A321neo differences

[HarimauMalaya]

Hello friends,

I seek help to understand the Airbus A321neo aircraft better. I have started training on this and it is difficult to land. I hear similar story’s from experienced pilots.

The flare law is different from the A320/321ceo, as in the FCOM but can someone say why it is more challenging to land and share your experiences? Can you give sources other than the FCOM for more information?

Thank you!!!

[321XLR]

the 321 is not "difficult to land." It lands nicer and better than the other buses. Especially if the 321 is on the heavy side.

[Amadis of Gaul]

the 321 is not "difficult to land." It lands nicer and better than the other buses. Especially if the 321 is on the heavy side.

I find the 321NEO easier to land, if anything.

[AerocatS2A]

Don’t overthink it. Flare at about 20’ and retard the thrust levers somewhere between 30 and 10’ depending on the energy of the aircraft (but fast/bit slow/on speed).

[321XLR]

agree

OP:


Fly the GS/Glide Path. I do not use PAPI's or VASIs. I always use GS or Glide Path. I am my own "autoland system." At 100 feet I start looking outside and at 50 feet I am entirely outside.
Look all the way down the runway prior to flare. Continue to do this while in the flare.
Flare at 30 feet-ish, some say 20. Do not be overly aggressive with side sick
Thrust to idle at first "RETARD" call
Let it come down.
Consider adding 1-3 knots to VAPP in MCDU prior to commencing approach.

the goal is: in touchdown zone, on centerline, stable/safe

"greaser" is secondary to the above goal.

[thetimesreader84]

Does your company permit manual thrust landings?

I find that all Airbus (Airbii?) Have a tendancy to sometimes give you a wallop of thrust right when you dont want it approaching the flare if using the auto thrust. On the rest of the single aisle types it's not a big deal as the FBW magic takes care of most of it, but on the 321n you're in (effectively) Direct Law for landing. This gives you a pitch - power couple and can destabilise the approach in the last 100' or so.

Other than being alive to the possibility & keeping the engine instruments in your scan, I don't know a good way around it (my company won't allow manual thrust landings in normal operations).

[vilas]

Does your company permit manual thrust landings?

I find that all Airbus (Airbii?) Have a tendancy to sometimes give you a wallop of thrust right when you dont want it approaching the flare if using the auto thrust. On the rest of the single aisle types it's not a big deal as the FBW magic takes care of most of it, but on the 321n you're in (effectively) Direct Law for landing. This gives you a pitch - power couple and can destabilise the approach in the last 100' or so.

Other than being alive to the possibility & keeping the engine instruments in your scan, I don't know a good way around it (my company won't allow manual thrust landings in normal operations).
what you say is strange airbus doesn't do anything of that kind unless the speed was too low. A321n flare mode only difference is the pitch down is not timed to -2° pitch in 8seconds. Everything else is same.

[pineteam]

A321 neo the pitch trim will stop at 100 feet RA instead of 50 feet RA. It’s quite important to be as stable as possible just before it happened.
I found flaps 3 much easier to land on the 321 Neo and classic also.
Flaps full on the neo if you flare a bit too high they tent to be less forgiving and will fall out of the sky pretty quickly. I agree also manual thrust is easier to land on any Baby bus in my opinion.

[hans brinker]

Does your company permit manual thrust landings?

I find that all Airbus (Airbii?) Have a tendancy to sometimes give you a wallop of thrust right when you dont want it approaching the flare if using the auto thrust. On the rest of the single aisle types it's not a big deal as the FBW magic takes care of most of it, but on the 321n you're in (effectively) Direct Law for landing. This gives you a pitch - power couple and can destabilise the approach in the last 100' or so.

Other than being alive to the possibility & keeping the engine instruments in your scan, I don't know a good way around it (my company won't allow manual thrust landings in normal operations).

Not saying you are doing this, but what I see a lot of newer FOs do:
Keep AT ON, IAW SOP.
Start flare a little early.
Don't start to retard until (well) after starting flare.
What invariably will happen:
AT is in speed mode, flare is started, speed drops, AT adds thrust (speed mode), long landing and/or hot brakes follows.
When I ask why they added power in the flare they always answer they didn't.....
When I land with AT on, I will normally bring the PLA back to around 1.05EPR/50%N1 as soon as I hear "50". This will prevent the AT from adding more power than I need. But you still have the AT on, and this low you will not get a warning that the levers aren't in the detent. From there on fly it like it is an airplane....
Even if your company does not allow manual thrust landings, according to AB you have to retards LATEST with the retard call, not EARLIEST. So you should definitely start reducing PLA as soon as you start the flare (and IMO before that).

[Check Airman]

Seems a lot easier to just turn the A/T off…

[321XLR]

well, as you know, it comes off when you hit the thrust lever idle stop

[pineteam]

Also did you guys notice the nose wheel tends to come faster and harder to the ground? I found it more challenging to smoothly bring the nose gears on the A320/321 NEO compare to the CEO especially with autobrake. Without autobrake much easier to control it IMHO.

[321XLR]

Also did you guys notice the nose wheel tends to come faster and harder to the ground? I found it more challenging to smoothly bring the nose gears on the A320/321 NEO compare to the CEO especially with autobrake. Without autobrake much easier to control it IMHO.

I just let it come down. I like autobrake intially to "get it slowed" because it is all computer sensors etc, much better than me. Once it slows, then I go manual braking

[Check Airman]

well, as you know, it comes off when you hit the thrust lever idle stop

It does. I’m lazy. If I have to think about what the autothrust is going to do and when it’s going to do it, then modify what I normally do to work around the Autothrust, then the automation is no longer helping me, I’m helping the automation.

”click click, click click”

The automation gets the rest of the day off, and I get to fly the plane the way I want/need to.

[FlightDetent]

Keep calm and listen to @hans brinker

​​

[WhatShortage]

agree

OP:


Fly the GS/Glide Path. I do not use PAPI's or VASIs. I always use GS or Glide Path. I am my own "autoland system." At 100 feet I start looking outside and at 50 feet I am entirely outside.
Look all the way down the runway prior to flare. Continue to do this while in the flare.
Flare at 30 feet-ish, some say 20. Do not be overly aggressive with side sick
Thrust to idle at first "RETARD" call
Let it come down.
Consider adding 1-3 knots to VAPP in MCDU prior to commencing approach.

the goal is: in touchdown zone, on centerline, stable/safe

"greaser" is secondary to the above goal.
Test pilot from airbus while training some guys on the 318 where all of them had the thing of putting "some knots" because the vls is 1-2 below clearly said: that degrades the landing distance and is not necessary as the airplane does it for a reason, don't do it....

[AerocatS2A]

Test pilot from airbus while training some guys on the 318 where all of them had the thing of putting "some knots" because the vls is 1-2 below clearly said: that degrades the landing distance and is not necessary as the airplane does it for a reason, don't do it....
Yeah, lots of people do that at my airline, a couple of "neo knots". As for landing distance, if it's a short runway they will include the neo knots in the landing distance calc, otherwise it doesn't matter. I've just been leaving it standard Vapp and it works fine, I don't fly the 321 very often though.

[Uplinker]

No "like" button on this thread, but Hans has a good method.

The auto-thrust is very good on Airbus FBW and does a fine job. 'Destabilisation' thrust during the flare only happens when pilots are late moving the thrust levers back to idle - the auto-thrust sees the reducing IAS and increases thrust to maintain it. Been there done that :)

So the key is to flare and move the levers back at the right point. If the flare is not quite right and you feel you might want to keep a little thrust on for a moment; you can bring the levers back part way as Hans says to limit the maximum thrust allowed while still keeping the auto-thrust engaged.

I don't know if Airbus would endorse this method but it works.

[Fursty Ferret]

To echo other posters here, I used to find the A321 much more forgiving in flaps 3. What you can't do with a heavy one is land it like some people land a A319 or A320, with the last minute flare. This will catch EVERYONE out one day regardless of experience and while it's merely embarrassing on a 319 that you've buried into the runway, the increased length and inertia of the 321 will chance severe damage or a tailstrike. Landing the 321 properly will also help you transition to heavier types in time which (trust me!) do not tolerate "snatch" flares.

Stable at 100ft is the key.

I agree with Hans Brinker, BTW, great advice.

[Bobsmith3443]

I found the auto thrust on the neos to be terrible other than that its the same aircraft

[CW247]

I found the auto thrust on the neos to be terrible other than that its the same aircraft

Even manual thrust is difficult on these machines. They are extremely sensitive.

[enzino]

I fly mainly neos and I don't dare to cut thrust below 20 ft callout unless I have added a considerable amount of Vapp increment in case of strong crosswind. Spool down is faster than on the V2500, the engines are bigger and become massive drag generators.

[321XLR]

I never cut thrust until first RETARD call out. I indeed am firmly at idle stop prior to touchdown

[vilas]

I fly mainly neos and I don't dare to cut thrust below 20 ft callout unless I have added a considerable amount of Vapp increment in case of strong crosswind. Spool down is faster than on the V2500, the engines are bigger and become massive drag generators.
That's not what Airbus says. According to airbus deceleration capability of CEO is more than Neos and that's why GSmini in Neo only uses .33 factor of actual gust unlike in CEO it uses factor of 1. Reference Safety first July 2017.

[enzino]

I know what Airbus says but my experience on the line has been different so far.

[speed freek]

That's not what Airbus says.

hahaha

[Jonty]

Hello friends,

I seek help to understand the Airbus A321neo aircraft better. I have started training on this and it is difficult to land. I hear similar story’s from experienced pilots.

The flare law is different from the A320/321ceo, as in the FCOM but can someone say why it is more challenging to land and share your experiences? Can you give sources other than the FCOM for more information?

Thank you!!!

I change between the CEO and NEO on a daily basis and have to say I have found no appreciable difference in handling between the 2 types. I don’t change my flying technique from one type to the other.

My advice would be don't over think it, it’s an Airbus, like any other.

The only thing I do is ensure I have minimum 5kts between Vapp and Vls. But I do that on both types, and it’s an old school thing for a cat C aircraft that should really be cat D.