Just another day at the office
Oh dear, I should have known I would end up in trouble if I tried to air my limited recollection of even one aspect of the A320-family flight-control laws (post#56). Now that I have a life 
, what manuals I was able to keep are gathering mildew, and are un-amended since my retirement in late-2001.
Thanks anyway, flyer 146! But I think Right Way up is correct in respect of the A320 family. Re. the flight under discussion here, there are two points:
(1) the touchdown was very brief - less than the half-second you mention;
(2) we can assume that TOGA thrust was selected before, during, or immediately after.
To discuss lengthily is not necessarily to find fault; those who quickly and loudly condemn usually have issues of their own. When we have ceased to learn rationally from our own and others' experiences, and to recognise our own fallibility, it's time to give up.
Now that we have a link to 6 photos in the sequence (post#63), the circumstances are clearer. The event was either a sensible late go-around, during the course of which the main-wheels briefly touched down; or a bounced landing, followed immediately by a sensible go-around.
Perhaps other experienced flyers will forgive me continuing to try and interpret the photos?
Image#1 shows the A/C continuing its approach; and possibly making a slight heading adjustment, to correct the fact that the A/C is tracking slightly downwind (left) of the extended centreline.
Image#2 shows touchdown, wings level, just left of the runway centreline, tracking gradually towards it. Pitch attitude has increased; whether for the landing flare or a go-around is unclear. There has been no apparent de-crab. [De-crab cannot be done during a go-around, but is preferable on a landing.]
Image#3 shows the touchdown smoke (from left and right gear tyres) blowing rapidly downwind. The A/C has just left the ground, although a slight de-rotation is not consistent with a go-around at this point. It seems to have yawed slightly to the left. [There is a possibility that the wheels may have contributed to this during the brief touchdown.] The right wing is lifting; due either to a gust, the yaw, or an unintentional pilot roll-input (easily done in rough conditions with the side-stick); or some combination of these factors.
Image#4 shows the aeroplane clearly going-around: height and pitch have increased considerably. The roll is giving cause for concern, and must be recovered by side-stick.
The timing of images#5 and #6 suffers from the long-distance perspective of the camera, foreshortening the forward dimension; and the lack of a time-base. Judging from the moving smoke, the interval between #4 and #5 is similar to that between #3 and #4.
Image#5 shows the A/C in a typical G/A attitude, roll recovered. It seems to have yawed to the right; whether due to a gust, or possible right rudder (to try and assist the roll recovery), is debatable. [If Iberia analyse all their flights, using QAR data, any large rudder deflection in flight might flag up.]
Image#6 (time interval uncertain) shows the A/C climbing normally on the runway heading, drifting downwind. The main gear is still visible, but there's never any need to rush and, in a "wind-shear go-around", the crew must leave the gear down until satisfied that ground clearance is assured. This is partly because retracting the gear initially increases drag, as the gear doors open.
Going back to the control laws on the various FBW Airbuses, I always thought that pilot multi-rating capability and short conversion courses are an Airbus sales pitch? So the handling qualities need to be as similar as possible. Thanks, CONF iture, for confirming this.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 3rd February 2008 at 17:09.
Reason: Addition of "immediately" in para. 4.