Vilas,I agree with you that one has to use the level of automation intelligently. One example: Let's say the atis announces a 5 knts wind, SCT at 200 ft, OVc at 400 ft and visibility 1500 m. In that case I will be glad to keep all the stuff on and simply disconnect the A/P when visual at the minima.

But when the atis announces Bkn 1000', wind 30° off rwy axis at 35 kts, gusts to 45 knots and visibility 5000 m, you can be sure I'll be using manual thrust for landing (+A/P off, F/D on)! The reason for that is not because I think it's cool and fun to do so, but because I'm convinced I handle the thrust settings better and more intelligently then the computer in such conditions. (I will be using managed Vapp though) And that is not because I think I'm better or have a larger ego then the average captain. All the pilots in my company, except perhaps for a few rookie F/O's, will agree with me and do the same. The reason that we think that we can do better then the a/thr system is because of the fact that we are lucky enough to fly for a company that still allows us (and a training department that encourages us) to fly raw data manually when the conditions permit you to.

So, in reply to your quote, I'm saying that I will be using manual thrust in stormy conditions because the environment might be pushing the a/thr system to it's limits and I have been able to practise at other times to get better than the a/thr which basically is nothing more then a computerized speedchaser. In benign conditions this computer-speedchaser does a great job, but, in certain conditions, he looses to any pilot with adequate training.

That's standard airbus as shown in the note in the QRH's "Vapp determination without failure"
edit: added reply to previous post

sabenaboy
You are there to take informed decisions. I think junebug172 has done a good job by putting up Flight Operations Briefing Notes. Very usefull info can be found in it on various aspects including energy management on approach unless you were already aware of it.