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.
Last edited by airbus_driver319; 3rd Jun 2013 at 19:56.