The last time I checked, an airplane was an airplane. They all use the same principles and comply with the same aerodynamic rules. The difference between the A320 and the B737 is the amount of electrons to which pilots (albeit because of the engineers involved) have abdicated their decision making abilities. As I am able to recognize from my somewhat limited experience in flying the Airbus Family of airplanes, we still have a collection of parts and pieces (making up the airframe) that remain subject to the same forces and results that the air through which it travels demands. Yes, there are some electrons whose duty it is to prevent you (the pilot) from doing things that are not authorized in that electron's programming ... like bringing (or leaving) the engines in an idle thrust position (particularly when getting close to the ground and getting the nose to an attitude not acceptable to those electrons' programming) ... or continuing to raise the nose to a higher angle of attack that is also beyond the level of acceptability programmed into those "electron" memory banks (as Capt Sullenburger began to recognize at the very end of his "miracle landing" on the Hudson River). However, with those notable exceptions, the A320 can land, and, in my not-so-humble-opinion, should be landed, in exactly the same way as any other airplane. I know it can be done because I've done it, more than a few times, in a rather wide variety of conditions, weights, and specific Airbus equipment types. It comes back to the point that the pilot is (or at least SHOULD BE) in command of the airplane. Airbus has not taken that issue out of consideration ... they've simply made the boundaries within which the pilot remains in command, a bit smaller ... and, some would say too much so ... but I'm not intending to post a criticism of Airbus or their very fine equipment. If the pilot knows his/her equipment, and knows the boundaries of where his/her exercise of command authority over that equipment starts and stops, I'll be a "happy camper" regardless of the manufacturer of that equipment. Therefore - I'll stand by my previous post and again point out that the landing attitude is the "level flight" attitude, and should occur at an airspeed that is somewhat below (the exact number is not "specific" and is deliberately variable to allow the pilot to make adjustments when necessary) a margin of 30% above the projected aerodynamic stall airspeed for the configuration, weight, and location (leaving in place the wind gust factor should any exist - and that only for safety purposes), on the center-line of the runway, tracking to remain on that centerline, and should occur at a point between the threshold and not further down the runway than 3000 feet or 1/3 of the runway available, which ever is shorter. This only becomes a "real" issue when landing on runways less than 9000 feet (where these two distance maximums are equal) and provides specifics to improve the probability of NOT departing the end of the runway during the landing roll-out. I'll say it again ... an airplane is an airplane.
Last edited by AirRabbit; 13th May 2013 at 16:19.