A320 off the runway at LBA

[veetwo]

Touched down late and ran off the end of 14 around 11:45 Zulu. No injuries, but paramedics are attending to several passengers suffering from shock. A/C has been stablised and is awaiting inspection from AAIB. Airport is closed for now. Any one know any more?

[timmcat]

Witnessed it from 14 threshold. LTE376 from Fuerteventura looked to land well past the normal touchdown point and has pulled off to the right at the very end onto the grass. Winds at the time south-westerly at 8kts, surface dry.

RT between tower / flight deck and fire crews indicate a reported brake problem. Pax being disembarked by stairs.

[JohnnyRocket]

A plane with 180 passengers on board overshot the runway today at an international airport, a fire and rescue service spokesman said.

The incident happened at around 12.30pm at Leeds Bradford International Airport in West Yorkshire.

A West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service spokesman said there were not thought to be any serious injuries.

He said the passengers on board the Airbus 320 plane were still disembarking following the incident.

[buttline]

From BBC (because the journalists always get it right)

Passenger plane overshoots runway
A plane with 178 passengers on board overshot the runway at a West Yorkshire airport on Wednesday.
The incident took place at lunchtime at Leeds Bradford International Airport.

A spokeswoman for West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service said it is not thought anyone was injured during the incident and there was no fire.

All passengers on the Airbus 320 plane had been evacuated. It is not yet clear whether the plane was taking off or landing or which airline was involved.

Airport alert

A fire service spokeswoman said they had been alerted by the airport at 1245 BST that a plane had gone off the end of the runway and had sent 10 pumps with around 50 firefighters to the scene.

Working in conjunction with the airport fire service they evacuated all passengers by 1340 BST.

Eyewitness Brian Bevan told BBC Radio Leeds: "We were in the departure lounge and there was this aircraft very close to the end of the runway and it looks as though it's dropped off with its nose wheel hanging off the end."

He said he could see fire engines at the scene and passengers being brought off the plane.

[JohnnyRocket]

A Leeds Bradford International Airport spokeswoman said: "An A320 LTE aircraft
arriving from Fuerteventura at 12.40 had problems on landing which resulted in
it coming to rest at the end of the runway.
"The 171 passengers on board were disembarked using the aircraft steps and
coached back to the terminal with no reported injuries to any passengers.
"The Air Accident Investigation Team will look to identify the cause and it
is hoped the runway will be operational as soon as possible."
She said that no flights were currently arriving or departing at the airport,
but added that airport bosses were looking to resume the services as soon as
possible.
She added that the flights were expected to resume later today.

[coasting]

Aircraft is an A320 of Jordan Aviation, JY-JAR and operating a sub-charter for LTE, from Fuerteventura, which I think is a MyTravel/Airtours IT flight.

[BOTFOJ]

is that a can of worms I can hear popping open?

[YYZ]

As Timmcat says, landed well after the normal point (viewed from the southside), just after the intersection for 27/09, no headwind, 5-8kt crosswind, therefore possibly a bit fast as well?

All speculation until investigation, at least nobody was injured!

YYZ

[Call Established]

Anyone got a pic of this ???

[Kestrel_909]

Pictures -

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=42872&page=1

Scroll down, way down!

[Pontious]

Max Angle was bang out of order.

Back to the thread:

No advanced warning of a problem with the aircraft (i.e. "Pan" or "Mayday") and no apparent shout to ATC on the rollout that there was a problem.

Not a particularly challenging runway in terms of length compared to the aircraft involved even if it did land 'slightly long'.

Weather- generally fine.

Brake failure anybody?

Is 14/32 it still closed?

[BTriple7]

Hello,

32/14 is now open with reduced TORA/TODA and LDA. Using it very much in a mixed mode use, ie landing 14 and departing 32.

More pictures here (http://www.kidscanfly.org/Triple7/050518.htm)

[Reverand Lovejoy]

Hi guys,

I wouldn't get too excited. ILS not in use and NDB being used for app if needed but with 30k vis cant see it being an issue. ATC handling workload <slight> fine and 32 for t/o 14 for landing. Well done to LBA staff and inbounds for continueing <sp> to keep a professional service.........as expected. Would love to know more about 320 but don't want to get involved in speculation, I'm too busy studying for a Measurement and Control exam tomorrow.

The Reverand

[+'ve ROC]

classic example of things being blown out of proportion.

not only by the word piano players i might add. is it really that big a deal?

just tow it back onto the rwy!

[16 blades]

Is it just me, or is there something odd about his flap config? That doesn't look like a landing flap setting for me (although I'm no expert on swept-wing jets) - looks more like a 'take-off' setting. Why would they be set to that after the incident? (assuming they've been moved at all after landing).

Maybe that could explain a thing or two? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree?

16B

[nokia]

Why no chutes deployed - often situations of this nature will call for an evac as precaution - from inside it must have felt a very strange angle sitting forward and the crew would have no idea the mainwheels were still actually just on the hard surface.
At the very least must have been very hot brakes/wheels.....

[Leezyjet]

Just been on Look North.

Passengers said that they sat there for "ages" before the flight crew told them anything.

Now just a minor thought, but would it not be a common courtesy to tell them something asap rather than leaving them sitting there frightened out of their minds ?.

Remember too that most of those people that were onboard only fly maybe a handful of time a year, so what might not seem like a big deal to someone who flys for a living sure is to them.

:)

[A4]

If I was up the pointy end sitting over the grass with my backside higher than my nose, I would DEFINATELY consider it a big deal - and a very bad day in the office!

Any confirmation this was a sub for MYT? Is it the regular carrier? MYT pulled out of LBA last year so presumably the flights have been subbed. I thought LTE were German....?

A4 :confused:

[BOTFOJ]

it was a charter for MyTravel the tour operator by LTE, which was subbed out to a Jordanian Airline.

[jmc757]

Were LTE leasing just the aircraft from Jordan, or is it a full wet lease. I.e. were the pilots LTE or Jordan Aviation?

[WHBM]

Commenting on the commercial side of things.

Most prudent holiday makers, when booking, check to see who they are flying with. Usually the brochure has towards it's rear, the airline to be used on a particular flight plus the type of aircraft to be used.

Sammypilot:

Unfortunately you are only partially correct in this, by no means all holiday companies give information to this level of accuracy or truthfulness. Indeed, one of the principal reasons why they all go to the same destination on the same day (in this case, Fuerteventura on a Wednesday) is so they can chop and change as required by the loads booked.

It is also true that those holiday companies who use the less-mainstream carriers are also those who more commonly leave out the flight detail, and there must be some connection here.

In this case we have LTU, a German carrier, setting up a Spanish operation, LTE, who in turn seem to be out of capacity (not at a peak season time for Spain, one wonders where their fleet has gone) and they have subbed in from a Jordanian small-scale operator for a charter from a British tour operator. I challenge anyone to find any holiday tour brochure which explains such detail. I am reminded of the Birgenair 757 accident in the Dominican Republic some years ago which had a similar long chain of subcontracted responsibility.

This subcharter was not a one-off but has apparently been going on for LTE for some time. I wonder whose insurance the passengers were actually on.

[acbus1]

Not a particularly challenging runway in terms of length....
Shame about the shape (in a vertical plane). :rolleyes:

Can catch the unfamiliar unawares, leading to.....well, there's a thing......a long landing! Not good.

Have they got something against level tarmac lined up with the prevailing winds in Leeds?

Cost 3d. Yorkshire. Nuff said. :hmm:

[jmc757]

LTE are nothing to do with LTU anymore, they sold their stake a while back. This was a flight for MyTravel Holidays (not airways), LTE have operated for a number of years for British tour ops without problems.

Still wondering if this flight was a fully blown wet lease (ie Jordan Aviation crew) or whether LTE have just leased the aircraft?

[Ranger 1]

I agree with +v'e ROC's comments, once the AAIB has given it the once over, tow it back on. no real big story for the Journos here.
It certainly looks like it is well within the RESA for the runway, so it should be a straight forward job of getting it back on a spot of digging laying a few bits of tracking for the wheels along with properly placed towing staps & a decent tug & should be on in no time ;)
Good luck chaps, been there & done it 3 times :ok:

[ia1166]

You've been off the runway 3 times! which airline do you work for? or have you had to explore other employment oppotunities.;)

[broadreach]

Just a commentquestion on the photos posted. The earth ahead of the nosegear seems to be churned up some ten feet ahead of the gear itself. Probably large chunks of good farmland tossed forward by the nosegear I guess. Not an attempt to reverse out?

[A330AV8R]

Askid / NWsteering ring a bell anyone ??

[Mooncrest]

Said aircraft is now sitting in the Multiflight hangar. I'm told it has been impounded, by whom and on whose authority I don't know. A new nosewheel and mainwheel arrived for it today from Tenerife. I expect the aircraft will be at LBA for a few more days yet. Wonder who'll get the job of reparing it ??

[flapsforty]

Leezyjet as you obviously have no idea about the standard procedure in these cases, it would be common courtesy not to be condescending about the actions of the aircrew involved. :rolleyes:

For scared pax, a very short amount of time will seem like "ages". That doesn't mean anything.
What would you rather see happening? A cockpit crew yakking on the PA as soon as they have come to a standstill, or a cickpit crew working through the appropriate emergency checklists in order to avoid even bigger problems and to ascertain the actual state of the aircraft?

Remember too that most of those people that were onboard only fly maybe a handful of time a year, so what might not seem like a big deal to someone who flys for a living sure is to them.

You should remember that you are on a professional pilot's website and stop teaching your granny to suck eggs.

[timmcat]

Falps mate - I'm sorry but on a really rare occasion I disagree with you. I don't think leezyjet was being condescending in the slightest (although R&N perhaps a delicate place to broach his thoughts). As you know, I'm a relatively infrequent traveller and if I was involved in an incident of this nature, a brief comment from the flight deck along the lines of 'hey, they laid a touch too little tarmac - we'll stay here for a while whilst they bring the stairs right over' might just have lightened the situation for a bunch of people who only fly once or twice a year.

I witnessed the incident - it was not at all dramatic (from the ground anyway)and really is a bit of a storm in a teacup. Yes procedures are there to be followed and the RT activity at the time showed all involved (FD, fire and tower ATC) were calmly dealing with the situation.


x

[moggiee]

No point using the escape chutes unless remaining on board would present a hazard.

With no fire risk apparent then staying on board and exiting via normal steps amkes more sense.

People get hurt, often quite badly, going down chutes so there is no point putting the pax at risk on the bouncy castle.

I suspect that the flaps were retracted prior to engine shutdown (quite possibly via the normal after landing checklist procedure)

[ia1166]

I agree with you timmcat, and i am a professional pilot for 20 years. A short PA to the passengers to sit tight, all is ok and please follow the cabin crew instructions is all it would take to calm the cabin and the cabin crew down. Its part of our job. And anyway what emergency checkists are you talking about flappy? I haven't seen one for runway overrunn. Just the after landers and shut down. Get the co to talk to atc while i have a quick word with the walk on freight. 30 seconds on the pa and then back to business. Customer care and all that PC stuff
How many PAs do we ever hear from the cockpit these days. Few if any, partiucularly from those in the middle and far east.
BTW flappy, i notice that your profile says chief wagon dragon. Please tell me that you're not cabin crew with a post like that. Emergency check lists? please tell me which ones so i can look them up. The evac wouldn't be right and no ecam would show. I've been on the bus for nearly a decade and i have yet to find a runway overrun.
If you want the real airbus answer, the capt should have said "crew at stations" once the aircraft had stopped with park brake on, then once the dust had settled gone for the shutdown checklist followed by " passengers and cabin crew please remain seated" and maybe starting the APU.etc etc. Thats 2 PAs that should have been made within the first minute or two max. Just my 2 bobs worth.

[charterguy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that Jordan Aviation were banned by the French CAA (DGAC) from flying into France some time ago because of safety concerns. Why is it that an operator is banned in one or more EU countries, yet can quite happily continue to operate into others ?

A similar anomaly is Turkish carrier Onur Air. I believe they are due to operate one or more charters to the Champions League final in Istanbul next week. Again, there are safety issues and Onur Air are currently banned from Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy and Switzerland. Funny then, that the UK CAA considers them fit to operate these flights from the UK. I thought under JAR all EU states should use the same criteria when it comes to air safety.

Anybody ?

CG

[poorwanderingwun]

I can't quote specifics but many airlines based in 3rd world countries are prevented from flying to countries that operate to ICAO standards... I believe that the current number is 15 or thereabouts. The ban is not directed specifically at the airline, it's more to do with the fact that those countries do not have any adequate proceedure in place for overseeing the operations of airlines based in the country.... ie. no adequately functioning equivilant of our CAA or FAA. The list is, I think, available on an ICAO web-site.

The ban however is not compulsory and an individual EEC state can choose to ignore it, Belgium for eg. allows the DR Congo airline Hewa Bora to operate their pax carrying Tri-Star into Brussels.

In addition to the above countries there are a number of airlines which through some incident/accident or have been banned specifically from an EEC state....again it's up to the other EEC countries to choose for themselves whether they allow that operator access to their airports.

[BRAKES HOT]

think about this.... i've seen the skidmarks at the end of 14, and if you ask me they did a good job, assuming there were really braking problems with the aircraft, by steering off to the side of 14 and onto level ground. if they continued straight, off the end and down the slope/into the lights etc, there could have easily been fatalities involved and not just a new nosewheel......

[iceman51]

charterguy
Again, there are safety issues and Onur Air are currently banned from Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy and Switzerland
for your info Onur is NOT banned in Italy, however ENAC (the Italian CAA) is close monitoring them ...

For sure I believe that there should be only one safety policy to be adopted and used by all CAAs, in the EU at the minimum!

[Mister Geezer]

With the aircraft still having a Jordanian registration is it fair to assume that the aircraft was still wet leased or even damp leased? With Jordan not being a JAA member and not in the EU then having a dry lease with a JY reg might be quite difficult?

[packsonflite]

Have I missed something, or have some posts in this thread been removed?

[Splat]

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/february_2005/airbus_a320_200__c_ftdf.cfm

Any similarities?

Cheers

Splat

[timmcat]

How's that for co-incidence, I paxed on C-FTDF last summer. :(

[757operator]

Do I recall one of MyTravel's A320's having a long history of a similar "braking difficulty"?

[Localiser Green]

Any similarities with the Leisure International A320 which went off the end at IBZ in 1998?

Report Here (http://www.mfom.es/ciaiac/publicaciones/informes/1998/1998_019_A.pdf)

[cargo boy]

Which bit of "...Touched down late..." or "...looked to land well past the normal touchdown point..." from the first two posts in this thread don't some of you understand? :rolleyes:

Now go and play with your Airfix models and leave the grown-ups to discuss what usually happens when a jet lands long on a short runway. :hmm:

[oneeyed]

"Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that Jordan Aviation were banned by the French CAA (DGAC) from flying into France some time ago because of safety concerns. Why is it that an operator is banned in one or more EU countries, yet can quite happily continue to operate into others ?"

Charterguy, I believe you will remember the old Radio Yerewan jokes because in principal you are right - but in reality the ban was removed within a matter of 10 days - the a/c concerned was an L1011 and it happend to arrive CDG from transatlantic flight and had a bit of oil dripping from one of the engines.

And as for the poorwanderingwun, I wish to point out that Jordan is actually a country with ICAO Category 1 Status - that should lift it slightly above the 3rd world country standard that you so despice off.

And as for the operating crew I would wish that all European Crews I had the pleasure of working with in the past are as professional and dedicated as most Jordan Aviation Crews I have met over the years.

Just to answer your inevitable questions beforehand - NO I'm not a JAV Staff and I'm not on their payroll for PR but I have nothing but good experience in operating Leases and Charters with them in the past.

[Leezyjet]

Flaps40,

Calm down there. Not trying to teach anyone to suck anything, but in the 10+ years I've been sending a/c on their way I have come across many a pilot to whom the SLF are beneath them and not worthy of their presence let alone making a call to those peasents in the back to let them know that everything is A-ok and they are not actually going to die.

I think this type of pilot needs to remember once in a while who is actually paying for the kids private school and the bit on the sides credit cards and the nice flash motor(s) on the drive.

Anyway getting off topic now.

Anymore news on the nature of the damage to the a/c or when it's going to leave ?.

:)

[hec7or]

I feel so guilty now, I'm afraid I've had to sack the butler, put mary poppins on part time and swapped the Dom Perignon for good old Bolly.

I'll never look at passengers in the same light again. Good Lord, I thought the company looked after the old payslip, not the passengers! Mind you it's not been the same since Atlee got in!

I didn't realise hoi polloi would be at all interested in the technical details of such a minor mishap, I should have thought they'd be too busy with their Sunday Sports to worry about what was going on outdoors.

Didn't I see you once on Airport, the third twit on the left as I recall, anyway, back to the Bolly if you don't mind, slumming it with the middle classes isn't so bad after all!

I'll get the orangery gold plated with the money I've saved.

[tightcircuit]

The runway is not that short Cargo Boy. Landing a bit long at Leeds, whilst clearly not desirable, should still easily be recoverable with a little extra braking. Perhaps you should grow up and become "Cargo Man" before you make more more posts which display your complete lack of experience.

[sky9]

Three points about LBA RW 14
1 The runway is displaced, therefore the landing distance is less than 6,000 ft so it is in this instance a shortish runway. (someone give me the facts for both runways)
2 The glide path angle is greater than the normal 3 degrees leading to an increased chance of a long landing.
3 The runway is constructed in sections of concrete, as you pass over the concrete joints the aircraft bounces slightly. On a wet or damp runway the brake anti-skid tends to back off then come on again giving the impression that it is not operating normally.

[HOODED]

Sky9, absolutely right 14 is less than 6000ft LDA but only just. 32 is also displaced but has a LDA of over 6000ft just. Can't quite grasp how the 3.5 degree glideslope means you land long though. I have landed 14 many times and usually touch down before the tunnel so approx 5500ft to go. As for the concrete I agree the whole thing needs resurfaceing but at least it was grooved after the L1011 overrun.

[sky9]

Hooded,

Depends what you fly: a 6000ft runway, touchdown point 1000ft in, leaves 5000ft. Add a bit of water and it all looks a bit short.

[unwiseowl]

I don't understand why 3.5deg should make for a long landing, surely the opposite?

I think LBA is a poor airfield at which to land a large aeroplane. Lets face it: it has a poor reputation amongst pilots.

On the plus side, ATC are very good, as are most of the ramp staff, IMHO.

[HOODED]

Sky9, LBA is 7380ft/2250m. It also has a soft flat grass overrun of around 500ft at the end of 32/start of 14. It has a displaced threshold at both ends with 32 being a little over 1000ft displaced and 14 being around 1500ft displaced due to the high ground on approach requiring a 3.5 degree glideslope.(Dont have the exact figures to hand) The 32 threshold was displaced to give an undershoot area when the runway was extended in the 1980s. Prior to that the threshold was almost at the end of the runway. There are no obsticles on the 32 approach/14 climb out but the ground falls away sharply as the L1011 found out as very nearly did this A320 and there is no overrun other than the downward slope into the approach lights. Beyond this is a housing estate. The runway is concrete and undulates as it is built on solid rock and falls away slightly after the 32 touch down point.
So whats the answer to the problem of unfamiliar crews occasionally frightening themselves on 14 landings?

Firstly reduce the 3.5 glideslope and move the thresold back, possible with modern precision aproach aids/GPWS.
Secondly build up a flat soft overrun at the end of 14 just as the one on 32s end. This would end up almost in someones back garden and the threshold on 32 could then be moved back as an added bonus giving 2000m + LDA on 32 with this RESA in place.

Both options are expensive and require ILS/lights to be taken out of service for a while.

Sadly I can't see either happening anytime soon as the rapid growth of movements/pax means prioritys are eleswhere at the moment (like providing more apron space).

Hope this helps.

[Chris Wannabe]

As has been said before less than 6000' in some aircraft is not that long!

Trust me the picture on 14 in a 757/767 on the approach looks a little strange (3.5 deg, uphill slope, displaced thr etc)

Indeed in my airline 14 is captains only due to the LDA. We are also warned about GPWS alerts off the Chevin.

Coupled with a southerly breeze makes for an interesting time.

Re the incident involved - landing beyond the 27/09 intersection is not a good place to be. Not sure about A320 brakes, but max autobrake would be required in a 75/76.

[cobol]

There used to be a graph in the A320 FCOM showing that the shallower the glide slope the greater the landing distance, the steeper the glide slope the shorter the landing distance. The examples used in the graph were 2.5°, 3.0° and 3.5°

[tightcircuit]

Chris wannabe,

The runway remaining from the intersection is around 4200 ft. The max autobrake stopping distance for a 757 at 86 tonnes is just over 4000 ft on a flat dry runway with no headwind but that is from a height of 50 ft. The manual allows 1000 ft to flare and touchdown before braking commences, so a 757 touching down at the intersection and using max autobrake would have stopped with around 1000 ft to spare (in theory). Yes I know it is down hill but the autobrakes try to apply a specific decelleration rate. 1% down only adds 50 ft. Max manual braking is even more powerful don't forget. 757's can stop pretty damn quick when reqiured. Maybe someone could enlighten us on how well the A320 can stop.

[nginear]

Yes I know it is down hill

On 14, from the intersection it is uphill.

[Chris Wannabe]

Tight circuit,

Agree that max manual braking is plenty but as I'm sure you know the Performance Inflight figures are actual landing distances and not factored.

We'll never know the exact touch down point/speed/weight but as we've both said the ability/reliability of A320 brakes seems to be the key issue.

Wasn't there an A320 brake problem at Ibiza?

http://www.mfom.es/ciaiac/publicaciones/informes/1998/1998_019_A.pdf

Regards

[baps]

Going by the amount of rubber going off the runway by the 32 threshold not too sure that there was much of a problem with the brakes. Any thoughts?

[ia1166]

A 320 can stop in 800 mtr or so if required at MLW. just from memory

[JW411]

"An A320 can stop in 800 mtr or so if required at MLW. just from memory".

So, can you tell us all just how many times you have actually practised this exercise in a real A320 at MLW and can you tell us exactly just how many thermal plugs were left in place at the end of each exercise?

Have you actually landed an A320 at MLW?

Or did you perhaps do it once in the sim or, even worse, perhaps read the statement in a book published in Toulouse?

[E cam]

The 320 does not stop as well as a 757. I don't care what the perf figures may say. In the real world, the 75 is a much better stopper.

[timmcat]

Friend of a friend has just supplied me with a couple of new pictures. One showing clearly how near the a/c got to the steep bank at the end of 14.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/timmcat/F24b.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/timmcat/F06.jpg

[BOAC]

:eek: - don't want to be any closer..........

[HOODED]

Have now found the LBA 14/32 distances.

14 TORA/ASDA 6932ft/2113m LDA 5912ft/1802m TODA 10397ft/3169m

32 TORA/ASDA 7185ft/2190m LDA 6286ft/1916m TODA 7838ft/2389m

Given the runway is 7382ft/2250m then you can see that the CAA required displaced thresholds reduce LDA in both directions though 14 is worst affected.

Having said that I remember a Wardair 747 landing on 14!

Hope this helps.

[lbalad]

Would love to have seen Wardair 747 land on 14!.Remember seeing JAT 707,Aviaco DC8-61 land on 14 though.Those were the days!.

[HOODED]

Would've thought the Aviaco DC-8-61 would have been more interesting than the 747. Pity I missed that one.

[lamix1w]

hey

the very same aircraft was back again yesterday morning. with four people on the flight deck.

the captain also landed the damn thingperfectly and stopped well before delta taxiway.

Good work lads

laters

[ia1166]

Thanks for the post JW411. Actually i have practiced it in the sim. I witness many RTOs, MLW landings and the like for 2 weeks every month. I have a few goes to experiment myself at the end of the checks i do on people. I see crews stay on the rwy and those who go off with the same conditions. You need to brake hard. The fact that all the tyres survived makes me suspect that max braking wasn't used. In the end its debatable what is worse, a brake fire or going off the end, but thats another story.
The figure of 800 or so is an ALD from 50' above the threshold, chop the throttles, don't flare and apply max braking. No reverse. But then you seem so knowledgable i'm sure you know this.
And i have landed at MLW, a lot in places all over the world, but as i'm always on the numbers, i don't need to thrash the brakes. I have also done the same in a 757. Can't say i have seen much difference to speak of.

[barit1]

...I remember a Wardair 747 landing on 14!

I had a bit of personal familiarity with the two Wardair 747-200's they ordered straight from Boeing (they also had -100's from the aftermarket). These had all the structural upgrades for 820,000# MTOGW, but were delivered with earlier brakes which limited them to 785,000 if memory serves. This was intentional to avoid landing fee excess costs at HKG etc.

They soon upgraded the brakes, and could have applied for the higher TOGW if it ever seemed worthwhile, but meanwhile they had two 747's that could stop on a Canadian dime.

[tightcircuit]

ia1166

Your post seems to contain some contradiction and exageration. The most glaring being that anyone who thinks it is clever to land an airliner "on the numbers" really should not be doing simulator cx on anybody.

I don't know about the A320 but if you were to land a 757 from a 3 degree approach without some sort of flair it would involve a lot of hangar time for the ship. I don't suppose an airbus is that much stronger.

I guess stopping an A320 in 800mtrs from 50ft across the threshold at MLW is possible. My figures for a 757 state less than 3000 ft at "average" landing weight, which would probably equate, but a flare is allowed for in taking 1000 ft from 50 over the threshold to touchdown.

If your facts are correct then why spoil your argument with all the other stuff? It doesn't impress really.

[ia1166]

I only put that bit in get him to react with another attack. I'm a bit bored at the moment. The figure is an airbus one so involves a test pilot with a test ac so it is optimistic to believe us mere mortals could reproduce it. The airbus does stop extremely well though, and not far off from the 800 quoted, but you will definately blow a few plugs and may start a fire. But this is how boeing generate their figures as well. When they tested the asdr figures for the 777 they set fire to both MLG. You have to press and press as hard as you can. it has anti skid and as any F1 driver will tell you, changing over to carbon brakes is the biggest thing when starting in F1. They are very powerful.
The bus and 757 both land at an attitude of around 2-3 deg nose up. Although a slight flare is required, when i was an fo i witnessed a no flare landing. The rubber jungle fell out, and one tyre was damaged. a bit of hangar time but no hvy maintenance. The problem is landing on 3 points or the nose only. Or dropping it on the rwy from 100 feet after flaring early, or encountering windshear etc etc.
All in all it doesn't seem to have gone far off the runway. And it hasn't blown any tyres. One wonders if there was no braking malfunction and the cause was a long landing, whether the crew got on the brakes early enough and trusted the anti skid. Airworld used to operate the 321 out of bristol at mlw. No mean feat for the crews, and i believe bristol is shorter than leeds?Anyway, no harm done and everyone walked away.
This thread has degenerated into a 757 320 pissing contest so i'm off.

[tightcircuit]

1166,

Yes I agree with all that. I am only talking 757 because that is what I know about. I have no axe to grind. I still have trouble with the no flare bit though. It is very difficult psychologically not to flare and in the instance you quote a slight, or very gentle flare would perhaps have been made. Just enough to take the edge off the impact. A small reduction in the flight path angle makes a big difference to the vertical speed on touchdown. On the 75 most people start to flare much earlier than the Boeing recommended technique. If you do it the Boeing way the ground really seems to be rushing up in the last second or so. It takes a steady nerve, but it works.

Yes this thread has drifted off course so I will shut up now too.

Cheers