pilot training management do three fully manual raw data ILS approaches. On reasonable weather days and 'reasonable airspace' days, of course.
If we were actually mandated to do three manually flown, manual thrust raw data ILS approaches - with no FDs either - in every 6 month period; it just might coax all of us out of our safety blankets, and keep our manual skills from rusting too far, (me included !).
If we were actually mandated to do three manually flown, manual thrust raw data ILS approaches - with no FDs either - in every 6 month period; it just might coax all of us out of our safety blankets, and keep our manual skills from rusting too far, (me included !).
Joined: Sep 2022
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 328
Likes: 183
From: Perpetually circling OCK for some reason
I have often suggested that in the same way that we had to do three auto-lands in any 6 month period to keep our currency up, and keep a record of that; we should be required by pilot training management do three fully manual raw data ILS approaches. On reasonable weather days and 'reasonable airspace' days, of course.
If we were actually mandated to do three manually flown, manual thrust raw data ILS approaches - with no FDs either - in every 6 month period; it just might coax all of us out of our safety blankets, and keep our manual skills from rusting too far, (me included !).
If we were actually mandated to do three manually flown, manual thrust raw data ILS approaches - with no FDs either - in every 6 month period; it just might coax all of us out of our safety blankets, and keep our manual skills from rusting too far, (me included !).
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.