Iberia Aborted Landing in Bilbao

[FrequentSLF]

http://www.deia.com/es/galeria.php
Interesting pictures...

[ratarsedagain]

i hope that puff of smoke is off the tyres!!!

[hetfield]

Iberia Aborted Landing in Bilbao

Good idea.

[despegue]

Bilbao is a CAT C airport, thus requiring additional training/familiarisation for the flightcrew. mainly due to terrain issues, but also because this same terrain can cause some quite impressive windchanges/gusts, as seen in these pictures.
What exactly went wrong is difficult to see for me though, maybe Airbus collegues can help?

[hetfield]

Looks like hard/bounced landing in a crab.

Anyhow, great pictures.

[Bearcat]

yeah, looks like it was buried, bounced and lifted by a gust. They are v lucky they did'nt carve the port wing into the rwy. Bilbao is a sh@t hole re winds and shear.

[A4]

Judging by the rate of smoke drift and the drift on the go around it looks like a stiff southerly breeze. With the significant terrain just to the south, I'm not suprised the approach was a little "sporty". Looks like the wing tip would have been very close to a strike.

Did they divert or get in next time round?

A4

PS I really don't like BIO!

A4

[reverserunlocked]

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5819/mainphpg2viewcoredi6.jpg

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/7796/mainphpg2viewcoreis5.jpg

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3706/mainphpg2viewcorecj6.jpg

The smoke is indeed from the tyres. Watching the sequence it looks like a crosswind denture rattler that caught a gust just at the wrong moment. Still, all in a day's work eh?

[badboy raggamuffin]

How not to do a crosswind landing!
......not that mine are much better.

[Flap 80]

Excellent photos,however with the significant wing drop ,no attempt seems to be made to pick up the wing. No aileron or spoiler deflection seen. I am aware of A320 auto wing level function and the need to be gentle with the sidestick to avoid a PIO in this scenario but would be interested to hear whether a short term rapid right sidestick input would have helped to reduce the tip ground proximity. Thanks.

[euroflyer]

Heard from 2 of the passengers on board, the aircraft made 2 attempts to land but both resulted in go-arounds. They then diverted to Vitoria which was very gusty too, especially for a non precision or circling approach on rwy 22, which was the runway in use.

[lingasting]

What of earth do they teach them at flying school these days during basic training? This guy appears not to have any idea of the basics whatsoever.

I among others cannot spot even the hint if corrective action with both aileron or rudder.

[Max Angle]

Also interesting to note that despite the firm touchdown in the first photo there is no sign of the spoilers deploying which is perhaps why it bounced in the first place. I suppose it could be that the go-around was being started as the mains touched for the first time, thrust levers not at idle would explain the lack of spoilers.

[badboy raggamuffin]

Agreed, it doesn't look like good piloting was being exhibited, but none of us have any idea of exactly how bad the conditions were. And thus we should not criticise the Iberia pilot's technique. Is it not true that the same thing could potentially happen to anyone of us given a nasty enough combination of gusts and windshear?


Lingasting, I find it amusing that you seem to be able to deduce that the pilot is incompetent through apparently zooming in on the control surfaces to see exactly what control inputs he/she was putting in during the landing.

[hawker750]

It is difficult to be sure but I can detect no right aileron or left rudder in those pictures. I fly old fashioned aircraft. Do they do it a different way in modern ones??

[TopBunk]

Bilbao is an 'interesting' airfield to operate into, as are various others. I have on been there on various occasions in the last 20 years.

Stills or single frame photos (if you prefer) do not tell the whole story. The dynamics on any approach can vary significantly from one second to the next, and what seems stable one second can suddenly become unstable.

They require instantaneous decisions by the flight crew as to the best course of action, so before anyone 'critisizes' any decisions made by a flight crew, they should be aware of all factors involved (very unlikely), and the opions considered (also unlikely).

[badboy raggamuffin]

In my opinion the angle and distance from which the pictures are taken from would make it impossible to say for certain whether any rudder or aileron was being applied. To categotically judge the rudder and aileron inputs your viewpoint would have to be directly in line with the aircraft's longitudinal and lateral axes.

Plus I find it hard to believe that the pilot was not using his rudder and ailerons during this attempted landing.
As far as I can make out the pilot's apparent "crime" was to not attempt to de-crab the aircraft before touchdown, however if he had already initiated the go around before the wheels touched the runway then he wouldn't have bothered.

[hetfield]

Wasn't there a crash-landing (write-off) of an IBERIA A320 couple of years ago?

Also windy conditions?

[Caudillo]

Nothing to do with bad piloting technique. Regarding the lack of spoilers, it is entirely possible that the handling pilot found himself using thrust until touchdown. In strong gusty cross-winds I often fly it onto/into the ground, better that than chop the thrust at the point the aircraft reminds you what you are and float, float, float...

[Nearly There]

What of earth do they teach them at flying school these days during basic training? This guy appears not to have any idea of the basics whatsoever.


Linglasting, I take it you know who is flying by that comment. If not then for all you know he or she could be a 20000hour pilot at the controls.

I dont normally enter into these arguments but jesus, the crew know what the conditions were at that second in time and thats it!! the rest is pure speculation, yes good pictures but thats all anyone can say...
As for not knowing the basics, do you really think they would be flying if they didnt..

:ugh: some people....

[Pittsle]

By the way: Last time I was there I noticed that there is a cemetery right off the end of the runway, just behind the trees.
Quite frightening.

[Nearly There]

Could have confused the crash investigators!! how many pax on board!:E

[Wrongstuff]

Another bloody trial by PPrune

[NudgingSteel]

To be fair, he put it down impressively accurately on the centreline given an obviously strong crosswind.....I rarely managed that in a 152 in the calm!!!

[kispo]

Hi

I believe landing/go-around was around 14:15 UTC... Looking the METAR for LEBB around that hour...

LEBB 151300Z 20019G33KT 150V240 CAVOK 16/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151330Z 20020G37KT 140V250 CAVOK 16/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151400Z 20023G38KT 160V240 CAVOK 17/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151430Z 20029G45KT 170V260 CAVOK 17/05 Q1004 NOSIG=
LEBB 151500Z 21027G48KT 140V260 CAVOK 17/05 Q1003 NOSIG=
LEBB 151530Z 20026G42KT 160V230 CAVOK 17/04 Q1003 NOSIG=

...we can see that it was "windy" and also "a bit too much" variable!

Regards
Miguel Branco da Silva

[ZAGORFLY]

Judging form the pictures from the TDZ to the point of lift-off is less than 70 meters therfore the action sequence was less (far less) than a second. Therefore: good reflexis captain! second attemt failed? GO to the alternate please! Accidents happen always the third time.

[Bushfiva]

For those interested in more about the photos: photographer was Zigor Alkorta. IPTC info associated with the photos is:

"LA PALOMA. LOIU. El vendaval que azoto ayer Euskadi pudo acabar en tragedia, evitada por la pericia de un piloto. El avion de Iberia procedente de Madrid que se disponia a tomar tierra en el aeropuerto de Bilbao tuvo que remontar el vuelo tras tocar su tren de aterrizaje la pista e inclinarse de forma espectacular."

Timing of the photos is: 15:15:38, 15:15:42, 15:15:43, 15:15:44, 15:15:46, 15:15:50. So the full sequence of photos covers 12 seconds and the 2nd-4th photos cover 2 seconds.

400mm on an EOS 20D, from which the determined person could calculate how far the camera is from the aircraft.

[lingasting]

Nearly There (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=205192)

"As for not knowing the basics, do you really think they would be flying if they didn't.."

Yes, is the answer.

It has been well established that introduction of automatics etc., in modern a/c, that basic flying skills have erroded to an alarming extent. To me those pictures have proved it.

I started (still learning) 39 years ago so I have a fair idea from observation if a pilot is handling a situation correctly not. Please don't try and baffle me with science.

All I can really add is this. Thank God for nosewheel a/c:=

[viscous]

Hetfield,

You are correct! An IB 320 was written off there a few years back. If the rumour mill of the day was accurate, Airbus admitted some programme shortcommings in the fly by wire when dealing with conditions like these. (i know not much about airbus a/c). I have spent some time at BIO however, and can say that with a southerly breeze like this you can deflect the aileron one way without the wing immediately going the way you would wish. By the time it does move as directed you may no longer want it going that way!

This place gets seriously turbulent down low. Passengers disembark sobbing and greatful to be on the ground. The crew got everyone back to earth safely, no damage to the jet, a little more experience gained.

Anyone trying to put a tailwheel down in these conditions shouldnt be there.

[hetfield]

Here it is as of 07 FEB 2001

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010207-0

[despegue]

Lingasting,

If you are indeed flying for already 39 years, then you should know that by merely looking at some pictures, you still have no idea about the actions of the crew. So either you are a windup, or you are an incredibly obnoxious know-all who thinks he's god's gift to aviation. Both are sad.
So stop your "Spanish" Inquisition and grow up.

[lingasting]

Not against the Spanish or the said pilot, it is the system that worries me. The handling pilot took the right course of action in the end. However, looking at the photos, if that been a 4 engined A/c at least one engine would have been "podded".

As me being against the Spanish. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the finest and most capable pilots I have ever seen and worked with,was an ex Spanish Airforce Hispano ME 109, pilot. Now that guy was good.

Not God's gift to aviation, just an average pilot who has seen more than the average and giving my 2 cents worth.

[Doors to Automatic]

From the weather reports it looks like the wind was fairly close to limits with the gusts taking it over the limit - and virtually straight across runway 12.

[michaelknight]

Could happen to the best of us, I remember burying the 737 into Bournmouth in about 15 knots! Stand the thrust levers and the spoliers retract and autobrake kicks out, not nice, but, you live and you learn (fast).

As my instructor said to me once, "if you were supposed to get it right first time, there would be no lessons."

MK

[rubik101]

Those us who have been there often will tell you that whenever the wind is from the south or north and over about 15kts, the turbulence near the runway is out of all proportion to the wind strength. It is a function of the valley location and the high ground either side of the approach centrelines.
If you get through your entire flying career without doing a hard/bounced landing from which the prudent course of action is to fly away and try again later, then you have been very lucky. On the other hand, you could say that you have a lot to learn because an experience like that is surely an education. As one who has done pretty much exactly what occurred in these pictures on at least two occasions, one of them at Bilbao and the other at FUE, I commend the pilot for his skill and quick thinking in safely flying the aircraft away from a potentially hazardous situation.

Well done that man!

For you ignorant and inexperienced pilots who are so quick to criticise the pilot on the evidence of a few pictures, either learn by experience or shut up until you know what you are talking about.

[Double Hydco]

As one who flies an Airbus into BIO on a regular basis, I can confirm Rubik101's experiences of this airport. It really needs to be treated with respect, especially when the wind is gusting from the south! Even when the wind is calm on the ground, 10-15 kts from the south can cause some amazing rotor effects during the initial decent.

All in all, I think he did quite a good job to get that close to the centreline after the VOR Rwy 12....at BIO I think I may have been twiching as the gusts hit 30 kts!

[peacock1]

The a/c in these pictures is an A321.
There is an airwortiness directive on this sub-model of the A320 series which concerns landing in gusty crosswinds, or if residual icing is suspected. You must land with Flap 3, due to concerns about a/c controllability in Flap Full.
Was flap full used in this case?
It's a bit difficult to see from the photo's.
:=

[ray cosmic]

Re crab/de-crab: very often it is being taught to land with crab, since the torquetubes in the gear have no problem handling it, and the risk of a podstrike is too great when applying C152 style x-wind landings.

Though a bit of aileron into the wind never seems to hurt either when winds are really stiff.

My Boeing book reads:

Sideslip only (zero crab) landings are not recommended in crosswinds in excess of 20 knots. This recommendation ensures adequate ground clearance and is based on maintaining adequate control margin.
and:
Touchdown In Crab
The airplane can land using crab only (zero side slip) up to the landing crosswind guideline speeds. (See the landing crosswind guidelines table, this chapter). On dry runways, upon touchdown the airplane tracks toward the upwind edge of the runway while de-crabbing to align with the runway. Immediate upwind aileron is needed to ensure the wings remain level while rudder is needed to track the runway centerline. The greater the amount of crab at touchdown, the larger the lateral deviation from the point of touchdown. For this reason, touchdown in a crab only condition is not recommended when landing on a dry runway in strong
crosswinds

Again, this references only to Boeing aircraft.

[TE RANGI]

Two incidents and one accident in a couple of months.

A340 landing accident at UIO

A340 departure with contaminated aircraft and no deicing at BOS

A320 bounced landing/go around at BIO

Do we see a trend here?

[despegue]

Yes, the trend of blaming pilots without having a clue what happened by some Sofa-flightcrews specialising in FS2000.

[A4]

I agree with Despegue. I love PPrune and it is a great place to discuss all matters aviation. However, I am becoming tired of posts by people who evidentally have very little experience / knowledge but try to pass themselves off as the opposite. By all means ask sensible questions but please leave the discussion to the more learned.......

As for those who pass judgement based on some photos....... please just stop!

VOR to 12 at BIO gusting close to limits. Looks to me like he planted it on the centreline pretty close to the numbers, wings level (double puff of tyre smoke) - not too bad under the conditions I'd say. Perhaps the reason there are no spoilers is that the levers were in TOGA at touchdown as the Go around had been initiated?

Anyone who has not landed at BIO in a gusty conditions is in no position to comment. I had an "interesting" arrival back into the UK one day last year when it was gusting 60+knots (only 30° off mind you ;) ) and if I got back to find my efforts being disected on PPrune by a bunch of ....... whatevers, I'd be pretty pi$$ed off. You weren't there so give the guy a break.

I don't particularly relish going to work when I read the METARS and TAFS and I see gusting 30+..... but I, and numerous other Professional pilots, just get on with it because that is what we are - Professional. By the way, that's what the first P in PPrune also stands for.

The server is on its knees anyway so can we please cut down on the unnecessary cr@p. Thanks.

A4

[TE RANGI]

Yes, the trend of blaming pilots without having a clue what happened by some Sofa-flightcrews specialising in FS2000.

Relax, Despegue. All I'm saying is that three serious incidents in a couple of months would flag a red alarm at any safety department.

On the other hand, it is you who presume about other people's experience without a clue. Your profile shows you're just a 737 copilot. You still have a long way to go.


N4641P:

Rejected Landing is a correct expression, and it is used in Airbus (and Boeing) manuals and other documents. It is a go around initiated at or below DH and the main gear contacting the runway surface is a possibility.

[despegue]

Sorry pal, Cpt. B737 and I don't have to relax, I am relaxed, just not willing to put up anymore with the Inquisition that frequents Pprune.

Don't take it personally. Fact is however that more and more people that participate here have no experience in handling commercial aircraft.

[xetroV]

I fully agree with despegue. Threads like these show how little there is left of the first P in PPRuNe. Sad, but true. Between all the nonsense there are still enough insightful posts by people like A4 that make visiting this site worthwhile, but the signal to noise ratio seems to be worsening by the minute. :(

[PA38-Pilot]

Yes, the trend of blaming pilots without having a clue what happened by some Sofa-flightcrews specialising in FS2000.

How dare you! It is FSX now! Making it "as real as it gets"!:} (I fully agree with you though...)

Back on topic, it was probably just a go around, and the crew had it right on the centerline. Quite good for those conditions, and great pictures.

[Cosmo]

Ref de-crab:

De-crabbing in A32S A/C is performed when flare is initiated. It is sufficient that a trend towards de-crabbing has been started. Into wind aileron is to be avoided, as it commands roll rate.

[daelight]

The pattern I see is the great airmanship demonstrated by both Airbus and Boeing et al pilots the world over, day after day and with increasing workloads too - especially the regional flyers.

The weather figures are not polite for any pilot to land. The photos are dramatic and I draw the expert opinion that the driver wanted to express a little old school Hong Kong style to the photographer. More pilots should express landings in this manner and give us armchair experts more to bicker about :p

With this internet thing and all the happy snappers about we will see more and more incidents like this that we would otherwise be blissfully unaware of. It gives me more appreciation of what pilots have to contend with every day.

[D&M]

I too say NO to the inquisition! Especially based on a few pictures... and by people who have never experienced any type of gust, apart from a virtual gust. That's just crazy!!:mad:

FBW Airbus are not the most comfortable aircraft to fly in gusty conditions. The A321 is probably the most "honest" aircraft to land in the family when the wind is calm... And a bit of a "troublemaker in gusty conditions".

I was watching a few videos from Madiera the other day and how beautifully the pilots get the "birds" down under gusty and variable winds. Enjoy and stop the inquisition! :ok:
http://www.flightlevel350.com/aviation_video.php?id=9143

[yakmadrid]

As for not knowing the basics, do you really think they would be flying if they didn't.."

Yes, is the answer.

It has been well established that introduction of automatics etc., in modern a/c, that basic flying skills have erroded to an alarming extent. To me those pictures have proved it.

I started (still learning) 39 years ago so I have a fair idea from observation if a pilot is handling a situation correctly not. Please don't try and baffle me with science.

All I can really add is this. Thank God for nosewheel a/c:=


It is pathetic that somebody that has no idea whatsoever of what he is writting about it is allowed to wtritte here. Please, somebody stop these wannabes for waisting our time and patience.

[yakmadrid]

Te rangi, just curious, what do you fly and where?

[FrequentSLF]

anyone referring to a G/A as an 'aborted landing' obviously does not have any clue what he is talking about
Well...yes....I am a SLF...and I do not have a clue of what I am talking about. So? What's wrong with it? I just posted the pics for you "out of this world experts" to give some comments. The only think you can show is disrespect. The funniest think I had in my life is reading the posts of the so called "experts". You are always ready to criticize others, standing on the stage. Well I am really tired of this. I do not mind of been banned forever from this forum, I will not loose anything. I did not write any comment, just post some pics...and here you came...ready to show how good you are. Damm...you are just doing your job, but seems that the rest of world could not understand how good you are! ...Hmmm... I am really tired...bye bye so called experts. You are the ones that are putting all the bias towards the Iberia pilots, compared to the BA 38 Pilots? The Iberia guys do not know how to fly and a/c....the BA are heros...Well there is a lot of smart people in this world that does not need a cockpit and a stick to prove it. You do not want me to interfere on your forums...than keep your forums closed!
Best Regards

[A4]

Freq SLF,

I've just had a quick review of the posts and I don't think anybody has targetted you specifically with any vitriolic comments - I'd actually like to thank you for starting the thread!

There are a few "hot heads" on here who like to shout how good they are - but the majority of us (I think) are reasonably placid and post accordingly. I have to confess though I do get a little tired of some comments by people who evidentally have no idea what they are on about. As I said earlier, by all means ask sensible questions but please do not pass judgement if you are not in a position to do so (that's not aimed specifically at you SLF! :} )

You say we are "just doing our job" and "the rest of the world doesn't understand" -well both comments are true. Yes we are doing our job and the "average Joe" does not understand what it's like to land at somewhere like BIO in the conditions depicted in the pics with 150+ passengers behind you and a several million dollars worth of company equipment in your hands. As demonstrated by the Iberia landing in a split second it can all go very pear shaped with potentially VERY serious consequences. And that's the crux. There are not too many jobs in the world that, if you make a mistake, can have such devastating consequences in a heartbeat......... which is why we get a little vexed by some of the comments that get posted on here. I wouldn't dream of passing comment on a heart surgeons technique, so why would a PPL criticise a (close to limits) crosswind landing of 60 tonne swept wing airliner? :confused:

Once again, thanks for initiating the thread.

Regards

A4

[lingasting]

I offer my sincere apologies to anyone I have upset.

Going to ban myself, from further comment on this thread.

[FrequentSLF]

the "average Joe" does not understand what it's like to land at somewhere like BIO in the conditions depicted in the pics with 150+ passengers behind you and a several million dollars worth of company equipment in your hands. As demonstrated by the Iberia landing in a split second it can all go very pear shaped with potentially VERY serious consequences. And that's the crux. There are not too many jobs in the world that, if you make a mistake, can have such devastating consequences in a heartbeat.........

A4,

Thanks for your words.
As a SLF which is flying more than 200 sectors per year, I really do appreciate the pilots professionalism. I can say I had more than a few times which I am glad that the "drivers" very great professionals.
The crux you pointed is indeed what's makes the difference.
Regards

[Farrell]

There's no point in getting upset about the comments of others on this forum.

We have airline pilots, bush pilots, fighter pilots, private pilots, student pilots, Microsoft Flight Simulator pilots, pretend pilots, good pilots, bad pilots and some absolute numpties.

All you need to do is have a look at the 777 thread, the Turkish crash thread, the accident in Phuket, or any "aborted landing" thread that goes up on R&N.

Read through the comments. Some are informative, some are just laughable.

There will always be armchair experts - and I think that they outweigh the professionals on this forum at this stage.

But I think I'm right in saying that with advertising hits and views being detrimental to the running of Pprune, that we just have to grin and bear the idiocy.

[Chris Scott]

As a retired ex-A320 driver (1988 - 2001), I've just come upon this interesting thread. Unfortunately, the link to the full set of pics is no longer applicable (?). So I'm stuck with the well-chosen three on Post#8.

Certainly looks like a late and sensible go-around, in what we can see (post#25) was roughly an on-limits crosswind (Posts#13 and #17); hence the lack of de-crab prior to touchdown, as has been said.

Having been there many times, I agree with the posts re. turbulence and wind shear at BIO, particularly the rotor effects on approach to R/W 12.

The wing-drop immediately after the brief touchdown may have been partly caused by the reaction as the tyres momentarily gripped the runway, yawing the aeroplane to the left. It may seem obvious, but this sudden roll would have required side-stick to correct, even on a FBW Airbus.

It is true that, with the AP disengaged, neutral side-stick on the A320 family normally gives zero roll-rate. Deflecting the stick to left or right commands a rate of roll (proportional to the deflection). In the event of a sudden side gust or yaw, however, the A/C rolls rather like any other. Once it has been rolled, say, 15 degrees to the left, it will stay there unless the pilot uses side-stick to pick the wing up (effectively by calling for a roll-rate to the right).

The difference from a traditional A/C is: once you have achieved the desired bank angle (zero, in this case), you remove pressure from the side-stick, whereupon the FBW will stop the A/C rolling (probably using a momentary bit of left aileron).
__________

Although the pictures are of a go-around, there has been some discussion on crosswind landing technique, and how this relates to the FBW Airbuses. Can I offer my two-pennies' worth?

Re. Post#37, in my day Flap 3 (which was also the G/A setting) was also recommended for landings in gusty conditions on the A320. Trouble was, we rarely had a chance to try it out for 'manual' landings on a nice day, to get used to the higher pitch and lower thrust setting. [With the excellent GS-MINI system normally averting the need for increased thrust as the IAS tumbled, the thrust over the threshold could be quite low.] There was also some handling difference in the control laws (I can't remember what), maybe because Flap 3 is one of the approved take-off settings.

I notice ray cosmic's Boeing quote (Post#38), permitting landing without de-crab. Don't remember this on the A320, and it feels dreadful when done unintentionally. [Am I right in saying that the main gear on the B737 has some ability to castor? After they have turned on to a straight taxiway, they often seem to be crabbing along.]

For the landing, side-slip (crossed-controls) technique has been demonstrated to work well, but is not an approved method. The most obvious reason is that, in a limiting crosswind, pod-scrape on the A320 is possible, particularly at higher pitch angles.

The recommended technique in my day was to de-crab before touchdown, avoiding use of aileron unless and until the aeroplane rolled. In my experience, however, the A/C invariably rolled as a result of the de-crab. Accordingly, I always pre-empted this by using a moderate amount of into-wind roll-demand in opposition to the rudder. At completion of de-crab, rudder and stick were centralised.

This technique often led to the up-wind gear touching down first, followed immediately by the down-wind gear, whether or not the roll demand was removed. With both wheels firmly on the ground, it was my practice to reintroduce into-wind aileron until about 80 knots.

By the way, on crosswind take-offs it helped to anticipate the all-too-commonly-seen wing drop, during rotation, in a similar fashion.

All this seemed to work well, but the obligation to teach only SOPs prevented me from recommending it to my co-pilots...

So, what are you FBW-Airbus pilots doing in 2008?

[relax.jet]

I'm sure the pilots of this plane knew how to land in crosswind conditions.

We haven't been there so we shouldn't judge them.

Happy landings.

[Aslak]

I am sure they did their best and I am not even going to start with the subject. It is so easy to sit in your office and second guess things that happened earlier...

But, just as a point to the following statement:

"Bilbao is a CAT C airport, thus requiring additional training/familiarisation for the flightcrew."

Maybe it is CAT C, maybe it is not.
If it is not specially stated in a state AIP to require special training to meet certain criterias, CAT C airport determination is up to the operator.

Safe landings!

[broadreach]

Chris Scott,

Thanks for your clear and elucidative post. If you google Iberia Bilbao or a similar combination you'll probably come across the full sequence of photos, but they'll just fill in the sequential gaps.

As cameras, still and video, come cheaper, uploading to the internet comes easier and interesting employment becomes scarcer, an increasing proportion of all landings and departues will be posted to the internet somewhere. It's probably a good thing for more more people to see that it ain't so easy every time. but, of course, only the cockups and near-disasters will be uploaded. To be expected.

FrequentSFL, take Farrell's and A4's comments seriously. By posting, you may have set off a shooting war between iconoclasts and other idiots, but nobody's shooting at you. That sort of to-and-fro, even when vested in ignorance, is good because it makes us all think.

Keep thinking!

[Doors to Automatic]

Talking of numpties there is a video on You Tube of a missed approach at Dublin in high winds.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YkPgalYvGB8

One of the comments made me laugh out loud, I quote:

"i would have brought her down first time no probs ive done it loads of times on my micro flight sim and only crashed twice out of six landings on same runway."
:ugh:

[D&M]

Still amazes me how people think Flight Simulators can teach them how to land a real A330 in gusty conditions...:confused:

Do they feel as well that playing F1 Grand Prix will give them a shot at beating Hamilton at Silverstone in his new McLaren?...:ugh:

[Centaurus]

As for not knowing the basics, do you really think they would be flying if they didnt..

If you saw what I often see in the simulator, your touching faith in the wonderful manipulative skills of airline pilots would be sorely tested...

[bellend]

http://www.diariodelviajero.com/2008/01/18-aterrizaje-abortado-de-un-avion-de-iberia-en-bilbao

new link to images for those interested :=

[flyer146]

It is true that, with the AP disengaged, neutral side-stick on the A320 family normally gives zero roll-rate. Deflecting the stick to left or right commands a rate of roll (proportional to the deflection). In the event of a sudden side gust or yaw, however, the A/C rolls rather like any other. Once it has been rolled, say, 15 degrees to the left, it will stay there unless the pilot uses side-stick to pick the wing up (effectively by calling for a roll-rate to the right).

The difference from a traditional A/C is: once you have achieved the desired bank angle (zero, in this case), you remove pressure from the side-stick, whereupon the FBW will stop the A/C rolling (probably using a momentary bit of left aileron).




1. Congratulations to the pilots involved in this landing at Bilbao. They did what was required and show very good pilot skills in my opinion !

2. Concerning the above text mentionned by Chris Scott about roll rate :
In my opinion you are very wrong !

In the 330-340 aircrafts; the flight control "NORMAL LAW" reverts ("blend in") to "DIRECT LAW" once below 100ft RA if I remember well.
Is this different on the 320 ? I would really doubt about this (same family of aircrafts).
You are referring to "roll rate" command which is the case in "NORMAL LAW" (above 100 ft RA) but in "DIRECT LAW" (during landing and t/o - below 100ft), the side stick inputs are commanding surface deflection (angle of deflection)- hence "DIRECT" called.
Very very much like in conventional aircrafts !!
You need bank to correct ? Just bank like in any aircraft : the stick input you give will correspond to an angle of deflection of the ailerons, no more no less.
This permitting to give more natural feeling of the handling of the aircraft during those difficult phases.
These "flight control law" changes are not announced in the cockpit but part of theoretical knowledge and part of the flt ctl software.

Anyone to comment on this ? to confirm or refute ?

Thanks !

Be positive please, how can you give such negative critics (some of you) without having been in the cockpit of this aircraft on that day ??? !!!:oh:

cheers

flyer146

[Right Way Up]

Flyer146,
Chris Scott is correct. The A320 stays in "inflight mode" i.e. roll rate proportional to side stick deflection until on the ground.

[Right Way Up]

FCOM 1.27.20
NORMAL LAW

When the aircraft is on the ground (in "on ground" mode), the sidestick commands the aileron and roll spoiler surface deflection. The amount of control surface deflection that results from a given amount of sidestick deflection depends upon aircraft speed. The pedals control rudder deflection through a direct mechanical linkage. The aircraft smoothly transitions to "in flight" mode shortly after liftoff.

When the aircraft is in the "in flight" mode, normal law combines control of the ailerons, spoilers (except N° 1 spoilers), and rudder (for turn coordination) in the sidestick. While the system thereby gives the pilot control of the roll and heading, it also limits the roll rate and bank angle, coordinates the turns, and damps the dutch roll.

The roll rate requested by the pilot during flight is proportional to the sidestick deflection, with a maximum rate of 15° per second when the sidestick is at the stop.

When the aircraft is in "flare" mode, the lateral control is the same as in "in flight" mode.

After touchdown, the aircraft smoothly transitions from "in flight" mode to "ground" mode.



You guys can suppose and doubt all you like, this is what an A320 does. Maybe you would like to confirm the 330/340 qualities from your manual. :rolleyes:

[flyer146]

You guys can suppose and doubt all you like, this is what an A320 does. Maybe you would like to confirm the 330/340 qualities from your manual. :rolleyes:

Thanks Right Way Up to leave us our freedom of comments !
Appoologies to Chris Scott if I was wrong, as posted I was "feeling" a certain way and needed your opinion on the subject.
I take good note of your interesting posts.

As you know a software is easily changed. It is a known fact Airbus has done these changes from normal to direct law during landing on 330/340.
Maybe as well on the A320 ??

Be aware the FCOM does not reveal all the software logics though.

Quite interesting as we know that in certain companies they do cross qualification on 320-330/340.

If an Airbus specialist would comment ...

See u,
flyer146

[Right Way Up]

Flyer146,
No problem with your opinions. My post was really a reaction to the finger wagging poster who has since deleted his post. I can confirm though that our minibuses do as advertised in the FCOM. I have to say I am amazed that Airbus have changed the flight control laws for such a critical stage of flight without notification through FCOMs.

[flyer146]

Right Way Up : no offence felt really !! :)
You have proven that my opinion was not correct, thanks for that as I was looking for confirmation/refute of it :ok:

Now, concerning those flt ctl laws : Airbus has "fine tuned" a lot on their different machines. Mostly following incidents/accidents. And indeed this was not always directly communicated to us pilots... (example : flt ctl new software implementation before update of FCOM...yes it happenened!) Hopefully this "communication" has improved they say...

An example of modif being the modification of the flare law on A320 following an accident of Iberia in Bilbao during a windshear... (yes...what a coïncidence right !)
I have to admit, it apparently only consist of a modification on the pitch law though and not on the roll law (still roll in normal law as you very correctly say).
The "new" pitch law giving roughly more control to pilots than before in high AOA... That was communicated correctly in due time apparently.

Now, to my understanding in this landing, the aircraft touched down before the bank developped (am I right ???). Hence, I suppose it is then in "direct" law - ground law - as this law seems to be active 0.5s after touch and through take off till 50 feet... Again, just a question I am asking myself in view of better understanding of this beautiful machine !

flyer146

[animado]

Here is the link to a interview to the captain of flight IBE446. It is in spanish. The problem was a strong wind gust who moved the right plane.

There is no info about flight details but a lot about the special features of Bilbao. By the way, the only time I have landed there I had the same problem.

http://www.deia.com/es/impresa/2008/01/19/bizkaia/gizartea/435060.php

[CONF iture]

330/340
FCOM 1.27.20
When the aircraft is in "flare" mode, the lateral control is the same as in "in flight" mode.
so ... very much similar to 320

I suppose it is then in "direct" law - ground law -
Not really ...
After touchdown, the aircraft smoothly transitions from "in flight" mode to "ground" mode
means 2 compressed oleos for at least 5 sec.

[flyer146]

thanks for the inputs.

flyer146

[Chris Scott]

Oh dear, I should have known I would end up in trouble if I tried to air my limited recollection of even one aspect of the A320-family flight-control laws (post#56). Now that I have a life ;) , what manuals I was able to keep are gathering mildew, and are un-amended since my retirement in late-2001.

Thanks anyway, flyer 146! But I think Right Way up is correct in respect of the A320 family. Re. the flight under discussion here, there are two points:
(1) the touchdown was very brief - less than the half-second you mention;
(2) we can assume that TOGA thrust was selected before, during, or immediately after.

To discuss lengthily is not necessarily to find fault; those who quickly and loudly condemn usually have issues of their own. When we have ceased to learn rationally from our own and others' experiences, and to recognise our own fallibility, it's time to give up.

Now that we have a link to 6 photos in the sequence (post#63), the circumstances are clearer. The event was either a sensible late go-around, during the course of which the main-wheels briefly touched down; or a bounced landing, followed immediately by a sensible go-around.
Perhaps other experienced flyers will forgive me continuing to try and interpret the photos?

Image#1 shows the A/C continuing its approach; and possibly making a slight heading adjustment, to correct the fact that the A/C is tracking slightly downwind (left) of the extended centreline.

Image#2 shows touchdown, wings level, just left of the runway centreline, tracking gradually towards it. Pitch attitude has increased; whether for the landing flare or a go-around is unclear. There has been no apparent de-crab. [De-crab cannot be done during a go-around, but is preferable on a landing.]

Image#3 shows the touchdown smoke (from left and right gear tyres) blowing rapidly downwind. The A/C has just left the ground, although a slight de-rotation is not consistent with a go-around at this point. It seems to have yawed slightly to the left. [There is a possibility that the wheels may have contributed to this during the brief touchdown.] The right wing is lifting; due either to a gust, the yaw, or an unintentional pilot roll-input (easily done in rough conditions with the side-stick); or some combination of these factors.

Image#4 shows the aeroplane clearly going-around: height and pitch have increased considerably. The roll is giving cause for concern, and must be recovered by side-stick.

The timing of images#5 and #6 suffers from the long-distance perspective of the camera, foreshortening the forward dimension; and the lack of a time-base. Judging from the moving smoke, the interval between #4 and #5 is similar to that between #3 and #4.

Image#5 shows the A/C in a typical G/A attitude, roll recovered. It seems to have yawed to the right; whether due to a gust, or possible right rudder (to try and assist the roll recovery), is debatable. [If Iberia analyse all their flights, using QAR data, any large rudder deflection in flight might flag up.]

Image#6 (time interval uncertain) shows the A/C climbing normally on the runway heading, drifting downwind. The main gear is still visible, but there's never any need to rush and, in a "wind-shear go-around", the crew must leave the gear down until satisfied that ground clearance is assured. This is partly because retracting the gear initially increases drag, as the gear doors open.


Going back to the control laws on the various FBW Airbuses, I always thought that pilot multi-rating capability and short conversion courses are an Airbus sales pitch? So the handling qualities need to be as similar as possible. Thanks, CONF iture, for confirming this.

[jose 4499]

Iberia´s Captain began his career as Spanish Air Force pilot. Actually has 17.000 flying hours in the airline.

Iberia´s Operations Manual is very clear about operating in Bilbao, is absolutelly forbiden to iniciate an approach while south winds components of 15 knots...

That day on runway 12 was windy, from the east-south-east 25 knots gusty 35, but wind changed suddenly to south 70 knots!, nothing to do in that conditions... just fly away to Vitoria.

[A4]

Iberia´s Operations Manual is very clear about operating in Bilbao, is absolutelly forbiden to iniciate an approach while south winds components of 15 knots...

That's an eye opener! If the locals place such a restriction thn perhaps other operators should have a rethink on BIO and strong southerlys!

A4

[rog747]

have read these posts with interest, also...
in 1975 a british airways (BAS northeast division, was BKS) trident 1E G -AVYD ? was written off landing ? here in Bilbao,

im trying to find ANY report,
there is confliciting reports on the internet saying landing incident AND a RTO!
i was working for the company who charterered these tridents for weekend holiday flights but it was all a bit hushed up and i forgot all about it.
anyone help please?
thanks

[CATIIIXX]

TE RANGI

It appears there is some sort of unresolved professional resentment behind your posts here.:ugh:
Appart from Quito incident/accident which is under investigation at the moment, ¿have you any proof, I mean proof, of any incident related to IB flight on Dec, 2 Bos-Mad?.http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/infopop/icons/icon13.gifhttp://www.pprune.org/forums/images/infopop/icons/icon13.gifhttp://www.pprune.org/forums/images/infopop/icons/icon13.gif

[Chris Scott]

Quote from jose 4499:
Iberia´s Operations Manual is very clear about operating in Bilbao, is absolutelly forbiden to iniciate an approach while south winds components of 15 knots...
That day on runway 12 was windy, from the east-south-east 25 knots gusty 35, but wind changed suddenly to south 70 knots!, nothing to do in that conditions... just fly away to Vitoria.
[Unquote]

kispo (post#25) supplied us with the following METARS, apparently relating to the day in question:

LEBB 151300Z 20019G33KT 150V240 CAVOK 16/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151330Z 20020G37KT 140V250 CAVOK 16/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151400Z 20023G38KT 160V240 CAVOK 17/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151430Z 20029G45KT 170V260 CAVOK 17/05 Q1004 NOSIG=
LEBB 151500Z 21027G48KT 140V260 CAVOK 17/05 Q1003 NOSIG=
LEBB 151530Z 20026G42KT 160V230 CAVOK 17/04 Q1003 NOSIG=

My understanding is that the pictures were taken at 1515 CET, 1415Z.
The 1430 METAR would report the highest gust since the previous report, i.e., 45 kts. So I doubt the surface W/V gusted to 70 kts either before. or after, the approach we are discussing.

That is not to say that the wind at, say, 1000ft might not have reached 70 kts.

The turbulence, predictable wind-shear, and frequent surface gusts of 40 - 45 kts - straight across the runway, would be quite enough to persuade most older guys to divert to a more suitable aerodrome, if available.

But we don't know precisely the conditions when the approach was started. By the way, was it a 321, or a 320?

[jose 4499]

Chris Scott Said:
"The 1430 METAR would report the highest gust since the previous report, i.e., 45 kts. So I doubt the surface W/V gusted to 70 kts either before. or after, the approach we are discussing."

Gust included in METAR is the maximum instantaneus speed reported in the last 10 minutes. WMO standard defines a gust as the maximum wind speed exceeding the "mean speed" by 5 m/s (10 knots) during the 10-minute interval.

So the 1430 METAR in my opinion will never indicate any gust produced before 1420, and so on...

[misd-agin]

Well, I guess real professionals will defend anything. :ouch: