NW A320 tailstrike at DEN, possible W/O?

[Chris Scott]

Did they land with Flaps 3?

Hi rudderrudderrat and FlightDetent,

Thanks for your quick responses and links – just the job (my manuals really are showing their age...). References to the Airbus term "CONFIG", instead of "FLAPS" are in line with my own preference, although my airline preferred the latter. The NTSB uses "flaps", so I'll stick with that.

Interesting that – as CONF iture said – the mandatory 5 kts increment now applies to both A/THR and Autoland landings, instead of being only for Autoland, which was the rule in my day. Maybe Airbus has learned from our (old farts') experiences of A/THR response in gusty conditions!

Assuming that the tables applied to the FAA-registered accident aircraft, a VAPP of 139 for A/THR implies a VLS of 134, which would be correct for Flaps FULL, not Flaps 3, at 140,000 lb (just under 64T).

Nowhere can I find confirmation in the NTSB report of either:
(1) the briefed landing configuration; or
(2) the actual landing configuration.
It's tempting to assume that they both briefed and landed Flaps 3, but the ambiguity in this (rather brief) report remains.

If they briefed for landing with Flaps 3 – and the report merely says, "the crew briefed for an approach speed of 139 knots for a visual approach..." – they appear to have briefed 5 kts slower than standard.

The report does not mention the actual IAS on the approach, before the flare. If it was 139 kts, and assuming they landed with Flaps 3, that would appear to be 5 kts slower than standard. This would obviously be a disadvantage in any tailwind-shear.

Chris