Narrow body Airbus landing flap.

[Mulligan]

I have posted this thread on the tech log, which is perhaps more appropriate.

I'm curious about landing flap setting at other companies.(319.320.321)
We are encouraged to use flap 3 for fuel conservation but most F/Os I fly with seem to use flap full regardless of how long the runway is. Generally they've been on the airplane longer than me and I have a theory that perhaps flap full was the only setting approved for landing at one time. Us pilots are pretty reactionary when it comes to new ideas! Some guys tell me that the cost in extra brakewear is higher than the fuel savings but I'm content to leave that sort of thing to the company tech heads.
I generally use flap 3 and idle reverse unless there's a reason not to. Short or slippery runway for instance. In addition to fuel savings, flap 3 gives better go around performance and seems to make the airplane more manageable in gusts. My history is the 737-200 and flap 30 unless flap 40 was necessary.
Having said the above, I will say that I use flap full in the 321 for the extra tailstrike protection.
So, what happens at your outfit? 3 or full...and why?

[Dream Land]

Our operation still uses config full on both airframes (320/321), no fuel policies in effect, left up to crews :} . Encouraged to use config 3 for gusty conditions, we do have an SOP for auto brake LOW for all landings, MED for contamination, no policy for thrust rev, we have carbon brakes and I personally use idle.

[sunnysmith]

Hi Mulligan,

Just my 2p's worth but:

In general I agree with you FO's. I flew the 319/20/21 for over 6 years and flap full is IMHO much better.
As far as I recall: in 2001 there was a notice from Airbus regarding the use of flap 3. This notice was based around some incidents other airlines had whilst landing Flap Full in gusty conditions. The general prob was that the 'old standard' ELACS were mis-calculating alpa-prot. This was exasperated during gusty weather (with Flap full extended), causing the a/thr to think the a/c was going to stall and thus apply TOGA. Makes landing a bit tricky!!!! So the quick fix was to use Flap 3 so as to increase the margins. The notice was effective for 6 months to a year, however after that everyone seemed to associate F3 with gust weather!!!!

Anyway, my experiences:

If it's windy/gusty I used Flap Full. I personally felt the engines were more responsive (due to being at a higher power setting due to drag from flap full), I also found on some occasions that adding 5 kts to Vapp to be useful (mostly when the FACs calculated a different Vls to the FMGC).

Once in windshear conditions my capt elected to use F3 for the app. We ended up in an unstable approach with the engines changing power from 40% all the way up to 85% (despite the auto-trim it was very unstable). We did a go-around, jointly agreed to try again with Flap full. The result was a far more stable app with pwr set at roughly 55% with less fluctuations.

Also, In general I noticed with f3 much higher attitudes on landing (one up at 10 degrees), and personally find that stressful.

As for fuel saving, I don't think it saves much if at all. The testing was prob done in a sim where it is calm, in real life, as I said the power can vary a lot with f3 which I believe will give the same average fuel flow as a straight forward ffull approach!

Anyway as I said just my opinion and all based on observations and chat with skippers and fo's over the years!

SSmih

[Dream Land]

The notice was effective for 6 months to a year, however after that everyone seemed to associate F3 with gust weather!!!!
I have always used flaps 3 for gusty conditions because the manufactuer recommends it, A, and B, because I heard it does change the schedule on the 321, ailerons before spoilers.
Once in windshear conditions my capt elected to use F3 for the app. We ended up in an unstable approach with the engines changing power from 40% all the way up to 85% (despite the auto-trim it was very unstable). We did a go-around, jointly agreed to try again with Flap full. The result was a far more stable app with pwr set at roughly 55% with less fluctuations From your description this sounds like an A/THR problem, in these conditions my recommendation is to turn off A/THR, especially on the 321.

[Angryfool]

Mulligan
I personally use flap full for the 319/320 and flap 3 for the 321 unless there is a tailwind component on final. Unfortunately the 'geniuses' who came up with the idea of fuel savings etc are a perhaps not looking at the 'big picture.' How much fuel is it really going to save? in my view the negative points far out weigh the + points. The -ve;

More g/a's because stable criteria not met
Significantly increased chance of a tail strike on a 320 (especially with a tailwind)
More brake wear
Some individuals thinking that Flap 3 on a 320/321 is company SOP and will do it on short runways like ABZ!

I've been on the airbus for a while and when i first started we always used to do flap full, then later on it was recommended to use flap 3 for gusty conditions. Not all did, and it was no big deal.
I feel this new policy will be changed further down the line, when i'm sure they realise that the saving in fuel is far outweighed by the 'relative cost' of the other factors above.

Ultimately the question that needs to be asked is which one demonstrates better airmanship?

[Down Three Greens]

Interestingly..our company asked Airbus about Flap Three landings to save fuel. Their recommendation is to land in Flap Full in normal conditions. (Turbulence aside...etc, etc).

....I think the saying might go along the lines of 'No Technical Objection'

[A4]

Of course there is the question of not operating the aircraft in accordance with the FOM.

If you decide to land Flap 3 for a reason other than gusty/windshear conditions (as recommended by Airbus) and you smack the tail or go off the end (ABZ), Airbus (and your insurers :eek: ) will turn round and say "You were not operating in accordance with the FOM - it's your own fault".

In todays litgious (sp?) society we need to be mindful of our actions and the possibility of having to "justify" them at a later date.

I did hear, and perhaps someone would confirm or otherwise, that when Flap Full is selected the Roll control laws change slightly to give LESS roll authority. So Flap 3 for landing gives less drag (more energy) AND you have a greater RATE of roll available to you which could be useful. Might be complete hocum but sounds reasonable.

A4

[outofsynch]

Interestingly, 'the big orange' (A319 only) has just had a change to the Ops manual allowing flap 3 as a Normal landing flap setting, with all the above warnings/guidance. Previously Flap 3 was only an Abnormal condition, as per FCOM, I believe. The important issue these days is noise, and the lower power setting at F3 must make the aircraft a lot quiter from the ground.

Flap 3 also avoids that rather uncomfortable 'buffett' that flap full gives. It must be much gentler on flaps, and airframe.

A4 - I think Airbus have had a change of attitude on F3 normal ops.

The autothrust argument is a bit different. The OEB states if A/T isnt coping then you have the speed selected too low. I would NEVER disconnect A/T in gusty conditions, because you lose all the underspeed protection, apart from alpha floor. A lawyer's field day, when the FCOM advises against manual thrust.

[Itaqhua]

Airbus hasn't changed anything in the FCOM with regards to Flap 3 for Landing. Full Flaps for normal landing, recommended F3 in windshear, gusty and icing conditions...

"big orange" is allowing F3 to save another tiny bit of fuel...

[outofsynch]

Which is then wasted taxiing back from the 'next' turnoff......... clutching? straws? :ouch:

[DBate]

At my outit there is no regulation considering the landing flap setting - Flaps 3 and Full are both regular landing flap settings.

Generally, most of our pilots use flaps Full as landing flap setting.
Me - I prefer flaps Full on most landings, but use 3 in gusty/strong wind conditions and always when flying the A321 - regardless of the wind conditions, as I think it gives me a much better control compared to a flaps full landing.

The argument of tailstrike protection on the A321 is neglectable I think, as tests have proven that while the pitch difference between flaps 3 & flaps Full on the A319/320 is about 2.5° (~2.5° with flaps Full and ~5° with flaps 3), it is just marginal on the A321 (~2.5° compared to ~2.7°).

But - something I have seen several times now - if pilots who are not used to fly the approach with flaps 3 and decide to use that on a gusty and windy approach tend to work much harder, since they are not used to the 'non-standard' powersettings. They increase the workload on them already present due to the weather by selecting a flap setting they are not used to.

So I would recommend - in gusty conditions, use flaps Full if you feel more comfortable with that. Of course as long as your OM allows it.