Hard TAP A321 Landing at Madeira Airport

[patrickal]

They may want to check the nose gear and forward fuselage after this one. Perhaps a missed approach would have been the better choice?

Hard TAP 321 Landing

[Check Airman]

Perhaps a missed approach would have been the better choice?

You’ve perfected the art of understatement.

[KiloB]

I was there (and for the next 10 hours!). Saw the AC well nose low as it passed the Terminal Window, but didn’t see the touchdown. Commented to my Wife at the time.
Our EZY flight was given the Met at TOD and diverted to Faro. It was a l-o-n-g day for us, but the correct decision.

[DaveReidUK]

LIS diversion. Aircraft back in service the following day, so no long-term ill effects.

[Gordomac]

Not Madeira again. Looks like when it was stick & rudder and more challenging, we, mostly got it right. Modern fly by wire controlling the flight control surfaces through flight control computers and easier airfield situation have made worse what was just a challenge.

[Airbanda]

Clearly not stable at low altitude and touched down some way beyond the markers. Is this the second TAP incident at Madeira recently or am I mixing them up with another carrier?

[Sailvi767]

Not Madeira again. Looks like when it was stick & rudder and more challenging, we, mostly got it right. Modern fly by wire controlling the flight control surfaces through flight control computers and easier airfield situation have made worse what was just a challenge.

The Airbus fly by wire is not modern. In fact it’s rudimentary and basic. Modern FBW systems with rate and motion feedback can provide very nice flying aircraft. The 787, new Gulfstream SS and A220 being examples. The legacy Airbus system is basically a dead stick system with zero feedback.

[a350pilots]

GA Flaps!

[JanetFlight]

Not Hard at all...maybe a kind of "non desirable" Nose gear landing but not hard at all, IMHO...plane was empty/light (only crew) on a ferry flt from near PXO (porto santo) after Div to collect pax at FNC.
The wind was pretty nasty, just observe the sea waves.

[1southernman]

Finished my out my time on the 320...Twas the only airliner that I ever used full throw pitch and roll control on in gusty wx..For me the 37 Classic was the most honest in the challenging wx...Never got surprised...Can't say the same for the Bus...:)

[Big Pistons Forever]

I 'm thinking when you hear 10 ft and the windshield view is all runway you should probably go around....
Impressive that there was no damage.

[Speed_Trim_Fail]

Finished my out my time on the 320...Twas the only airliner that I ever used full throw pitch and roll control on in gusty wx..For me the 37 Classic was the most honest in the challenging wx...Never got surprised...Can't say the same for the Bus...:)

The 737 Classic is, to me anyway, just the best aeroplane to hand fly. Absolutely brilliant machine. Not without foibles sure, but brilliant.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Does TAP have a non punitive go around policy ? By that I mean not just what is written in some manual but a culture that rewards going around rather than celebrating those pilots that save bad approaches ?

[beardy]

Does TAP have a non punitive go around policy ? By that I mean not just what is written in some manual but a culture that rewards going around rather than celebrating those pilots that save bad approaches ?
What a ridiculous question. I take it that you have never been to Funchal. Portugal and TAP understand quite how 'challenging' it is and the consequences of screwing it up. You imply that there could be an element of dishonesty and double standards in the system, shame on you.

[propaganda]

Air Europe 757 G-BLVH in 1987 managed to push the nose gear leg through the cabin floor . This was before the runway was extended, but it’s always been a Cat C airfield for very good reason.

[PENKO]

Finished my out my time on the 320...Twas the only airliner that I ever used full throw pitch and roll control on in gusty wx..For me the 37 Classic was the most honest in the challenging wx...Never got surprised...Can't say the same for the Bus...:)

Ah yes, but does a momentary full sidestick deflection equate to full aileron control in a conventional aircraft? I don’t think so!

Anyway, it looks like he is carrying a lot of extra speed, that aircraft just wants to keep flying.

[beardy]

Ah yes, but does a momentary full sidestick deflection equate to full aileron control in a conventional aircraft? I don’t think so!

Anyway, it looks like he is carrying a lot of extra speed, that aircraft just wants to keep flying.
So you too have never operated there. The surface wind can be strong and variable to the point of 180 degree and 15 kts or more ie 30 kts difference between the thresholds. Carrying extra speed? Groundspeed can be stable, but airspeed can vary wildly on approach, flare and roll out.

[ATC Watcher]

Whatever you say about the 320, those brakes are very impressive !.

[Doors to Automatic]

It is easy to see exactly where the approach should have been abandoned - once past the taxiway turn and experiencing the updraft. Obviously very easy to say from the armchair!

On the plus side it does look like a good part of the groundspeed had already gone by the time all three sets of landing gear were on the deck.

[Big Pistons Forever]

What a ridiculous question. I take it that you have never been to Funchal. Portugal and TAP understand quite how 'challenging' it is and the consequences of screwing it up. You imply that there could be an element of dishonesty and double standards in the system, shame on you.

I saw 3 gates that should have triggered a go around. The scariest landing of my life was performed by a training Captain that declared that the 2 aircraft ahead of us that had gone around on an extremely windy and turbulent day were “pussi*es” and he was going to show me how it was done. If you don’t think there can be a disconnect between company policy and what’s happening on the line, then I would suggest you have a limited experience set.

[CVividasku]

I had a bit of fun with this video.
The sun was almost exactly perpendicular to the runway at the time of the event. https://gyazo.com/dcbba4289e42f176e3e9e2c870fd62f3
So the airplane shadow shows us a very good indication of the airplane above the runway. And assuming the video is real speed, you can compute a ground speed.
I'm measuring 11s to fly around 930m, so a ground speed of 160-165kt.
The METAR was : METAR LPMA 261100Z 35016G29KT 300V030 9999 SCT015 17/05 Q1018=
It has a runway 05 so it had a bit of headwind component.Around 8-15kt. So that's an indicated airspeed around 170-175kt

Is that a normal speed for a 321 ? The mere sight of the pitch angle during flare tells you it isn't, even without any knowledge of this particular model.

[Commander Taco]

Finished my out my time on the 320...Twas the only airliner that I ever used full throw pitch and roll control on in gusty wx..For me the 37 Classic was the most honest in the challenging wx...Never got surprised...Can't say the same for the Bus...:)
Agreed! Been there too. Worst airplane I ever flew in a strong and gusty crosswind. Oh, with the exception of the Beech 18. 727, 767 and 777 all handled well in those conditions.

[punkalouver]

Agreed! Been there too. Worst airplane I ever flew in a strong and gusty crosswind. Oh, with the exception of the Beech 18. 727, 767 and 777 all handled well in those conditions.

Remember being at LAX one day long ago watching the approaches with a 30 knot crosswind. Lots of go-arounds by the big jets. Then a Beech 18 came in and landed.

Back to the TAP Airbus, it reminds me of this video:

DHC caribou doing the "wheelbarrow" (youtube.com)

[stilton]

Agreed! Been there too. Worst airplane I ever flew in a strong and gusty crosswind. Oh, with the exception of the Beech 18. 727, 767 and 777 all handled well in those conditions.


Couldnt agree more, the 727 in particular was superb in strong gusty crosswinds, simply the best, came down the approach like it was on rails

[MichaelOLearyGenius]

Check out the wind sock at 0:37

[Jonty]

Agreed! Been there too. Worst airplane I ever flew in a strong and gusty crosswind. Oh, with the exception of the Beech 18. 727, 767 and 777 all handled well in those conditions.

If you’re hitting the control stops you’re fighting the FBW not the weather.

[FullWings]

OK, it’s a difficult airport, especially in strong winds but that doesn’t mean you can just ignore all the SAC; after all, these are the places where margins are slimmer and you really need to be on your A-game. These rules (not guidelines) are there to protect the aircraft and occupants from incidents and accidents. Our OM C has a lot to say about LPMA, mostly in capitals and red ink!

The real problem is that if you start busting gates and don’t do anything about it, how long are you going to carry on down that road? Have you psychologically committed yourself to a “landing”, no matter the result of it? In the video they were high and very fast, judging by the attitude, and the last fixed distance marker had disappeared from view before a nose wheel only touchdown. Even then a rejected landing was available and would have been a sensible choice.

Some of it might be training: in my outfit we practice G/As and rejected landings so much that I think I’ve got better at them than a normal approach and landing (wouldn’t take much). But it does put you in the mindset that you can throw it away any time up to reverser deployment and the manoeuvre itself won’t be an issue, therefore the workload and anticipation stress (of a G/A) is lower and you have more capacity to make the decision.

[bravolima553]

They "drove* the plan down as you might often see from TAP in Madeira. In this case in a very extrem manner. They ended up very slow and had no other choice as a touch down. To start a G/A in this situation might end in a balked landing with complications. If G/A, the dicision had to me made much more earlier.

[rog747]

They "drove* the plane down as you might often see from TAP in Madeira. In this case in a very extreme manner.


TAP should be mindful of their past nasty accident at FNC in 1977 with a 727-200 going off the end.

[kenparry]

I'm told by a current Boeing pilot who is Funchal cleared (and current) that Air Portugal often ignore wind limits at Funchal. That does not say much for them, or for their supervising authority.

[Locked door]

They "drove* the plan down as you might often see from TAP in Madeira. In this case in a very extrem manner. They ended up very slow and had no other choice as a touch down. To start a G/A in this situation might end in a balked landing with complications. If G/A, the dicision had to me made much more earlier.


Not true at all. You can go around safely at any point up to thrust reverser selection. There was plenty of runway left for a baulked landing even with their very late touchdown.

Interestingly wasn’t it also TAP that recently went around AFTER reverser selection in CPH and nearly lost control of the aircraft when a reverser failed to stow?

LD
(also Airbus FNC certified)

[WITCHWAY550]

METAR LPMA 261100Z 35016G29KT 300V030 9999 SCT015 17/05 Q1018=

I have been in and out of that airport a few times. There was a restriction to even trying to land if the wind was above a relatively small value but from a specific direction. How was this landing even attempted?
​​​​​​​

[Cuillin Hills]

Not true at all. You can go around safely at any point up to thrust reverser selection. There was plenty of runway left for a baulked landing even with their very late touchdown.

Interestingly wasn’t it also TAP that recently went around AFTER reverser selection in CPH and nearly lost control of the aircraft when a reverser failed to stow?

LD
(also Airbus FNC certified)


Yes, it was - they had to shut down an engine, whilst climbing away, to get rid of all that nasty reverse thrust when one engine didn’t stow correctly. 😳

[FlyingStone]

To start a G/A in this situation might end in a balked landing with complications. If G/A, the dicision had to me made much more earlier.

You can go around at any point until reversers have been deployed.

If you're not comfortable with balked/rejected landings, ask for some practice next time you're in the sim, but don't be forcing aircraft onto the ground halfway down the runway because "it's too late to go around".

[hans brinker]

Never flown there (not that it matters).
Over 10 years on the 320 (all variants)(and another 15+ on another 4 types).
Consistently nose down attitude through most of the final approach.
Touched down in nose down attitude well beyond the right spot.

They should have gone around, quick circuit, and safe landing at the right speed & spot.
There is no way they were not at least 40 knots fast IMO.

[hans brinker]

I had a bit of fun with this video.
The sun was almost exactly perpendicular to the runway at the time of the event. https://gyazo.com/dcbba4289e42f176e3e9e2c870fd62f3
So the airplane shadow shows us a very good indication of the airplane above the runway. And assuming the video is real speed, you can compute a ground speed.
I'm measuring 11s to fly around 930m, so a ground speed of 160-165kt.
The METAR was : METAR LPMA 261100Z 35016G29KT 300V030 9999 SCT015 17/05 Q1018=
It has a runway 05 so it had a bit of headwind component.Around 8-15kt. So that's an indicated airspeed around 170-175kt

Is that a normal speed for a 321 ? The mere sight of the pitch angle during flare tells you it isn't, even without any knowledge of this particular model.

Absolutely.

They "drove* the plan down as you might often see from TAP in Madeira. In this case in a very extrem manner. They ended up very slow and had no other choice as a touch down. To start a G/A in this situation might end in a balked landing with complications. If G/A, the dicision had to me made much more earlier.

Very slow? Really?

[bravolima553]

Absolutely.



Very slow? Really?

It seemed to me it was a very short roll out after T/D without exzessiv much braking action.

[FlightDetent]

OK, it’s a difficult airport, especially in strong winds but that doesn’t mean you can just ignore all the SAC; after all, these are the places where margins are slimmer and you really need to be on your A-game. These rules (not guidelines) are there to protect the aircraft and occupants from incidents and accidents. Our OM C has a lot to say about LPMA, mostly in capitals and red ink!

The real problem is that if you start busting gates and don’t do anything about it, how long are you going to carry on down that road? Have you psychologically committed yourself to a “landing”, no matter the result of it? In the video they were high and very fast, judging by the attitude, and the last fixed distance marker had disappeared from view before a nose wheel only touchdown. Even then a rejected landing was available and would have been a sensible choice.

Some of it might be training: in my outfit we practice G/As and rejected landings so much that I think I’ve got better at them than a normal approach and landing (wouldn’t take much). But it does put you in the mindset that you can throw it away any time up to reverser deployment and the manoeuvre itself won’t be an issue, therefore the workload and anticipation stress (of a G/A) is lower and you have more capacity to make the decision. Anyone wishing to learn something from the video for themselves or their colleagues, read this twice. And then centre paragraph again thirce - similar to 4 red on PAPI - you just don't know how low you already went and your colleague probably assumes you actually have a sound intention unfolding. This needs to be trained out physically (SIM will do) not just educated.

The A/C on the tape breaks the first seal by losing the aiming point. All the rest is admittedly quite specific yet not at all surprising.

bravolima553 Uninformed take on both accounts then, no ruffled feathers tho'.

[FullWings]

If you look at the attitude of the aircraft in the video as it flies over the TDZ, it was noticeably nose-low but the wing was still producing enough lift to keep it in the air. Not type-rated but I guess on a normal approach it should be 2 to 3degs NU? This shows the speed was excessive, and also as the main wheels were still in the air with the nose wheels on the ground it was the same during the first part of the rollout.

I think the landing roll looked shorter than it actually was due to the perspective from where the shot was taken as the aircraft moved further down the runway towards the vanishing point. Having a headwind component and what is alleged to be an empty aeroplane would have helped reduce the stopping distance, once the main gear was firmly on the ground, as they don’t fit brakes to the nose gear!

As they were at Vref++ even after touchdown, a G/A shouldn’t have taken much effort as they were already at flying speed? In a non-FBW type, just relaxing the forward pressure would have done it...

[FlightDetent]

Expected prevailing pitch 2 deg NU and 5 for touchdown.

Vref MLW = 140 kt
Vref (empty) around 125 kt

ATHR+wind+pilot probably Vref+15. Up to +25 and no more (my best, Funchal non-qualified gues).

To GA on this type, pushing TLs to the firewall is needed - activate the GA flight directors. And she will go up so badly there had been (before a certain FBW modification) limit on aft CG to curtail overpitching NU.

[bravolima553]

To leave no doubt, for me this landing was not particularly "pretty" but still very professional under the circumstances. They were surprised by a pitch-down movement in the ground effect and mastered it as well as
avoided a go-around with a balked landing. In my opinion a wise decision in these weather conditions.

[Speed_Trim_Fail]

To leave no doubt, for me this landing was not particularly "pretty" but still very professional under the circumstances. They were surprised by a pitch-down movement in the ground effect and mastered it as well as
avoided a go-around with a balked landing. In my opinion a wise decision in these weather conditions.

“Avoiding a Go-Around” isn’t really the aim for us as pilots though is it? The aim is to if we are to accept the landing/decide to stop we must touch down in the touchdown zone, on speed and on profile…. if that isn’t assured surely a Go Around/baulked landing is the default decision.

[FlightDetent]

To leave no doubt, I assure you, good sir, the objective has been achieved.

[FullWings]

To leave no doubt, for me this landing was not particularly "pretty" but still very professional under the circumstances. They were surprised by a pitch-down movement in the ground effect and mastered it as well as avoided a go-around with a balked landing. In my opinion a wise decision in these weather conditions.
I’m sorry but the word professional does not fit well in the description of this approach and landing. As others have said, the way to avoid a G/A is to put the aircraft down at the right speed in the right place. If that becomes too difficult for whatever reason, including environmental conditions, then you discontinue the attempt and regroup for another go, or give up and fly somewhere else. What you don’t do is hope you’re going to get lucky and stop before the end, because the assumptions you made for IFLD are now invalid.

My company is in the process of fully implementing Evidence Based Training (EBT) and, surprise, surprise, the big topics at the moment are approach (in-)stability, go-arounds and rejected landings, because they happen a lot out there in the real world. The focus is on doing enough practice in these areas that discontinuing an approach at any stage becomes second nature, and reinforcing the fact that it is absolutely the right thing to do. To truly master an aeroplane, you have to know its limitations as well as your own - this is not a flying circus with feats of derring-do, this is a commercial operation with safety at the forefront.

Everything we do in aviation has risks attached to it but we can accept that as long as they are quantifiable and reasonable. A G/A carries a level of risk but a lot less than touching down in a high energy state, with the wrong part of the landing gear at an unknown/unbriefed point somewhere along the runway. Which is why we throw that approach and/or landing away, and also why we train to competence so we can respond better in scenarios like this.

[Bksmithca]

To leave no doubt, for me this landing was not particularly "pretty" but still very professional under the circumstances. They were surprised by a pitch-down movement in the ground effect and mastered it as well as
avoided a go-around with a balked landing. In my opinion a wise decision in these weather conditions.
Bravolima, your version of professional is very different than mine. I would have rated the pilot as just out of flight school. That landing wasn't close to be stabilized.

[Locked door]

To leave no doubt, for me this landing was not particularly "pretty" but still very professional under the circumstances. They were surprised by a pitch-down movement in the ground effect and mastered it as well as
avoided a go-around with a balked landing. In my opinion a wise decision in these weather conditions.

Just no. So deep, so nose down. That approach should never have reached the ground and they bent the aircraft as a result. A go around / baulked landing is the safe continuation of the flight, not something to be avoided as a sign of failure.

They became so task focused on achieving a landing they failed to initiate the far safer option. No one has ever collided with the sky.

The question above about TAP’s go around policy is a fair one. Why didn’t they go around? Pilot culture? Management culture? Task saturation? Fuel state?

LD

[hans brinker]

It seemed to me it was a very short roll out after T/D without exzessiv much braking action.

Strong headwind equals short roll out. AND attitude during approach and on touchdown equals excessive speed.

To leave no doubt, for me this landing was not particularly "pretty" but still very professional under the circumstances. They were surprised by a pitch-down movement in the ground effect and mastered it as well as
avoided a go-around with a balked landing. In my opinion a wise decision in these weather conditions.

Like all the replies above: NO. They weren't surprised by a nose down movement, they made that movement, and they were consistently way above the speed they should have been. And continued to land far beyond the point were a GA is the only correct choice. Not a wise decision. Even after the first touchdown on the nosewheel a wave off would have been more professional than what the crew did.

[CVividasku]

It seemed to me it was a very short roll out after T/D without exzessiv much braking action.
The average computation that I did does not cater for possible deceleration over the studied time period.
So if the average speed was approx. 170 KIAS, and the plane slowed down, it means that it went over the threshold at a significantly higher speed, possibly higher than VFE if you assume a constant deceleration, an average of 170, and an "insufficient speed" at touchdown.

So there is nothing consistent to be found on this approach and landing.