<All pilots should include the EPR/N1/whatever you like to use in their scan> absolutely correct.

However, one thing we were trying to establish was the influence of non-instrument information cues in overall situational awareness. The survey we did got responses from 70% of the pilots on the fleet at the time - about 100 in all. One thing that came out was that some pilots make very little to no use of non-instrument information, but most use SOME peripheral cues. Thrust lever angle featured high on the list of cues for power demanded, and engine noise for power delivered. We concluded that neither existing concept as currently implemented was an ideal solution that would satisfy 100% of pilots 100% of the time. Some pilots will be very satisfied and others somewhat dissatisfied with either system. It's simple human factors - everyone comes with a different set of learned cues from experience so reacts slightly differently to new circumstances.

If there is any demand for it I can make this paper available but, it isn't going to result in any changes to system designs!

Hi Slast,

Please may I have a copy of your paper.

I have a similar exposure to autothrust as TyroPicard - but even after 6 years on Airbus, I still miss the tactile feedback of moving thrust levers.

It would be interesting to see if there was any difference to crew recognition time and subsequent control, when managed speed is selected before the Approach phase has been activated.

and I fly moving AT levers now and still stand under the impression that it's useless: Those mechanical gimmicks move, but they are never accurate enough, thrust lever movement is not always symmetrical, and it doesn't always correspond to the indication of the engine display.

I admit, I grew up with Airbus (after years of turboprops without anything). I don't need tactile feedback since I know that Airbusses always take that speed you program it. And because their TL are so simple to set, I'm sure that they give me the thrust I really need.

Dani

Not sure what you mean by backdriving. On a Boeing, the A/T computer commands thrust lever movement and EEC/engines respond to that movement.
The pilot can intervene with or without A/T disconnection. i.e. a simple chain of command with the pilot always in the chain.

I'm sure if Boeing put their minds to it, the thrust levers/clutchpack could be made as small as Airbus thrust levers (so no weight disadvantage). The servomotor is not what you would call heavy.

Rgds.
NSEU

P.S. Sorry for the thread drift.

Yes Tpicard,


This 'closed minded' Boeing and Douglas Pilot has an opinion different to yours.



If you had read my comments a little more carefully you would have realised my statements were not an attempt to criticise Airbus but an attempt to elicit professional opinions from those with experience of such.

request for document
 

rudderrudderrat
OK... how do I send it to you? Does this forum support file uploads or do you want to send me an email address?