Mooney_Driver wrote:
On the Airbusses, throttles are left in CLB position for all of the flight
I guess this is only when using the autopilot in autothrottle mode?
lionel wrote:
I guess this is only when using the autopilot in autothrottle mode?
Well yes, AT has to be activated on the MCP, which is standard, even if you don’t want to use AT. To activate the actual AT mode, you place the throttles in the CLB detent. everything else is controlled via either the MCP or via the MCDU, where i.e. approach mode will trigger a different speed regime.
If you want to fly manual throttle, you simply move them out of the CLB detent backwards, AT will disangage but re-engage without any further ado once you move the throttles back into CLB.
The important difference to i.e. Boeing or MDC is that the throttles will not move in AT mode.
99% of the time the throttles on any Airbus 320/330/340 e.t.c. will therefore be in the CLB detent from the initial time CLB power is needed until they get pulled back to idle at the “Retard” command over the runway at landing.
From what I read here, this is something similar Daher has come up with for the TB. No wonder of course, both are of French design.
Sebastian_G wrote:
Maybe but FADEC (or whatever they call it) is actually a great thing for the PT6 engine (if it is reliable, but I assume there will be a manual override). It is very easy to overtorque those engines which depending on aircraft type can result in incredible financial damage. Also setting the power in a go around or take of roll is difficult taking away attention from looking outside. So pushing the power just all the way forward like in a piston is great. On my last SEP checkride the inspector complained a bit I advanced the power with so much caution and he did not know why I had this habit to not slam it forward ;-)
Actually Fadec is a good thing because it manages the engine much better than human’s hand, prevent bad usage and get the most of engine during climb. this is a good thing. Auto throttle manages speed which is the task of the pilot, and the more we use it, the less we are able to know our speed at all time. AT prevent the pilot to know the speed, it sub-contracts the work package to a computer.
greg_mp wrote:
Auto throttle manages speed which is the task of the pilot, and the more we use it, the less we are able to know our speed at all time. AT prevent the pilot to know the speed, it sub-contracts the work package to a computer.
I do not disagree, but I would think that AT has its uses. Our jet doesn’t have AT, and I like it because it gives us something to do and we stay more in the loop of what’s going on. However, my colleagues on the long range jets tell me after a 15h flight you need all the help you can get for the approach….
Of course this does not apply to the TBM. I haven’t flown one, but would think of AT on it as a bit of an overkill.
Alex wrote:
I would think that AT has its uses. Our jet doesn’t have AT, and I like it because it gives us something to do and we stay more in the loop of what’s going on. However, my colleagues on the long range jets tell me after a 15h flight you need all the help you can get for the approach….
Absolutely. I’ve been involved in operations with airplanes which did not have AT (SE210/TU154M) (the latter had but it was not usable other for approach) and on both syncing and power setting was teidious if fun work which still got old fast. On the TU, which is a very slippery airframe, you could easily burn a ton going up to Mach .85 before reducing to normal cruise of about .82. Each time you did that, it was the job to synchrophase the engines thereafter, which is easy with 2 but quite a job with 3. Don’t do that and the aft cabin was a torture chamber.
The Airbus is almost ridicculously easy to fly as long as it’s in normal law and everything works thanks to the automatisation and the managed speed mode. In managed speed, the speed management is done via the MCDU and has pre-set speed sets which automatically get adjusted to the airplane weight (provided you’ve put it in correctly before the flight). Hence, in approach, all you need to do is activate the approach mode and it sets the speeds automatically according to flap setting. This is quite lovely, particularly when flying pitch and bank by hand i.e. in a circling or other fun stuff.
AT doesn’t necessarily mean managed speed in all cases though, AT in older Boeings or Douglas planes means you set the speed and the throttles move to catch what you put in the MCP window. Thankfully, most of them have synchronized engines in AT mode.None of this means you can’t take back control and fly the airplane fully manually. In the Airbus this is very easy, just move the throttles out of CLB and there you are.
I can well imagine the pro’s of a TB with full FADEC and AT, particularly for Single Pilot Ops.
Obviously I don’t have a TBM, and apart from this have only flown them briefly, but I have known lots of owners, and was hangared in a TBM maintenance shop for about 10 years.
One thing which a number complained about was when the G1000 version came out (fairly soon after the TBM850 came out, but early 850s were EFIS-40) they ended up with some expensive servicing, because the G1000 was recording various exceedances on the engine, which were previously unrecorded 
So a “FADEC” of some sort is a good thing. Practically everybody who buys these is using a pricey company to maintain it and they will not let anything get past them. There is no Part 91 stuff in this market because everybody wants to protect the resale value 
Peter wrote:
the G1000 was recording various exceedances on the engine, which were previously unrecorded
That is one more trend which was (and is) intended to help discover engine trends and other stuff. On the other hand, it also works right in the hand of TSB’s and attorneys who will use any and all data against you in case something goes wrong.
Flight data monitoring on airlines is one bit which has improved safety but taken the “fun” out of flying airliners to a large extent and also makes the use of autoflight practically a must from take off to landing.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Flight data monitoring on airlines is one bit which has improved safety but taken the “fun” out of flying airliners to a large extent and also makes the use of autoflight practically a must from take off to landing.
Ah… Good old days flying the JS32. Where a visual approach was always something else, especially on those ferry flights out of maintenance base
greg_mp wrote:
[about the H-layout single lever engine control] I found it clever, but apparently too much. So they will replace it with a button?
Do I understand correctly that they replaced the three classic levers for the PT6 – throttle, prop, and fuel condition – with one? So when starting the engine you move the lever forward to low idle at the right moment, clench your butt and wait for the engine to spool up and stabilise, and then before taxiing you move the lever up and left to increase idle and unfeather the prop?
