1. If flap3 landing required more skill and is unsafe in any manner why is it recommended in expected wind shear conditions?
2. In A320 all abnormal situations except few where option is given, Flap3 is mandatory. If Flap Full has better control then why not use flap full in difficult conditions.
3. Reduced safety margin. Yes Landing distance reduced by 80 mtrs. with Auto brake medium. But would anynbody land in Flap3 with critical LDA?
4. Tail strike possibility. In A320 you would require combination of less speed, high flare, long float and not Flap3 alone.This is bad way to land anyway.
5. Flap3 landing Difficult to teach 300 hrs pilot. It won't be easy in Flap full either. In general some pilots need lot more landings to get the control of proper landings. These pilots have same difficulty executing even Flap Full landings.
These are rhetorical questions, right?
1/. Would you prefer flaps 3 or full if you suddenly encountered windshear - note your answer answers this question.
2/. In certain conditions of `some` failures then flaps 3 affords a more stable aircraft, and in some cases better attitude in these conditions. Also, if `difficult conditions` equals strong winds / crosswinds combined with low level and surface turb then a lower flap setting rather than a higher flap setting is often preferred in most aircraft. but you know this already.
3/. No.
4/. Especially an A320 - agreed.
5/. Once the `trainee/pilot` is trained to land in a configuration on profile in `normal` conditions, s/he will continue to land in those conditions.
A C150 pilot of thousands of hours on C150s, was given the task of eyeballing an approach `after being briefed` speeds to distance profile - The C150 pilot landed it every time - in the sim. Each time was a flaps full landing.
Vilas, sorry, I got your drift.
I have a question and a point - they are unrelated, with a risk of thread drifting a little bit.
1/. With regard to having to manually trim the A320 family: When this situation arises - how does one "identify the loads" on the stick if there is no feed/feelback - or is there . . .? If there were no feedback then how can one possibly determine how much trim to lash on. [I do it without thinking, but say, after takeoff in other type, I find myself winding forward the trim to keep it in the . . climbing attitude . . as the speed increases, from the feel through the control column. (That was the question)
2/. I have found in other aircraft that if landing with flaps 3 or their equivalent then . . .it is all doa-able of course, but, but, if a flaps full ( or drag flap if you prefer) landing is chosen then the touchdown is a) +ive, less float, more precise [i.e., you can determine more accurately where you are going to plonk the wheels down] - ok, I mean, guys of your calibre can put the tyres on the tarmac where you want in ANY configuration, given the challenge to do so with minor inherent penalities like, faster, slower, harder, shallower, whatev-er . . and my point is . . .? The more one goes for the Flaps Full at x miles from the TH the more "in a stable box" it feels . . ? (Do you see my point?) None of this applies to non-normal ops. . . well, it does, but it shouldn`t.
Quote:
(personally, if there is any tailwind on the approach I simply don't do F3
and yes of course, a tail wind component
Although I prefer this, FFull being a rote flyer, I also realise it has it probs, like: going around, power up and [spending extra seconds] getting rid of the drag to F3 before any climb perf can be expected.
If you select full tooo early then the neighbours complain and the fuel goes down the pan.
If a sudden orbit is/was required (extremely unlikely) then it would be more favourable with a 3 set than a full.
`from little rotes, mighty yokes do grow`
@ John Smith
I'd say Conf3 can safely be classified as a standard operating procdure in our outfit.
That said, my preference is for Conf Full.
That is because you fly.