BA 321 tail strike?

[JanetFlight]

Some amazing footage indeed... Could this be considered a tail strike by the way?
The voice beyond could be a lil bit less dramatic my humble 2 cents.. :)
http://​https://twitter.com/aviationbrk/status/1488262488936353800?s=24

[DaveReidUK]

Two minutes' checking would have been enough to ascertain that the aircraft in question flew a further rotation t/f Geneva later the same afternoon ...

[ACMS]

Yes the idiot speaking gets way too excited and doesn’t know too much about Aviation I’ve learned.
In one recent video he said regarding lift that the decreased pressure was on the bottom of the wing………

[Doors to Automatic]

Out of interest does anyone know why the spoilers didn’t deploy on the firmer of the first two touchdown’s. I would have thought that this would have kept the aircraft on the ground?

[ZeBedie]

Possibly because the thrust levers had already been advanced?

[andrasz]

Out of interest does anyone know why the spoilers didn’t deploy on the firmer of the first two touchdown’s.

I would assume TOGA was already pressed moments before the second touchdown.

[oceancrosser]

Interesting bit of flying... tailstrike averted by the width of a single strand of hair.

[Seaking74]

That bloke gets over-excited by anything, as pointed out by Dave Reid it flew again a few hours later so obviously wasn't a tail-strike :rolleyes:

[Equivocal]

I'm glad the guy who made the video was there to explain what was happening!

[TopBunk]

I would assume TOGA was already pressed moments before the second touchdown

I flew the type for 4 years and don't recall being introduced to what you pressed for TOGA! Anyways, sorry for the distraction.

[FlightDetent]

I flew the type for 4 years and don't recall being introduced to what you pressed for TOGA! Anyways, sorry for the distraction.Hence they moved you to the B brand where they are more prominently visible? :E

[Greek God]

Another thing that Airbus has trained out of operators: the input of up-wind aileron on a crosswind landing to keep the wing down and avoid exactly what happened!
Not that much margin on the tailstrike!!!

Airbus FCOM
"Additionally, the pilot will avoid setting stick into the wind as it increases the weathercock effect. Indeed, it creates a differential down force on the wheels into the wind side."
Boeing 737 FCOM
"As rudder is applied, the upwind wing sweeps forward developing roll. Hold wings level with simultaneous application of aileron control into the wind."

Andraz
Airbus has no buttons - you just firewall the thrust levers for TOGA

[oggers]

The commentary on the video was actually that of BA’s Chief Training Captain.

[Auxtank]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/412x413/gfafaba_75b35b62120102c6586b706d11dccddeb4b99061.jpg

[IcanCmyhousefromhere]

Two minutes' checking would have been enough to ascertain that the aircraft in question flew a further rotation t/f Geneva later the same afternoon ...

Easy on there tiger, we are not all website savvy. I haven’t a clue myself on how to lookup such information. But I can do crosswind landings without twating the tail better then that!

[slfool]

BBC News coverage (basically just the same vid)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-60216196

[OldLurker]

Tail strike or not (probably not), when the landing went pear-shaped, PF surely did the right thing to get away and go round and do it again.

[RexBanner]

What’s most amazing about this video is that there was actually footage of a (mini) Airbus landing. Surely there must have been an A350 or 787 moving somewhere on the apron at that moment, that’s what he normally prioritises? :rolleyes:

[H Peacock]

What’s with the inordinate delay in getting the gear up after the GA?

[RexBanner]

What’s with the inordinate delay in getting the gear up after the GA?

Startle factor most likely, unless they felt it was due to windshear in which case the memory actions are not to touch the config of the aircraft until confidently out of the shear. A convenient excuse for those of us who’ve just forgotten amongst all the startle! :E

[DaveReidUK]

Easy on there tiger, we are not all website savvy. I haven’t a clue myself on how to lookup such information. But I can do crosswind landings without twating the tail better then that!

Fair point, though my comment was aimed not at the OP but at the morons at BigJetTV, who reported it as a tail strike (without even a question mark) and who can hardly be accused of not being web-savvy. They could easily have checked.

[Denti]

What’s with the inordinate delay in getting the gear up after the GA?

Baulked Landing Procedure: gear is not an immediate issue as both engines are still working, wait with that until safely out of harms way.

[olster]

The BBC 6 o clock news just showed the above clip. Apparently they announced with great authority and expertise that the ‘skill of the pilot’ saved the day. Who knew? Not how I would have described it but there you go.

[IcePack]

Airbus do complicate things when applying into wind ailerons. The deflection 1/2’s on touch down. Caught out Lufthansa a few years back. Also in low level gusts it is very difficult not to over control.

[RexBanner]

Baulked Landing Procedure: gear is not an immediate issue as both engines are still working, wait with that until safely out of harms way.

How long was the delay before raising the gear? It’s not apparent from the clip on Big Jet TV, unless I go and search for the entire afternoon’s worth of footage and wind it back. Go Around near the ground in the FCOM only says to wait until the aircraft is safely established in the go around before retracting one stage of flaps and the gear. Not too much of a delay needed for that one.

[RTM Boy]

Having rocked the video back and forth, I’d say there was definitely a tail strike, slight, but enough to create some dust, which is clearly visible on the video.

[V_2]

Having rocked the video back and forth, I’d say there was definitely a tail strike, slight, but enough to create some dust, which is clearly visible on the video.

you might be seeing the exhaust from engine no1, which is also perfectly aligned at that moment. It’s hard to tell decisively

[eagle21]

Another thing that Airbus has trained out of operators: the input of up-wind aileron on a crosswind landing to keep the wing down and avoid exactly what happened!
Not that much margin on the tailstrike!!!

Airbus FCOM
"Additionally, the pilot will avoid setting stick into the wind as it increases the weathercock effect. Indeed, it creates a differential down force on the wheels into the wind side."
Boeing 737 FCOM
"As rudder is applied, the upwind wing sweeps forward developing roll. Hold wings level with simultaneous application of aileron control into the wind."

Andraz
Airbus has no buttons - you just firewall the thrust levers for TOGA

This quotation is incorrect as it only applies to the rollout in crosswind conditions (once the nose-wheel
is down)
Airbus does recommend exactly the opposite of what you suggested.

Airbus FCTM does say for a crosswind landing: LATERAL AND DIRECTIONAL CONTROL

FINAL APPROACH

In crosswind conditions, a crabbed-approach wings-level should be flown with the aircraft (cockpit) positioned on the extended runway centerline until the flare.

FLARE


The objectives of the lateral and directional control of the aircraft during the flare are:
To land on the centerline, and
to minimize the lateral loads on the main landing gear.
The recommended de-crab technique is to use all of the following:
The rudder to align the aircraft with the runway heading during the flare
The roll control, if needed, to maintain the aircraft on the runway centerline. Any tendency to drift downwind should be counteracted by an appropriate lateral (roll) input on the sidestick.

In the case of strong crosswind, in the de-crab phase, the PF should be prepared to add small bank angle into the wind in order to maintain the aircraft on the runway centerline. The aircraft may be landed with a partial de-crab (residual crab angle up to about 5 °) to prevent an excessive bank. This technique prevents wingtip/sharklet (or engine nacelle) strike caused by an excessive bank angle.

As a consequence, this may result in touching down with some bank angle into the wind (hence with the upwind landing gear first).

[4468]

Airbus FCOM
"Additionally, the pilot will avoid setting stick into the wind as it increases the weathercock effect. Indeed, it creates a differential down force on the wheels into the wind side."
Boeing 737 FCOM
"As rudder is applied, the upwind wing sweeps forward developing roll. Hold wings level with simultaneous application of aileron control into the wind."

Just to add to what eagle 21 wrote. In an Airbus, there’s no requirement to counteract the secondary effect of rudder (roll) with application of aileron as described in the 737 FCOM. FBW does that job. As far as the Airbus is concerned, lateral stick input is a roll demand. So it will simply add that demand to what it was already doing anyway! This is why it’s hilarious to watch pilots recently from Boeings trying to land Airbus in a crosswind!

What eagle 21 correctly quotes from Airbus is a roll input designed only to correct downwind drift across the runway due to the crosswind whilst established/establishing in the flare.

So, nothing to do with Airbus training anything out of operators. It’s just not how their product works, and in any event, what you see in the video is just as likely in a Boeing!

[tubby linton]

If there had been a tailstrike wouldn’t there have been a comment from atc and a runway inspection plus a local alert for the airfield. I didn’t see or hear any of that on the video.

[Auxtank]

Having rocked the video back and forth, I’d say there was definitely a tail strike, slight, but enough to create some dust, which is clearly visible on the video.

Nope, the kicked up runway dust is the Outflow Valve venting and ground effect kicking some sh1t up.
Look V CLOSELY - there is no tail-strike.

It gets clean away - just.

And Just is clean enough.

She went on to complete her Rotation - and that wouldn't have happened if she'd dragged her arse.

[tubby linton]

It is also noticable that at the tails closest position to the runway the main wheels are actually off the ground.

[Black Pudding]

Can I ask, does anyone know what the wind was at the time of the event

[tubby linton]

can i ask, does anyone know what the wind was at the time of the event

a 31/01/2022 12:20->metar cor egll 311220z auto 34011g22kt 290v020 9999 ncd 08/m04 q1025 nosig=
sa 31/01/2022 11:50->metar cor egll 311150z auto 32017g27kt 300v020 9999 ncd 08/m03 q1025 nosig= sa 31/01/2022
11:20->metar cor egll 311120z auto 32014g24kt 9999 ncd 08/m02 q1024 nosig=

[punkalouver]

Pilots like to automatically target 15° nose up pitch attitude on a go-around without consideration of how close they are to the ground. A lower initial pitch while close to the ground could prevent a tailstrike. Then continue the pitch increase to 15°.

[Twiglet1]

Fair point, though my comment was aimed not at the OP but at the morons at BigJetTV, who reported it as a tail strike (without even a question mark) and who can hardly be accused of not being web-savvy. They could easily have checked.
Dave the guy was doing a live transmission so he was stating what he thought at the time. As for being morons - no need for such comments. Yes they might be not so savvy as you but they have donated any financials from the clip to a Pilots charity

[olster]

Airbus have a baulked landing procedure which targets an initial 10 degrees pitch for the reasons quoted near the ground. It has got a specific name as it is some time since I was involved with Airbus fbw types (A340/380). DaveReiduk is one of the self proclaimed pprune ‘experts’ that swaggers around as though he owns the site. The classic keyboard warrior calling others morons. You have to laugh at the inanities of the Internet. Personally I have a lot of empathy with plane spotters: they are enthusiasts which is infectious. I was one in my youth and it led to a 40 year flying career. Fair play to them.

[olster]

‘Toga 10’ if my memory serves me well being an Airbus low altitude go around procedure. Current Airbus pilots can correct me.

[FlightDetent]

The baulked landing 10 deg pitch, sometimes called 'TOGA-10' was actively discontinued by the OEM years ago. Not sure it was truly their creation in the first place.

Pitch and power works. Which of them comes first defines how elegant is the transition towards the result. There is a reason we learn about the left side of the power required/available curve.

[Old Dogs]

DaveReiduk is one of the self proclaimed pprune ‘experts’ that swaggers around as though he owns the site. The classic keyboard warrior calling others morons. You have to laugh at the inanities of the Internet. Personally I have a lot of empathy with plane spotters: they are enthusiasts which is infectious. I was one in my youth and it led to a 40 year flying career. Fair play to them.

Well said.

[Denti]

TOGA 10 was used, but should not be used on an A321 as the tailstrike limit is 9.5 degrees. Therefore it now says to adjust attitude, which may mean to derotate or holding the attitude until the aircraft has safely transitioned into an initial climb, at which point the normal go around procedure will be initiated. Since the flare law (below 50ft RA) allows a pitch power coupling, setting TOGA thrust will most likely increase the pitch, so no further pitch input is needed initially, quite the opposite in fact.


As an administrative question: Why the heck was this thread moved to the "Non Airline" section of PPRUNE? This was very much an airline incident.

[olster]

Thanks OD.

[NineEighteen]

What’s most amazing about this video is that there was actually footage of a (mini) Airbus landing. Surely there must have been an A350 or 787 moving somewhere on the apron at that moment, that’s what he normally prioritises? :rolleyes:

On ‘Big’ Jet TV. I wonder why…:O

[DaveReidUK]

Dave the guy was doing a live transmission so he was stating what he thought at the time.

I wasn't referring to the histrionic live commentary, but to this, still visible nearly 24 hours later:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/669x547/non_tailstrike_9cf30b77f4811b1d2c3e35cd10cb9d23912b4d5c.jpg

Note the "empennage shaking as it drags" ...

So I stand by my comment.

[Osaison Nai]

I would assume TOGA was already pressed moments before the second touchdown.
Press TOGA? But this is an Airbus.

[EmDeer]

TOGA 10 was used, but should not be used on an A321 as the tailstrike limit is 9.5 degrees. Therefore it now says to adjust attitude, which may mean to derotate or holding the attitude until the aircraft has safely transitioned into an initial climb, at which point the normal go around procedure will be initiated. Since the flare law (below 50ft RA) allows a pitch power coupling, setting TOGA thrust will most likely increase the pitch, so no further pitch input is needed initially, quite the opposite in fact.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1447x517/7dce406d_4522_4092_81cc_780cb0edd7ee_822d600e8d70f70881d626d 0ec5d8dd5accdf505.jpeg


This late in the landing phase your aircraft is trimmed nose down. TOGA will increase the pitch, but not enough. Simply holding the attitude will probably initially require a nose-up input.
By the way, „TOGA-10“ („TOGA-7.5“ for A321) is still used in my company for manual go-arounds below 50 feet.

[MajorLemond]

Toga 10 is a good figure to have in mind for the A320, I suppose toga 7.5 will work well for a 321. There is little guidance for it, but have seen it taught in the sim for a rejected landing.

I'd hazard a guess that the thrust levers weren't brought to idle by touchdown for whatever reason, that would explain why the spoilers didn't extend during the first touchdown and the prolonged float afterwards.

I'd also expect that startle played a part in this incident.

[oceancrosser]

a 31/01/2022 12:20->metar cor egll 311220z auto 34011g22kt 290v020 9999 ncd 08/m04 q1025 nosig=
sa 31/01/2022 11:50->metar cor egll 311150z auto 32017g27kt 300v020 9999 ncd 08/m03 q1025 nosig= sa 31/01/2022
11:20->metar cor egll 311120z auto 32014g24kt 9999 ncd 08/m02 q1024 nosig=

So wind was hardly an issue…

[FlightDetent]

It will be nice to learn eventually which moment was TOGA selected (=commanded) and see it on the tape.

Despite the gruesome comment style of BigJetTV (fully with Dave on this one), incidentally, this really should be used for training in a broader sense. Everyday line pilots even on short-haul only go around less than once a year. Understanding if this crew slipped and why, or what happened externally to deviate from the typical profile will be helpful to anyone who gets the chance.

It's nothing but a personal guess, the 2x 33k TOGA thrust on a lightweight 321 will have significant pitch-up with stick released (same as Denti suggested). I assume nobody really knows what happens to the frozen THS and the flare nose-down command after getting airborne from a bounce. But there was a NEO (?) bulletin about aft CG where the FBW could not provide the normally expected stable pitch.

The first usual suspect is the actual pitch at 50' which is memorized as a reference zero for the flare mode. Getting that wrong (markedly lower than normal) can bite seriously below 20'.

[4468]

Toga 10 is a good figure to have in mind for the A320, I suppose toga 7.5 will work well for a 321. There is little guidance for it, but have seen it taught in the sim for a rejected landing.

”TOGA 10” was actively de-trained in BA some years ago. Partly because it’s not an Airbus recommended technique and partly because it’s too prescriptive.

[olster]

Again with the generalisations. When I was doing the day job I certainly went around more than once per year. Actually in orange world twice in one day. Maybe it’s just me. I’m also not sure how this is of any benefit to a training department except how not to do it. In fairness, it could be line training and / or low currency. I have actually been in this situation line training a cadet (stand by for incoming) and late intervention combined with startle resulted in a similar situation (737). What actually happened in this incident was a high early flare, a couple of bounces, a wind induced wing drop and an over enthusiastic rotation almost but not quite tailstrike. In fairness to the crew if they read this, we’ve all been there, review what happened, learn and move on.

[RexBanner]

On ‘Big’ Jet TV. I wonder why…:O

define big… ;)

(I don’t recall the control tower lift being a heavy jet either but attempting to film that was prioritised over documenting a landing on one occasion that I can recall)

[pineteam]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1447x517/7dce406d_4522_4092_81cc_780cb0edd7ee_822d600e8d70f70881d626d 0ec5d8dd5accdf505.jpeg


This late in the landing phase your aircraft is trimmed nose down. TOGA will increase the pitch, but not enough. Simply holding the attitude will probably initially require a nose-up input.
By the way, „TOGA-10“ („TOGA-7.5“ for A321) is still used in my company for manual go-arounds below 50 feet.

Just a correction here. On the A321 NEO, the flare mode is quite unique; It is not the same as other A321CEO, A320 CEO and A320 NEO. There is no nose down trimmed at 30 feet and the THS is frozen at 100ft RA ISO 50ft RA.
From FCOM:
When passing 100 ft RA, the THS is frozen and the normal flight mode changes to flare mode as
the aircraft descends to land. 'The flare mode is a direct stick-to-elevator law without auto trim,
with some damping provided by load factor and pitch rate feedback. The flare law provides full
elevator authority. The flare law does not compensate the ground or thrust effect.

And from FCTM:

AIRCRAFT SYSTEM FOR TAIL STRIKE PREVENTION
The following aircraft systems help to prevent tail strike occurrence:
A "PITCH-PITCH" synthetic voice sounds when the pitch attitude becomes excessive,
A tail strike pitch limit indicator appears on the PFD to indicate the maximum pitch attitude
to avoid a tail strike.
The "PITCH-PITCH" synthetic voice sound takes into account the actual pitch value and the pitch
trend. This can lead to "PITCH-PITCH" synthetic voice sound to be triggered before any PM callou
or before the pitch reaches a high attitude on the PF:
This design is installed as an option on A320 and A321.
BOUNCING AT TOUCH DOWN
In case of light bounce, maintain the pitch attitude and complete the landing, while keeping the
thrust at idle. Do not allow the pitch attitude to increase, particularly following a firm touch dowr
with a high pitch rate.
In case of high bounce, maintain the pitch attitude and initiate a go-around. Do not try to avoid
second touch down during the go-around. Should it happen, it would be soft enough to prevent
damage to the aircraft, if pitch attitude is maintained.
Only when safely established in the go-around, retract flaps one step and the landing gear. A
landing should not be attempted immediately after high bounce, as thrust may be required to
soften the second touch down and the remaining runway length may be insufficient to stop the
aircraft.


My guess for the non spoiler deployment during touch down was that the PF did not set both thrust levers fully at idle. It’s mandatory for both levers to be on idle for spoilers deployment. Or they forgot to arm it on final. But unlikely as easily spotted on the landing memo.

[Suzeman]

From FR24, the aircraft in question - G-NEOP - did a return flight to GVA afterwards on 31/01 but has not flown since. Looks like it may be back in service on 03/02 with a trip to DME.

Perhaps they took the aircraft out of service for an inspection having seen the video? Or maybe just routine spannering?

[DaveReidUK]

From FR24, the aircraft in question - G-NEOP - did a return flight to GVA afterwards on 31/01 but has not flown since. Looks like it may be back in service on 03/02 with a trip to DME.

Perhaps they took the aircraft out of service for an inspection having seen the video? Or maybe just routine spannering?

I wouldn't attach too much importance to its inactivity - most of BA's 321neos have had extended stretches of downtime lasting several days in recent weeks.

[Greek God]

Eagle and 4468

This quotation is incorrect as it only applies to the rollout in crosswind conditions (once the nose-wheel
is down)

The quote is correct and directly from the FCOM and exactly to which I refer. To clarify I am not talking about the approach and flare but post touchdown. The aircraft actually transitions from Normal to Flare to Direct law so if crabbing and using rudder to align the nose you will get the secondary effect of roll depending when you do it. But once down in strong crosswinds it was always then advisable to keep a little into into wind aileron during the initial rollout to avoid any subsequent wing lift as seems to have been a factor here.

[Hamsterminator]

Absolutely no interest in assigning blame or judgement on the crew. I am however genuinely surprised that this wasn’t a strike, based solely on the video. The horizontal stabiliser vibrates precisely at the “impact” point. I guess it could be wash from the engines?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Re the tail strike. For the PF I see a really good example of the old adage “better to be lucky than good”

Any news on crew experience ?

[Equivocal]

If there had been a tailstrike wouldn’t there have been a comment from atc and a runway inspection plus a local alert for the airfield. I didn’t see or hear any of that on the video.Not necessarily. The view from the tower may not be good and may be a long way away - I haven't been in the new tower at Heathrow so don't know what things look like from there. The controller also may not be watching a particular landing aircraft that closely and would probably not note anything out of the ordinary unless sparks fly. In my experience (two occasions that I recall) it was someone in a vehicle out on the airfield that advised the tower that there may have been a tailstrike - one I was aerodrome controller, the other I was in the vehicle, on both occasions there had been a tailstrike. On a couple of other occasions I recall once where damage to the runway was reported, and another where some debris was found close to the centreline following inspections - I don't think the aircraft involved was identified to ATC on either of those occasions.

[B-757]

I am however genuinely surprised that this wasn’t a strike, based solely on the video. The horizontal stabiliser vibrates precisely at the “impact” point. I guess it could be wash from the engines?

.. Tailstrike will create sparks against a dry runway.. No sparks, no strike.. Assuming there is no tailskid..

Fly safe,
B-757

​​​​​

[RexBanner]

Re the tail strike. For the PF I see a really good example of the old adage “better to be lucky than good”

Any news on crew experience ?

Amongst the more senior end of the A320 status list in both seats. Inexperience not a factor here.

[finalapproach]

"he's got it . . . he's got it" - why does the guy making the video assume it's a male pilot?

[Denti]

"he's got it . . . he's got it" - why does the guy making the video assume it's a male pilot?
Fair question. But with just around 5% female pilots it is a fair assumption. There are airlines actively working on increasing that percentage, but it seems to be a very slow progress.

[camel]

Tea no biscuits ? or maybe Horlicks Capt ?

[PJ2]

What’s with the inordinate delay in getting the gear up after the GA?
In the (very distant) past, from experience in the sim, I've found that most often it was the absence of the "positive climb" call, so yes, bit of startle or at least being "out of routine".

[Jonty]

Also there may have been some discussion about wether they wanted to bring the gear up. However that would be subjective given how hard the flight crew felt the touchdown was.

[Consol]

Also there may have been some discussion about wether they wanted to bring the gear up. However that would be subjective given how hard the flight crew felt the touchdown was.
I doubt there was time for much analysis. Baulked landings are demanding, only concerns are avoiding tail and pod contact (narrowly avoided there) and climbing away. Gear is a later consideration.
Everyone has done an embarrassing landing where the technique was wrong (probably in this case). Mistakes happen and they were probably a bit lucky to escape a tail scrape. Until a few years ago it wasn't on YouTube. Learn from it.

[vilas]

Important thing about balked landing is after selecting TOGA, set an attitude which is below tail strike attitude and wait till the aircraft climbs away on its own. The only assistance should come in form of maintaining the configuration till safely away. It may happen after another touchdown but not to assist. Gear is the only part of the plane designed to withstand impact load so doesn't need as much care as the tail. Early gear retraction is the cause of Dubai 777 total destruction. Had the gear been down the aircraft would've come down on the gear but not written off.

[3Greens]

Important thing about balked landing is after selecting TOGA, set an attitude which is below tail strike attitude and wait till the aircraft climbs away on its own. The only assistance should come in form of maintaining the configuration till safely away. It may happen after another touchdown but not to assist. Gear is the only part of the plane designed to withstand impact load so doesn't need as much care as the tail. Early gear retraction is the cause of Dubai 777 total destruction. Had the gear been down the aircraft would've come down on the gear but not written off.
tail strike attitude? Hard to judge that when the gear is fully compressed after a hard bounce, but yes; if you select TOGA, the aircraft climbs away without much pitch at all initially, amd then when clear of the ground you can pitch to the SRS. Requires quite a pull on some variants.

[Howzitchina]

Out of interest does anyone know why the spoilers didn’t deploy on the firmer of the first two touchdown’s. I would have thought that this would have kept the aircraft on the ground?

Spoiler Logic: something like, two wheels on ground + Spoilers Armed + Idle (or if not armed, at least one TR in Idle)

[Howzitchina]

Looks like she over corrected all the way in (stirring the pot), flared high, floated.

Next.

[Howzitchina]

Fair question. But with just around 5% female pilots it is a fair assumption. There are airlines actively working on increasing that percentage, but it seems to be a very slow progress.

But all the videos on Youtube and TT are female pilots . . .

[Fursty Ferret]

advisable to keep a little into into wind aileron during the initial rollout to avoid any subsequent wing lift as seems to have been a factor here.

Both ailerons deflects upwards with spoiler extension so not sure it would make any difference. I never felt the need to apply into-wind aileron on the A320 in real life, but our simulator model would punish you if you didn’t, particularly on a wet runway.

[7478ti]

Yes, it's very important to give the flight crew the benefit of the doubt here, on performance in what appeared to be challenging weather conditions. But that said, this entire BA1307 A321 EGLL/LHR landing instability event thread appears to be missing critical assessment of key points related to FBW flight control design. Any credible assessment of this kind of an event needs to consider APC/PIO, and any potential contributing factors, regarding elements "Air-Ground Sensing" logic and state changes, flight control logic changes as a function of RA and A-G sensing, potential effects of multiple RA inputs as a function of bank angle, FBW algorithm phase margins, gain margins, and damping ratios, in both roll and pitch, possible issues of multiple side stick inputs, main gear strut extension and compressions, pitch changes due to thrust inputs or engine response, FBW pitch and bank limiting interactions, and still a host of other factors like the wind and gust environment, including the power spectral density of any gusts. Finally, DFDR and QAR data would be important to really assess how much of this event was potentially related or attributed to flight control design, versus pilot inputs, versus external disturbance effects. Do not assume this response would necessarily be the same with other types or other OEMs jets. Gusting to 31 knots, with this response? This type of an event outcome is arguably much less likely in other jet types, or other OEMs jets, due very different flight control designs, both FBW and non-FBW. I can confidently make that assertion, having previously flown many of these types in specific tests, for determination or assessment of both AFM and operational (FCOM) limiting or demonstrated conditions, over many decades.

[vilas]

Airbus ground spoiler logic is a bit elaborate and has undergone changes. According to the changes introduced quiet sometime back in this case the spoilers should have deployed if they were armed. I am producing below the new SEC120 logic.
To summarize, the SEC standard 120 provides means to reduce: q Runway excursions by enabling: •Arming of the ground spoilers even when the speed brake lever is not retracted.
•Extension of the ground spoilers even with a thrust lever above the Idle position.
q Hard landings by minimizing:
•The number and amplitude of bounces by triggering partial spoiler extension at touchdown even with both thrust levers in the ATHR position.

[7478ti]

Helpful information... still lots of other unknowns...

Would need to actually see the QAR or DFDR data to make any credible assessment of the fraction of responsibility to assign to design, versus crew input (or lack of input, or multiple inputs), ...or the wind/gust/shear disturbance severity (which at this point seems somewhat unlikely... because those conditions appeared to be relatively low order?)...

O:)

[FlightDetent]

Under the BA monitored approach concept, how is the responsibility divided / task allocated for a baulked landing?

The video is not recognizably different to older cases where two pilots flying at the same time introduced a little PIO.



​​​

[Locked door]

Under the BA monitored approach concept, how is the responsibility divided / task allocated for a baulked landing?

The video is not recognizably different to older cases where two pilots flying at the same time introduced a little PIO.



​​​

There is only ever one pilot flying the aircraft, P1 would have taken over below 1000ft and retains control until the engines are shut down on stand or hands the aircraft back to P2 at a suitable low workload point after the missed approach.

There’s never any control handover during high workload events, that would just be silly!

LD

[FlightDetent]

So the pilot handling becomes the pilot non-landing but go-arounding. :ok:

This classic is what I had in mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKUArz3KC9o

Sure, with a touchdown and a bounce the F/CTL complexity increases diabolically.

[vilas]

Both ailerons deflects upwards with spoiler extension so not sure it would make any difference. I never felt the need to apply into-wind aileron on the A320 in real life, but our simulator model would punish you if you didn’t, particularly on a wet runway.
Below is the write up about Aileron antidroop which was installed may be a decade ago.
[QUOTE] [This modification installs the aileron anti-droop function in order to improve braking efficiency during landing or Rejected Takeoff (RTO) and to allow operation on short runways. The ground spoiler function uses all spoilers and ailerons, instead of spoilers 1 to 5 only. With this modification, the ailerons extend when: - - - - - Note The ground spoilers fully extend The flight mode is in normal law The autopilot is set to OFF The flaps are not in clean CONF The pitch attitude is below 2.5°. : When the ground spoilers are partially extended, the ailerons do not extend. With this modification, the ailerons retract when the ground spoilers retract or when the aircraft attitude is higher than 2.5°, whichever occurs first. /QUOTE]