Folks:
step by step. I have reason to believe that AI did sent this article straight forward into the editors laptop. Read it carefully:
1.) the article says "landing incident". Well, I believe everyone here knows the proper definition and the slight little difference between an "incident" and an "accident". The article mentioned a "collapsed nose gear" and "engine nacells damaged". So it would be appropriate to term this thing ACCIDENT!
2.) as a matter of fact it was the Iberia accident in Bilbao. What is not mentioned here is the fact that it was a training flight for the F/O. Maybe nice to know...
3.) never trust ATC: apparently the WX was not as reported to the crew. This might excuse another little "glitch" in the making of this accident:
4.) what "son of a gun" would dare to use full flaps in x-wind and strong gusts? This might explain the French DGAC AD-Note in regards to this case and the +10kts and flaps 3. (BTW: this seems to be the stopgap for all kinds of software related problems with their FBW a/c. I recall that in full flaps your speed brake lever is nothing more than a useless handle. If you don't have (automatic) spoiler deflection after touchdown and you pull, nothing will happen. In flaps 3 you'll get partial flight spoilers - this had been some minor issue in the LH A320 landing accident in WAW some years back.)
5.) "inversion of wind direction" - nice terms! - Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say: "windshear" ? Well maybe but in this case isn't there something like a "windshear warning system" incorporated in the design??? Did it trigger??? What is the procedure? - Maybe add a little bit of power?
6.) TOGA power, "..but nevertheless the aircraft touched down". Well given the specific circumstances of this situation I might be a bit "off" but I still recall a chap named Cpt. Michel Asseline who fried the first A 320 delivered to AF back in 1988 (aka. the "Infamous Chain-Saw"). Different situation, nice weather and so, and obviously too low during a low pass (who is capable of reading French or Japanese should read his book "Le pilot est-il coupable", where you find ,among other pretty interesting stuff a very solid explanation for a wrong altitude indication in the cockpit - a thing that always bothered me that two grown up AF Captains couldn't read their altimeter - but I don't want to go into these details again). He (Asseline) always stated that nothing happened when he applied TOGA... One might conclude that a proper analysis of this sad event might have triggered a warning flag a bit earlier, specially taking adverse wx - conditions into account, - but again, just a thought!
7.) Apparently and sadly AI will never get it...
Just reflect for a second upon the following line from the article: "...the flight crew's actions on flight controls led the aircraft to hit the automated systems' high angle of attack protection and prevented a normal flare."
Excuse me? Here we go again?
The crew's action? Wouldn't a wording similar to "...the design of the alpha protection in this case prevented a normal flare" be a little bit more appropriate? - Was there anything the crew could do different than commanding nose up and hitting TOGA to recover? Did the a/c respond?
As we learned: no - it followed exactly its logic and as designed. Great! Do we learn that, can we read it in the FCOM or AOM? - What does AI teach their crews in their flight training and type-ratings in such an event? "P** in your pants and pray?"
Well "ping*", "careful" Mesdames et Messieurs in TLS! Some people might react extremely 'sensitive' to such statements. I believe you realized that quite 'painfully' in the past..
*(for non Airbus pilots: announcement sound of ECAM-message)
8.) Highest scores for Toulouse in regards to the announced modification of the program. This would have been out of proportions and unthinkable just a few years back. Remember, we are talking the prestigious alpha-protection of AI! Don't mess with that as I truly believe it has saved a couple of these planes, -including what was carried inside, in the past.
9.) Somehow "funny" are the closing remarks of Cpt. Michel Brandt in ref. to A 321 tail strikes: "...A321 landing tail strikes are not a noticeable concern and largely remain within tolerable limits." - Does anyone have any clues what this gentleman might want to say by this? - I recommend to ask some of the operators who had this "unnoticeable concern" in form of heavily damaged airplanes, being grounded and repaired for several weeks...
sj
[This message has been edited by screwjack (edited 30 May 2001).]