flaps 3 landing A320 to save fuel

[flying the edge]

Hi , I'd just like to know if there are companies that use flaps 3 landings as a fuel policy and if so , did they have substantial savings in doing so . Thanks

[airbus_driver319]

Yes many companies use flap 3, it's the normal landing flap setting at easyJet and they claim significant savings across the fleet from it.

[HPbleed]

Difference of between 5kg (empty A319) to 15kg (heavy A321), which adds up over a fleet of 250 aircraft.

Offset by 2 minutes taxiing, so if you can make an closer exit nearer the terminal then better to do flap full and then SE Taxi in.

[airbus_driver319]

Flap 3 is also good for the community - as was in this months or lasts newsletter for LGW based EZY pilots.... Along with the associated graphs :)

[Citation2]

Can anyone explain me how fuel saving is achieved with such a low number ?
5 kg of fuel is below the FQI system accuracy

If you were to land with 3000 kg of fuel with flaps full, with a flap 3 landing , you would land with 3005 kg.
Now let's say that the next flight requires 6000 kg of fuel. The uplift should be 6000-3005 =2995 kg

And finally after refuelling you end up with 6080 kg . Total uplift was 3075 kg so 80 kg more than expected uplift . After refuelling you never get the exact figure requested.

So where was the fuel saving in this example?

[de facto]

Duuuuuude:eek:

[Max Angle]

The down side is that it puts you very close to tail strike attitude in a 320 (not a problem in 319 or 321) which is enough to put most people off doing it at my place.

[flying the edge]

Many thanks for the feedback....

[Capn Bloggs]

So where was the fuel saving in this example?
Back to the Citation for you, sonny Jim! :) ;)

[The African Dude]

Hey Citation2,

As you point out, some things are constant variables - in this case - you (almost) always get a few drops more than expected.

Assuming that is (almost) always the case regardless of whether you do a flap full or flap 3 landing, then a flap 3 landing still saves 5kg-15kg (or whatever) of fuel compared to a config full.

To answer your question, assuming the fueller sets 6.0 in the fuel panel and you end up with 6080kg irrespective of your starting fuel, the fuel saving is where the refueller only uplifts 3075kg instead of 3080kg.

[vilas]

Citation 2 and Max Angle
All the calculation you did happens even in flaps full. You may not be able to uplift 5kgs less but even 3 kgs is saved out of the 5kgs multiplied by 100s of sectors over one year amounts to something. About the pitch attitude is to remember that it is already in landing attitude all you need is controlled thrust reduction without much flare. Airlines wanting this should gradually introduce it in SIM checks.

[student88]

it's the normal landing flap setting at easyJet

Ha ha ha ha!

[airbus_driver319]

It should be student88 anyway... I think you are an easy driver... Check your VistAir - a new manual was issued today covering this very subject.

If every A319 in easyJet did a flap 3 v flap full landing it would result in a saving of £3.0m, for the A320 its £550k

The biggest saving that we as crew can make, is not carrying fuel above OFP when there is no justification for doing so, I understand that we will soon be having an update to our OFP's showing the percentage of flights that operated on that sector without burning more than OFP fuel. (98-99% of flights)

But yeah, unless unable for operational reasons you should be doing a F3 landing, and it is the normal landing configuration to be used.

[Stone Cold II]

It says in the manual in big bold writing that flap 3 or flap full will be used normally for landing, along with requirements for flap 3 like extra care to be stable. I've seen maybe 3 people in 12 months do a flap 3.

I don't think many really care about flap 3.

[airbus_driver319]

SC, like I say if you read the new manual as published today.. AGAIN it goes on to stress we should all be doing flap 3 landings unless there is an operational reason why we can't.

Just below the statement you quote in our OM-B it says:

FLAP 3 OR FLAP FULL ARE THE NORMAL LANDING CONFIGURATIONS.

Flap 3 should be used for normal landings provided:

From today's publication:

Flap 3 Landing
The SOPs recommends the use of Flap 3 for landings for fuel savings as well as in the case of turbulence or wind shear. Flap 3 landings are slightly ‘different’ than Flaps Full landings.
Some factors that do require operational considerations are:
• Care must be exercised to achieve a stable approach
• No technical defects affecting landing performance note that some abnormal
conditions may require Flap 3 for landing
• No contamination
• Significant tailwind expected on landing
• The IFLD computed from the LPC or QRH In Flight Landing Distance +15% is less than the available landing distance
Consideration should be given to the increased taxi time that may result from a Flap 3 landing and the associated increase fuel burn. A319 burns 16 Kg more for a Flap Full landing/A320 burns 9Kg more for a flap full landing. In rough numbers, the breakeven point is 900m for A320 and 1700m for A319. This can be applied to any airport when Flap 3 will result in different exit point and longer taxi routing.

[sarah737]

ad319, you make me laugh. Your saving is probably correct at LGW where you are instructed to slow down to 160 at 10nm and maintain it to 4. But there is life outside Gatwick...
I am based at RAK and each time 28 (25km vis and clear sky) is in use, almost all the orange guys fly a full IFR procedure, followed by a circle to land with gear down and F3 instead of a, straight forward, visual approach. Did you save 9kg or did you just waste 491 kg?
When I flew the airbus I saw people configuring ealier on a F3 landing, reducing the benefit to almost zero. You only save the fuel if you accept that your approach will be stable 100-200ft lower than on a F full landing.

[The African Dude]

Of course we configure earlier. Configuring for a Flap 3 takes longer, as you know, because the lower final flap drag means an increase in the time taken to reduce to Vapp... hence the earlier configuration. This all happens at idle thrust.

Assuming you start to configure at a point from a Thrust Idle G/S descent (Conf 1) which enables you to become stable at 1000ft as with Flap Full, the timing of that point will make no difference to fuel consumption. What makes the difference is flying the remainder of the approach below 1000ft at 45% N1 instead of 55%.

Just saying...

[airbus_driver319]

Sarah, you may laugh at the savings on a per flight basis - however in an airline the size of ours it results in a saving of over £3m a year. I don't think that is a figured to be scoffed at.

A snippet from our May newsletter, affirming the position re flap 3 landings.

"In recent issues of the newsletter we have highlighted the Ops Manual B requirements of using Flap 3 as standard for landings (as seen to the left).

It has come to light that some crew are under the impression that there has been a change in stance or SOP regarding the use of Flap 3 – due to a perceived requirement to slow down earlier to achieve a stable approach. This is not the case, and the current SOP to use Flap 3 for normal landings is still active."

[737Jock]

Eh which new manual?

[C_Star]

Last time I used F3 for fuel saving, we got a "low energy warning", which ended up in a go-around, burning up additional ~400kg... Ooops, there go my savings... :ugh:

P.S. Question for the EZY guys - do you ever use F3 at LTN?

[EcamSurprise]

Don't see much F3 at my base, but then we're mainly flying 320s and are all scardy-cats ;)

[airbus_driver319]

Which base ES? I notice there is a major difference in F3 usage between bases.

[EcamSurprise]

That would give away my dirty secrets.

But in seriousness, it's a nearly all 320 base and we fly to places with inevitable tail winds, so the tail strike risk is perceived as higher and so people don't usually take up the opportunity.

[OPEN DES]

The quoted figures are a statistical saving. The breakeven distances are nonsense and do not take into account the cost of time, only the cost of fuel. Nor do they take into account the cost of exiting the runway at 90deg vs RET (lower speed and NW wear). So they are a very rough guide. Just apply some common-sense!
Speaking about common sense.
Some people will spend more than a minute thinking about their landing flaps but in the meantime will funnily enough:
-fly a CDA with F2 VS-300 and thrust up
-use speedbrakes inefficiently or ask for/fly more trackmiles than necessary
-slow down/configure too early
-follow the managed descent profile religiously despite winds and or speed-profile being incorrect
-decline a visual approach
It surprises me to see the amount of people that are declining visual approaches whilst this is where the real fuelsavings can be made, and they are more fun to do as well. Have to agree with sarah737 here.
I understand that F3 landings save fuel vs Full landings when carefully considered but the saving is insignificant when compared to some of the stuff I´ve described.

[Stuck_in_an_ATR]

I remember seeing a presentation by Airbus on savings by using Idle Rev and F3.

The conclusion was that it made sense to use F3 only in conjunction with LO BRK/IDLE REV. Anything more than that and F3 fuel savings will be offset by REV fuel consumption and/or increased brake wear. Surprisingly, the presentation stated that using FULL REV didn't affect engine wear - only used some extra fuel (~20kg IIRC)

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi EcamSurprise,
Some of our A320s have the new logic which will "protect" the aircraft, and forces the nose down when on the ground and a pitch pitch has been receivedI've never heard of that one.
What's the FCOM reference?

[airbus_driver319]

Ecam, further to our PM.

I just looked at the books for WI and WO - there is no mention of this "feature" just that it will generate the callout.

[MCDU2]

Heard a rumour that you orange guys and gals are doing 250kt descents? If so are you being vectored for extra track miles to allow faster (most) traffic to overtake and thereby negating any fuel savings from your F3 landings or do you just chug along in front of the pack and everyone else has to fall in line with the slower speeds (if true)?

[Stone Cold II]

Nope it hasn't changed for a few years. 270 in the decent or greater if required by ATC. Cost index 5 creeping in on a few routes and many times I'm being asked to speed up from .71 to .78 burning more fuel than calculated.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Stuck_in_an_ATR,
I remember seeing a presentation by Airbus on savings by using Idle Rev and F3.
This link http://www.cockpitseeker.com/wp-content/uploads/A320/pdf/data/GTGA320PerfoRetentionIssue2.pdf
Page 27 shows a fuel saving of 8 kgs for a F3 Landing plus 15kgs for Rev idle.

We'll never manage to do a 100% efficient flight every time, but all the simple bits add up.

[Fursty Ferret]

Last time I used F3 for fuel saving, we got a "low energy warning", which ended up in a go-around, burning up additional ~400kg... Ooops, there go my savings...

Not sure you can blame flap 3 for your own ropey flying.

[Stuck_in_an_ATR]

My ropey flying had nothing to do with it (this time, at least! :}). However, speed control by Autothrust was poorer than expected under conditions prevailing (slightly thermal/gusty, but nothing exceptional) and I attribute it partially to F3 (slower engine response at lower thrust setting).

The bottom line is - we went around, burning 50x more fuel than we expected to save...

I am not saying that F3 should never be used (in fact, my operator has just mandated them as standard/preferred setting). I am just not sure whether actual fuel savings will look as good as they do on paper...

[Fursty Ferret]

My apologies - I'd been labouring under the impression that the low energy warning was inhibited with the autothrust engaged. :O

[gaunty]

So nobody has learnt the lessons of QF01 and how to park a B744 on the green of the first hole at the Bangkok Golf Club then.

[safetypee]

gaunty :ok: apparently not.

Any data available on flap use in A31x/32x overrun accidents? Not seeking the bad apple aspects to blame the human, but organisational aspects of accidents which have origins similar to those being debated in this thread.

“People are expected to be both efficient and thorough at the same time – or rather to be thorough, when with hindsight it was wrong to be efficient”.

Why Things That Go Right, Sometimes Go Wrong. (www.abdn.ac.uk/~wmm069/uploads/files/Aberdeen_ETTO.pdf)

The ETTO Principle. (www.hfes-europe.org/books/proceedings2012/Hollnagel.pdf)

[vilas]

Stuck in an ATR
I am really flabergasted that so much doubt, apprehension and emotion is created about landing in flap3. You seem to suggest that gusty and turbulent conditions on approach is not a good idea to do flap3 landing. It may not have occurred to you that not only Airbus but all manufactures reccommend one less than full flap landing in these very conditions including windshear. All abnormal landings are in flap3.Manufacturers test pilots surely know a thing or two about this.Flap3 landing is easier than full flap landing if proper technique is used. The aircraft is already almost in landing attitude a minimal of flare and you get a greaser. If conditions are bad for 3 then I can assure you they will be worse for full flap.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

It may not have occurred to you that not only Airbus but all manufactures reccommend one less than full flap landing in these very conditions including windshear.

Except Bombardier for one ;)

[Checkboard]

P.S. Question for the EZY guys - do you ever use F3 at LTN?
I do. Almost every landing.

[Stuck_in_an_ATR]

Thx... How does it affect brake temps and ability to vacate A, or B on the 320? I've always thought distance to vacate is a bit short-ish for F3...

[CptSilva]

Thx... How does it affect brake temps and ability to vacate A, or B on the 320? I've always thought distance to vacate is a bit short-ish for F3...

The difference between F3 or FULL on the landing distance isn't much, depending on the weight is roughly 150-200 meters, yes it can make the difference on short runways, but regarding to distance you should consider mainly the difference between AUTO BRAKE LOW or MED.

[Dan Winterland]

''Brake Fans usually end up on for the 320s anyway as we have a SOP that they must be on whenever there is an arc on the temps.''

Well, the cost of doing that will absorb the 5kg of fuel savings immediately! Or is it necessary to achieve fast turnarounds?

[WhyByFlier]

Actually the SOP EcamSurprise is mentioning is an SOP for TAXING OUT to prevent hot brakes in the air. It is crew discretion taxiing in:

When turnaround times are short, or brake temperatures are likely to exceed 300 C, use brake fans, disregarding possible oxidation phenomenon.

Disclaimer: I am an easy Swiss pilot so we may be on a different OMB revision.

[737Jock]

Dan winterland, EZY don't pay for individual brakes. As such we don't care about brake wear. Until the maintenance contract gets reviewed that is. So althoigh there is a cost, easyJet don't pay for it. At least it doesn't show in the spreadsheets:ok:

[casper63]

Stuck in ATR has made a reference to Airbus presentation on overall cost savings if Flaps 3/Rev Idle is used. The jist of the presentation is - use Flaps 3 and Rev Idle ONLY if you are able to vacate at the suitable or designated exit (with shortest taxi to your bay) with the use of AUTOBRAKES LOW. If you have to use Med or harsher manual braking the break wear offsets the fuel savings of 7 kgs(for 320). All the saving figures quoted earlier are all paper calculations, assuming that they save 6 to 8 kgs per landing with Flaps 3. What they have not calculated is the additional payment the airline has to make for brake wear. In last one year of operations with Flaps 3 in our airline, the management guys in Flt Ops have showed a saving of 2 million US$ due to use of Flaps 3 and in the same period the Engg Dept has shown an additional payment of 6 million US$ due to excessive brake wear. Moreover, the guys calculating the fuel saving do not cater for additional taxi time due to "next exit" vacation. At 11kgs/min any additional taxi would result in net loss to the company.
Lastly the FDM data for 320 fleet has indicated that the number of hard/firm landings have increased with use of Flaps 3 and the number of cases of high pitch at touchdown (>9deg) have also shot up. Vilas you may be a gifted pilot but for an average line pilot the landing 'g' has shown an increasing trend with Flaps 3.

[vinayak]

http://pilotpitstop.com/docs/External%20Links/pprune/conf%203%20fuel%20savings.png

[vinayak]

You guys should pick up the FCOM rather than giving distorted opinions.

The brake fans are NOT to be used whenever the arc comes... Where do you guys come up with this rubbish?! :hmm:

[Capn Bloggs]

The aircraft is already almost in landing attitude a minimal of flare and you get a greaser.
In the context of Casper's post above, I did scratch my head over this one. I'm not a Bus driver, but I assume Flap 3 will give a higher descent rate due being faster. So unless ground effect is much greater, one would need to flare more to alight in a nice manner. The "almost landing attitude" must be a furphy for Flap 3. One still has to flare.

I liked the crack by Airbus at pilot costs for extra taxi time. On my jalopy, one minute extra taxi uses far more fuel, cost-wise, than the drivers get paid!

[The African Dude]

It's nothing to do with the FCOM, but a reaction by the company to some issues of hot brakes warnings in flight which required re-lowering of landing gear. Hence, the company standard SOP is a more restrictive 'Use on taxi-out when an arc appears'.

[Cough]

Cap'n blogs..

The flap 3 approach is at a higher speed, so the elevator is more effective-hence we feel like we flare less in order to achieve the landing attitude. In addition to this, as the power is chopped prior to flare you loose less speed during the flare hence the wing works a little better...

Fans...

Our FCOM PRO after landing procedure states that fans aren't to be used unless temp is going north of 500C or turnaround is short.. Taxy out is as above whenever the arcs are shown.

[airbus_driver319]

"Vinayak" "You guys should pick up the FCOM rather than giving distorted opinions.

The brake fans are NOT to be used whenever the arc comes... Where do you guys come up with this rubbish?! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif"

You mean we should read our manuals which state the following:

During taxi out, if an arc indication appears above the brake temperature on the ECAM WHEEL page set the brake fans on.

The maximum certified brake temperature prior totake-off is 300°C. In
circumstances when brake temperatures approach this limitation, the
recommended procedure is to use brake fans to reduce the temperature to 150°C.

[Cough]

Airbus driver ... I think he is coming from the angle of during taxy in...

Hence you don't put them on whenever you see the arc!

[airbus_driver319]

I wasn't sure if he was talking about on the way in or out!

Here is the SOP for the way in:

Check brake temperature on the ECAM WHEEL page for discrepancies and high temperature.
Brake fans should be used to manage brake temperatures, ideally brake fan
selection should be delayed for around 5 minutes (to allow thermal stablisation) or done just before stopping on the gate (to prevent blowing carbon brake dust on ground personnel), whichever occurs first.
When turnaround times are short, or brake temperatures are likely to exceed
300°C, use the brake fans, disregarding possible oxidation phenomenon. Refer to FCOM PRO-SUP-32 for the brake temperature limitations requiring maintenance actions.

[Citation2]

Does the break even point include the taxi routing or just the additional required runway when landing flaps 3?

[airbus_driver319]

easyJet have conducted studies at certain airports (LGW) to calculate the specific breakeven point for F3 v FF and the associated taxi routing to stand.

[vilas]

Capn bloggs and Casper 63
What I suggested is valid for all aircrafts. I have landed A300,310, 320 and 747 with the same technique and with the same results.Flap full has all drag hardly any lift so if you flare same amount with flap3 you tend balloon, actually that is the only way to mess it up, the other problem is with those who habitually flare high then the attitude will become higher at touch down.otherwise it easier, gives better control and has better go around performance. It is for these reasons reccommended in gusty wind conditions. I am really surprised at the apprehension that is being expressed.

[Capn Bloggs]

Vilas, fair enough, but unless one is regularly doing a good mix of both full flap and partial flap landings, one will probably end up with the results that Casper has pointed out unless of course they have stick and rudder skills like you and I. :}

[casper63]

Vilas, I fully agree with you that after logging more than 20,000 hours on 300, 310, 747 and 320, landing 320 with Flaps 3 is a piece of cake. However, nowadays pilots get to land an Airbus 320 with a total time of 300 hrs with 200 hrs on Cessna 152. That is the reason why even Airbus document also state in RED INK that to maximize safety margin Full flaps landing is preferred.

[vilas]

casper63
With all the automation, doing consistantly smooth landings within correct distance is the only seat of the pants skill left. However executing safe landings should not be a problem. If a pilot cannot do acceptable landing in flap3 he will not be doing good landings in flap full either. I suggested before pilots can be explained the technique and introduced to flap3 in the SIM. Pilot who is apprehensive of normal flap3 landing what will be his mental state landing in direct law with failures and conf3? to get acceptable landing all you have to do is flare and close the thrust. From ROD of 750ft/mt to appx.350ft a mt. which is even acceptable overweight landing. Full is preferred only from landing distance point.

[vinayak]

I got you to open your FCOMs, didn't I? :}


http://pilotpitstop.com/docs/External%20Links/pprune/Brakes%20Use.ppt

Here's another useful something...

[casper63]

Vilas, I wish landing was that easy for a 300 hours wizkids, seat of pants flying comes with practice and experience, which unfortunately these youngsters don't posses, they just do mechanical landings and unfortunately even the latest sims don't give the actual feel. It is well known in training circles that you can't teach "seat of pants" landings in sims or by briefing. If you land with a ROD of 350 ft/min your company would lose customers very fast. In today's proactive world, if one touches down even with 1.5 g, some passenger it going to report it to the regulator as a hard landing. As far as landing in abnormal conditions is concerned, one flaps 3 landing with 1.6 g in your entire career is acceptable. To save notional 8 kgs, why increase the risk factor every day, especially when you are doing six landings a day and not six landings a month as one used to in 300, 310 and 747s. Now we are dealing with the digital generation used to automation with minimal handling skills due to lack of practice/experience, our days of cowboy flying are over. Are you by any chance RETIRED and working as a SFI?
The reason I am asking you is because the technique you have suggested works very well in sims but not on the aircraft.

[vilas]

casper63
The technique I suggested are the ones I used in actual aircraft and i have always done good landings. i had notes of appreciation left for me by passengers during my 747 days and in A320 once passenger insisted on meeting before he got off. yes now i am an SFI in A320 for last 3 years. I am in agreement with what you say about the level of experience of new pilots. many times I am left pulling my hair to teach them acceptable landings. The inexperienced FO can be left alone to do what he does best. But surely person in the left hand seat should have no problem.

[Cough]

Vinayak...Thanks for the ppt link...Ties in with the SOP's as I understand them.

Airbusdriver319...Thats exactly the paragraph that I have in my FCOM EXCEPT 300C is replaced by 500C during taxy in. Guess you operator uses shorter turns than mine so edited the figure (500C is mentioned in Vinayak's airbus powerpoint).

[oicur12.again]

Gaunty

"So nobody has learnt the lessons of QF01 and how to park a B744 on the green of the first hole at the Bangkok Golf Club then."

Exactly what lessons from QF in BKK should we learn that relate to flap selection for landing?

[Dan Winterland]

''Exactly what lessons from QF in BKK should we learn that relate to flap selection for landing?''

The QF SOPs were to use F25 instead of F30. It was one of the factors.

[oicur12.again]

"It was one of the factors"

It was one of about 6 factors and probably the least contributory.

Should reduced flap landings be banned as a result of the over run or just when combined with long/fast/brakeless/reverseless approaches?

So would the lesson be . . . be careful with reduced flap?

Got it......

[matsemann]

Is it possible to compare Flap 3 or Flap Full on the bus with Flap 30 or Flap 40 landings on the 737, or is it something entirely different?

[vilas]

Hi everybody
So many people have voiced so much of apprehesions and have given some reasons against Flap3 landing. I would like answers to following questions that come to mind.
1. If flap3 landing required more skill and is unsafe in any manner why is it recommended in expected wind shear conditions?
2. In A320 all abnormal situations except few where option is given, Flap3 is mandatory. If Flap Full has better control then why not use flap full in difficult conditions.
3. Reduced safety margin. Yes Landing distance reduced by 80 mtrs. with Auto brake medium. But would anynbody land in Flap3 with critical LDA?
4. Tail strike possibility. In A320 you would require combination of less speed, high flare, long float and not Flap3 alone.This is bad way to land anyway.
5. Flap3 landing Difficult to teach 300 hrs pilot. It won't be easy in Flap full either. In general some pilots need lot more landings to get the control of proper landings. These pilots have same difficulty executing even Flap Full landings.
I would like to have answer to each point.

[Dan Winterland]

"It was one of the factors"

''It was one of about 6 factors and probably the least contributory''.


But it meant they went off the end quite a bit faster - and caused more damage. It's a while since I flew the 744, but I remember the difference between flap 25 and 30 was quite significant. The big issue was the mind-set. They were used to landing with F25, so that's what they did - even though the runway was contaminated.

[Uplinker]

I've only got time for a couple, Vilas;

1. I disagree that flap 3 needs more skill or is unsafe. It just needs a "different" skill.

Flap 3 is used in wind shear conditions to make more energy available for recovery, and in case a go-around is required.


3. No they wouldn't - you have to check the landing distance required using flap 3 with the landing distance available before electing to use it.

[AKAAB]

Flaps3+10 when the QRH drives us to use Flaps3 due to weather, localized strong winds, LLWAS, Windshear, etc. Otherwise, Flaps Full is our standard. We'll see what happens when the A321s gets delivered in a couple of months.

FWIW - I always add the +10knots when using Flaps3. I've never seen it add much to the landing distance and find the energy doesn't "drop out" in the flare with the extra couple of knots to play with. Like any landing, it's all about managing your energy state and timing the deceleration/decrease in lift.

Your results may vary...:ok:

[Jonty]

I have no problem with flap 3 landing in the A320/1, although 155kts ground speed is a little uncomfortable.

I just don't think it saves any money. No matter what Airbus says.

[vilas]

Jonty
GS of 155 means landing with high LW and 10KTs tail wind. It is not necessary to use flap3, use full flap. The problem with flap3 landing is higher GS which changes the visual clues while landing. So there is a bit of getting used to involved. Now an inexperienced FO who was just settling into flap full landing may have again a period of uncertainity on his hands because of this and not because flap3 demands greater skill. About saving Money, it is not Airbus requirement, the Airlines want to save money. Whether any one likes it or not with increasing fuel costs operating procedures will be guided by fuel savings strategies. Offcourse operations department must lay down comprehesive guidelines for every change.

[Jonty]

Who said anything about 10kts tail? Those speeds are fairly typical at our normal landing weights. The aircraft landing at those speeds uses up an awful lot of runway.

I stil maintain it doesn't save any money. It may save a very small amount of fuel, but money? No.

[vilas]

Jonty
I am only talking about A320. With nil winds at max landing weight of 66Tons VLS is 141plus 5KTS for ATHR the Vapp is 146 and the GS should be same. If you add anything for HD wind component it increases airspeed but will reduce ground speed. Let's say HD wind componenet is 20KTS so you add 7kts to VLS. It becomes 148 but groun speed will become 128 kts.Can you explain such high ground speed without tail wind? The landing distance for good to medium breaking action and low ABrake is increased by 140 mtrs. That's not awful lot.

[Jonty]

Explaining such a high ground speed is easy, A321. Last night, with 40 kids on board, our Vapp was 153kts. Add a few more adults, and still air it's easy to get to 155kts.

I think flap 3 makes more sense for an A320 than a 321. Although the landing geometry is better for a 321. I just think the savings are marginal at best. You would only have flap full out for about 30 seconds to a minute longer than flap 3 anyway. So your going to save a minimal amount of fuel. Add in using MED auto brake or any reverse thrust and those marginal saving are deminished further. Miss the exit that gives you the quickest route to stand and your now starting to cost money.

On the face of it Flap 3 fuel flows will be lower than flap full fuel flows. I think this is what Airbus have confirmed. Add in all the other "real world" factors and flap 3 landings become a marginal cost saving exercise at best, and costly at worst. Throw in just one over run or tail scrape, and all the saving you ever made from flap 3 landings have just evaporated.

If companies were serious about wanting to save fuel then they should be applying pressure to ATM service providers to sort out the airspace, particularly in Europe. There are massive savings to made here, in the region of 500 to 1000kgs per sector. That's how you save fuel, not trying to eek out 10kgs by eroding saftey margins, that don't work in the real world anyway.

[A4]

Whist Qantas had taken a similar deliberate policy of reduced flap/idle thrust to save money (which they did -$ several million) I think perhaps the greater contributing factors to QF01 were:

1. FO decided to do a bit of practice manual flying and manual thrust (perhaps towards an active TS is not the best time?) and got high and fast on the approach. Over the fence at 80' ish at Ref+15ish (168knots). Touch down was circa 1000m from landing threshold leaving just over 2200m remaining. - for a heavy B744.......

2. The runway was soaked from a very recent monsoon downpour (preceding A/C - another QF - went around but crew weren't informed).

3. Lightning visible (and commented on by crew) at field.

4. The were directed to the shorter, ungrooved runway.

5. The aircraft floated - a lot. The Captain ordered a go-around just as the mains touched. WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING he then retarded the thrust levers but one was not properly retarded which resulted in auto brake deactivation. REVERSE WAS NOT SELECTED. Manual braking didn't commence till about 15 seconds (?) after touchdown.

6. Aircraft left the hard stuff at about 80 knots.


This had nothing to do with reduced flap landing and everything to do with poor SA, poor decision making and very poor cooperation. The reduced config policy had worked fine up until this point. We are paid to make the most appropriate decisions with regard to safety and efficiency. As soon as compromising variables get thrown into the mix......out goes efficiency in my book. FOG/TS/busy TMA - fuel accordingly. ++RA with resulting WET runway - FULL reverse (caution aquaplane/swing) but am I bothered about noise? :=

The above details are from memory - so I apologise if they are not exactly correct, but they're not too far from the truth.

I strongly recommend digging out the report - sobering reading.

So F3 has its place and benefits - but just use common sense (airmanship?) when making your decisions.

[Los Endos]

As a further cost saver I have to babysit RHS guys and gals with such low experience ( starting at 125 hrs tt ) that the speed brake is unnecessarily in and out like a rabbit's dick during most approaches and the concept of the visual approach is simply an impossibility. The increased risk of F3 landings and for that matter OETD's with all it's associated distractions is just too great so I don't.

[A4]

Why are guys with 125 hours doing F3 landing? In our outfit it's forbidden until their experience of FF is consolidated and they then have additional training to be shown the differences with F3. If their performance is not satisfactory at F3, they remain restricted to FF - and may even go back to the sim.

Presumably Los, you were a Skygod the first time you flew a jet and never used the Speedbrake? Of course someone with low experience is going to have to work a lot harder - but at least it shows they're thinking and trying to do something about it AND LEARNING IN THE PROCESS. I've seen guys with 1000's of hours make a complete b0ll0x of an approach by trying to be clever - unaware of their, or the aircrafts limits and SA leaving a lot to be desired.

As for OETD - I agree that some airfields or at night it is not appropriate. However, at AMS, BCN, MUC, MAD etc it is a NON EVENT. The PF taxis the aircraft, the PNF starts the engine. If there is a problem STOP and tell ATC. It is not difficult - just use common sense.

I'm not some mouth foaming management stooge - but I really don't see what the issue with OETD is. Presumably it's too distracting to do OETA as well? I get the impression that some people are just bloody minded and will not make any attempt to adapt on the flimsiest of excuses. It's like taking an extra tonne "because I'm the Captain, and I can" :hmm:

Time for a coffee........:rolleyes:

[vilas]

A4
What you have stated is the right approach to the reality that exists. I am in agreement with you. What is OETD OR OETA?

[airbus_driver319]

One Engine Taxy Departure (OETD)

One Engine Taxy Arrival (OETA)

[vilas]

airbus driver 319
Thanks

[Los Endos]

A4, you miss my point entirely with your ready and unnecessary sarcasm. Let me expand for you ; the company is at pains to secure as many commercial savings as possible which include the expedients of which you are familiar. It also chooses to put in it's cockpits, pilots with such ridiculously low experience (very cheap) that any fuel saving initiative is more than neutralized by their inability to fly the plane. At sub 200 total hours I too would have been clueless but equally there would have been no access, with good reason, to a commercial jet cockpit with such lack of experience when I started flying. If you are unable to see the erosion of flight safety and the shifting of risk through these initiatives and are unable to detect the difference in workload between a OETA and a OETD, perhaps you should continue drinking the coffee. As Captain I will continue to operate the aircraft as efficiently and as safely as my experience and ability allow, thank you.

[A4]

Morning Los - I've had my coffee :ok:

Yes I was being a little sarcastic - but purely on reflection of your "speed brake / rabbits dick" analogy which is dripping with sarcasm. Anyway....

A pilot is trained to the required standard to demonstrate, to a TRE (on behalf of the CAA), that he can operate the aircraft under normal and abnormal scenarios i.e. exercise the privilege of his/her A320 rating. They are then Line Trained to the specific Company procedures - excluding F3.

At the end of all this they are still UNCONSOLIDATED - as was I, you and every other pilot at some point in time. I fully accept that there is an increased level of risk (a decision taken WAY above our pay scale) - but then so are there with 6 sector days, 25 minute turn arounds and circling approaches but we train, adapt and develop. On a problem free day, three tonnes used to be "normal" landing fuel where as now it's typically circa two tonnes. Increased risk or adaptation to the realities of the commercial world we operate in? Aviation has changed and without exception now all major operators have low experience in the RHS - and you only improve experience through exposure.

You state that you don't do F3 or OETD because they are too risky - that's you're prerogative. I don't subscribe to the same attitude and will apply them when appropriate - that's what the company have requested and I see no issue with it. I can understand someone new to the LHS being reticent with F3/OETD which demonstrates good WLM/SA on their part. As they settle into the LHS they'll be more comfortable and have the increased capacity required to incorporate these procedures when appropriate.

No one is FORCED to do any of these APPROVED procedures but there are some who will sit, arms folded, with a "No, no, no" attitude which I find puzzling for a Professional pilot.

You sign off with....

As Captain I will continue to operate the aircraft as efficiently and as safely as my experience and ability allow, thank you

.....which I can only commend you for :ok:

[USMCProbe]

I have 3500 recent PIC in the 319-321. There is some stuff I don't like, but after going "back" to the NG737, the scarebus is a dream. The 800 (320) equivalent lands at speeds that are more normal for the 321. The 900 is so tail strike happy they increased the approach speeds massively (above 150 lots of times), to reduce the pitch attitude on landing.

Flaps 3 or full on the bus? Use your best judgement first, and company SOP second. Then thank bejesus you aren't flying a super guppy.

BTW I like all Boeings better than a 320, but the 737. P.O. S.

[jaja]

Ref. AIRBUS document "Landing in CONF 3 – Use of reversers"

www.merrowresidents.org.uk/pprune/Conf3.ppt

The document is not clear about if the data comparing flap 3/full landings, are being done fully stabilized from e.g. 3000`, or are decelerated approaches, with final flap setting being set at 1500`. Any pprune`r that has that information ?

Also, do any of you have information on the increased brake + tire wear from using the higher landing speeds ?



And last, which is not referenced to the above document :
Any of you have data on fuel saving :
using single-pack during taxi
using 1000`/1000` (thrust reduction/acceleration
not having extended landing lights up to/from 10000`

[radical_100]

Although line experience has shown me that F3 results in greasers if the right technique is used, Airbus has something else to say regarding "quality of touchdown".

From PRO-SUP-27-20 P 4/6

http://i.imgur.com/cTP2gnj.png

"fairly flat" - I'm guessing something close to 0° but I'm not really sure.

I am for using F3 whenever conditions permit, but I'd like for this technique to be covered in the simulators to build confidence among pilots to use F3.

Just adding another angle to this (already interesting) discussion.

[Trackdiamond]

Thanks for your insights..and delicious sarcasm on this thread..even the humour platter is a learning note for some of us who have done the type rating on this marvel of an aircraft.
I wish to pose a question that I apologise in advance for if it seems without much substance to some of you...but I just wish to learn more than I did in the box 3 years ago. The issue of FF and F3 with respect to inexperiece...! Please A4, (without perturbing your coffee mug!) Can you kindly elucidate in what respect a recently trained A320 type rated pilot who met all the requisite standards to pass a rigorous simulator training having covered all the different configurations of landing in normal and abnormal conditions will be disadvantaged to carry out a F3 config approach? Surely all that is required is to allow for a slightly longer approach planning ahead to decelerate early and stabilized by the IMC/VMC stabilization decision altitudes of 1000' and 500' respectivelly?Additionally more awareness to prevent a tail strike during the flare is the only other major consideration I know when landing F3 on the bus. I found, personaly,the A320 an easier plane to learn to fly than the previous heavy turboprops and smaller jets I had trained on due to high level of automation assistance...even in hand flying mode.For me the workload between using F3 and FF was not necessarily additional..I just had to anticipate a different technique and apply it as the SOP dictated.Am I missing something gents?

[MD83FO]

Hello TD ill take a bite here as l'd like to get a consensus as well,
Been flying the bus family for 7 years and this is what i think of each variant.

320 : config 3 in turbulent and gusty landings and high developing sink rates laned me at uncomfortable pitch rates and attitudes with pitch auto-callout
Since then ive become reluctant to use this config.
I can feel there is no response from the auto-thrust to the energy requirement.
I've found these type of landings much more comfortable using manual thrust,
I can control sink rate with thrust and maintain energy below 30 feet when airspeed is no longer in the scan.

321 config 3 landings are nice and smooth and even better in manual thrust.

Id like to hear more opinions or critique. Thank you.

[Natstrackalpha]

1. If flap3 landing required more skill and is unsafe in any manner why is it recommended in expected wind shear conditions?
2. In A320 all abnormal situations except few where option is given, Flap3 is mandatory. If Flap Full has better control then why not use flap full in difficult conditions.
3. Reduced safety margin. Yes Landing distance reduced by 80 mtrs. with Auto brake medium. But would anynbody land in Flap3 with critical LDA?
4. Tail strike possibility. In A320 you would require combination of less speed, high flare, long float and not Flap3 alone.This is bad way to land anyway.
5. Flap3 landing Difficult to teach 300 hrs pilot. It won't be easy in Flap full either. In general some pilots need lot more landings to get the control of proper landings. These pilots have same difficulty executing even Flap Full landings.

These are rhetorical questions, right?
1/. Would you prefer flaps 3 or full if you suddenly encountered windshear - note your answer answers this question.

2/. In certain conditions of `some` failures then flaps 3 affords a more stable aircraft, and in some cases better attitude in these conditions. Also, if `difficult conditions` equals strong winds / crosswinds combined with low level and surface turb then a lower flap setting rather than a higher flap setting is often preferred in most aircraft. but you know this already.

3/. No.

4/. Especially an A320 - agreed.

5/. Once the `trainee/pilot` is trained to land in a configuration on profile in `normal` conditions, s/he will continue to land in those conditions.
A C150 pilot of thousands of hours on C150s, was given the task of eyeballing an approach `after being briefed` speeds to distance profile - The C150 pilot landed it every time - in the sim. Each time was a flaps full landing.

Vilas, sorry, I got your drift.

I have a question and a point - they are unrelated, with a risk of thread drifting a little bit.

1/. With regard to having to manually trim the A320 family: When this situation arises - how does one "identify the loads" on the stick if there is no feed/feelback - or is there . . .? If there were no feedback then how can one possibly determine how much trim to lash on. - ok, I mean, guys of your calibre can put the tyres on the tarmac where you want in ANY configuration, given the challenge to do so with minor inherent penalities like, faster, slower, harder, shallower, whatev-er . . and my point is . . .? The more one goes for the Flaps Full at x miles from the TH the more "in a stable box" it feels . . ? (Do you see my point?) None of this applies to non-normal ops. . . well, it does, but it shouldn`t.
Quote:
(personally, if there is any tailwind on the approach I simply don't do F3
and yes of course, a tail wind component

Although I prefer this, FFull being a rote flyer, I also realise it has it probs, like: going around, power up and [spending extra seconds] getting rid of the drag to F3 before any climb perf can be expected.

If you select full tooo early then the neighbours complain and the fuel goes down the pan.

If a sudden orbit is/was required (extremely unlikely) then it would be more favourable with a 3 set than a full.
[I]`from little rotes, mighty yokes do grow`

@ John Smith

I'd say Conf3 can safely be classified as a standard operating procdure in our outfit.

That said, my preference is for Conf Full.

That is because you fly.

[de facto]

I can understand someone new to the LHS being reticent with F3/OETD which demonstrates good WLM/SA on their part. As they settle into the LHS they'll be more comfortable and have the increased capacity required to incorporate these procedures when appropriate.
All comes in time even for the guy on the LHS:D:D:D

[vilas]

Nats
I raised those questions to highlight that the objections to flap3 landing were voiced without giving much thought. In any aircraft flap full landing is more difficult because full flap position is almost all drag. It requires higher pressure on control column to change the attitude needs more judgement to arrest the higher sink rate. Flap3 requires less flare and therefore easier to judge and execute. This is the reason most abnormal landings are in flap3.Words used by Airbus are "not to degrade handling quality". To look at it otherway if inexperienced guys were trained for Flap3 landings from the begining they will find it more difficult to do flap full landing.

[cactusbusdrvr]

Vilas: I disagree with your premise that flaps full landings are more difficult. In any aircraft you should be trimmed for the configuration you are in. On the Airbus that function is done for you by the auto trim system. No extra effort is needed to move the controls, be it stick or yoke.

Flaps three is used for abnormals due more to less drag for single engine go arounds and second segment climb gradient requirements. In Direct Law it is necessary to manually trim. Flaps three allows for less trimming and a better chance at a stabilized approach.

Flaps full provides greater tail strike protection clearance on the 319 and 320 and only .5 degree less than config 3. I use flaps full on the 321. I want the extra drag and lower speeds on touchdown. The difference is 21 degrees flap angle versus 25 degrees. I'll use that extra few degrees.

[vilas]

Cactus
Nobody does an approach without of trimming. Airbus does it automatically so it is easier. You can do landing in any flap setting or without for that matter. Difficult word I used relatively and for less experienced pilots.In Airbus stick forces are light but that is not the case in other aircraft. If you find full flap landing easy then flap3 is easier.That is precisely my point, and What single engine go round are you talking about? A320 you do full flap landing with OEI. It meets all requirements. 321 has tail strike issues but not 320. All these points have been covered before.

[cactusbusdrvr]

We do our single engine approaches in config 3. For a SE go around we move one notch up, I.e., config2. The only time you use config full single engine is if you are doing an auto land in a 320. 321s and 319s can auto land config 3 or full.

Airbus SOPs call for Config Full landings preferred, but 3 is permissible. The only time I use config 3 in normal ops is if I have a long runway where I don't need to make an early turn off, or I have a possible windshear situation.

I have been flying pic on the 320 family for almost 20 years, with a 6 year break flying the 757.

[de facto]

Hi Cactus,

Seems like the flaps 3 is the same as flaps 30 and full as flaps 40 on the b737.
When using full flaps,do you feel the extra lateral sensitivity(ie same input higher roll rate) via the sidestick?

[Airbus_a321]

AIRBUS says in one of it's books (will post the source once I find it again)

NORMAL LANDING CONFIG IS CONFIG FULL

So nothing more to add. This flaps 3 stuff for just a "normal ldg" IMHO is "Kindergarten-technique", not even worth to name it "procedure", but maybe flaps 3 for normal ldg is a so called
Stupid-Operating-Procedure

[de facto]

And abviously psycho assessments still a luxury for some airlines.

[cactusbusdrvr]

Hi Defacto: No, there is no difference in roll rate. Because of the flight control laws roll feels the same in either configuration. Flap angle for config 3 is 20 degrees for all 3 models in the 320 series. Flaps full is 40 on the 319, 35 on the 320 and 25(!) on the 321. Landing config 3 is like landing flaps 20 in the 757 or 737.

We have had issues with our East based flight crews tail striking the 321 over the last few years. We have had a lot of read file items and handouts placed in our mailboxes because of improper flare technique and poor energy management. Somehow the east pilots have gotten the idea that landing with power on and not flaring is the way to land a 321. The subsequent bounce proves that theory wrong. The opposite is also happening, they pull power too soon and pitch up past 7.5 degrees where they get the "Pitch" warning callout. We have had zero tail strikes for PHX based crews (there are 1200 airbus plots based here), not sure why our technique has evolved differently from theirs. We mostly use flaps full landings and only do config 3 for abnormals or proficiency.

[mikedreamer787]

My mob's OM says flap full is normal - but flap 3 is
available at command discretion.

Economy is last on my priority list but during normal
ops and if the more important boxes are ticked, then
yes I'll consider the lower landing flap setting taking
into account any tailwinds, preferred runway exit etc
etc etc.

Airports with NA app - (eg BKK) - require flap 3 in
normal ops (lowest selectable landing flap).

(Why Bangkok I dunno, given the city and suburbs
combined is one big bloody noise factory anyway).

[A4]

@TrackDiamond.

The points you mention are all valid.

The main considerations regarding F3/FF with a newly qualified 'Bus driver is essentially not running before you can walk. It is better to consolidate a "standard" technique, get comfortable with it and be familiar with the attitudes/perspectives/power settings etc before moving on. The transition to F3 is not a massive step - but why rush? Get comfortable with FF first.

For those not familiar......there are three main areas to deal with.

Firstly the visual perspective out the window is subtly different. The A319/320 reduces pitch attitude by about 2 degrees as Flap Full runs. A newly qualified pilot needs to get familiar with a "standard" picture out of the window to allow them to concentrate on flying a stable profile, towards the aiming point and then flaring, with a consistent technique, from a known attitude. FF with more drag and associated higher N1 also provides a much more stable platform to achieve this. With F3, the runway sits a lot "lower" (less fields between the nose and the runway) in the visual picture due to the higher pitch attitude - so flare technique needs to be adjusted accordingly.

As someone has already mentioned the 'bus is a lot more slippery in F3 compared to FF which obviously results in less thrust requirement (circa 43% N1). The different "picture", coupled with the lower power gives a much more "unstable" feeling to the approach. If there is minimal headwind component this exacerbates the issues (personally, if there is any tailwind on the approach I simply don't do F3).

Finally the flare is modified because the aircraft pitch attitude is higher - same technique of looking to the end if the runway - but remember the aircraft is "half flared" so a standard flare input on the sidestick will result in a float.......and yes, there is a greater risk of tailstrike.

[Natstrackalpha]

@ A4

Most excellent, Sir.

[de facto]

nique and poor energy management. Somehow the east pilots have gotten the idea that landing with power on and not flaring is the way to land a 321
Weired theory indeed.
If there is no roll sensitivity issue,then why i read here that airbus doesnt recommend full flaps in gusty winds?
Thanks
The 737 800 and longer 900 flare techniques are just the same,passing threshold,full attention to runway rise(always bout 30 feet if stable at normal rate) and as you gently pitch up the thrust is reduced to ideally reach idle and final landing attitude and touch at same time.
Thrust reduction counteracts your pitch up,do it after and youll float,do it earlier and your speed will reduce more than it should and worst case tail strike or land hard or both.

[cactusbusdrvr]

I believe that the config 3 technique in gusty winds is recommended because the approach speeds are higher and there is less drag. I've not used it unless there was a good chance of windshear (summer monsoon season in the desert here). I just finished a two day trip with strong gusty crosswinds on my legs. I used flaps full because I like having the extra drag and having the engines spooled up.

One thing the airbus does is the auto thrust system is very sensitive to side stick movement, especially in the flare. If you pitch up to arrest your rate of descent before you pull the TLs to idle you will get a spool up of the engines. So when you preflare, any back stick movement will result in an increase of thrust, giving you more energy at a time when you are supposed to be dissipating energy. Since the thrust levers don't move on the bus this spool can go unnoticed by a new or lazy pilot who isn't paying attention.

[A4]

Cactusbusdrvr is correct in that A/THR is very sensitive and will react to any speed decay to get back on VAPP quickly which is why it is IMPERATIVE that the T/L's are closed - COMPLETELY AND PROMTLY - at the correct time.

On a gusty approach the Groundspeed Mini function can exacerbate the problem as it is designed to MAINTAIN the aircrafts energy and any delay in getting the power off can add to that energy leading to big float. Whenever I fly an approach in such conditions I always close the levers fractionally earlier than normal to allow for this phenomenon.