a 320 x-wind landing tecnique
Dan :
Try looking in FCOM 3.04.27 - Supplementary Techniques -Flight Controls - Normal Operations - In flight - Landing Mode
This section makes reference to FCOM 3.03.22 (SOP) but the technique I quoted is actually found here !!
Your company's FCOM 3.03.22 may say that. Ours has nothing about landing in a crosswind
This section makes reference to FCOM 3.03.22 (SOP) but the technique I quoted is actually found here !!
Only half a speed-brake
. Per design one should need not to, but in real life a dip onto the stick is unavoidable. This 25+ years old FBW is not prudent enough. 
FD (the un-real)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I meant that the wing doesn't rise as it would in older types I have flown if you just rudder it straight (into wind wing giving more lift than downwind wing due to greater speed).
The fbw keeps the wings level.
However, I tended to put the wing down as I decrabbed since it's very difficult to change the habit of a lifetime.
In strong crosswinds, on takeoff, the thing will sometimes shout "bank angle" just after lift off if you use the wing down technique and are a bit slow to level the wings.
The fbw keeps the wings level.
However, I tended to put the wing down as I decrabbed since it's very difficult to change the habit of a lifetime.
In strong crosswinds, on takeoff, the thing will sometimes shout "bank angle" just after lift off if you use the wing down technique and are a bit slow to level the wings.
Only half a speed-brake
Finn, there is a awful lot of misguided ideas about the Toulouse style FBW. On the other hand, plenty of folk who do not have steady access to any courseware like to read the TechLog contributions to learn about the system, many of them true proffesionals. Stop spoiling the thread for them, please!
1) When you put rudder in to straighten for centerline the upwind wing does come up. Once the rolling motion is sensed the FBW will do its magic and dampen it - with slight delay appropriate to 22 years old technology. If you intend to keep wings level an input on the stick is required together with the boot, a pre-emptive command of which the FBW is truly incapable of.
2) I am led to believe, that for strong crosswinds the manufacturer suggests a combination of drift/slip techniques. If it can be done for strong components, it can be done safely for small components - I am the second in the guilty line.
3) Too much aileron+spoilers must of course be avoided for departure. Yet, there is no audio alert "bank angle" on Airbus, id est you never did hear it, have you? Even if there were (737 has it when over 35 deg b/a), right ... is that the one you heard?
I thank you for the excellent opportunity for me to stroll through FCOM and AFM, just to make sure I do not write crap like you do. If you wanna play pilot, get a facebook account. Truly.
FD (the un-real)
1) When you put rudder in to straighten for centerline the upwind wing does come up. Once the rolling motion is sensed the FBW will do its magic and dampen it - with slight delay appropriate to 22 years old technology. If you intend to keep wings level an input on the stick is required together with the boot, a pre-emptive command of which the FBW is truly incapable of.
2) I am led to believe, that for strong crosswinds the manufacturer suggests a combination of drift/slip techniques. If it can be done for strong components, it can be done safely for small components - I am the second in the guilty line.
3) Too much aileron+spoilers must of course be avoided for departure. Yet, there is no audio alert "bank angle" on Airbus, id est you never did hear it, have you? Even if there were (737 has it when over 35 deg b/a), right ... is that the one you heard?
I thank you for the excellent opportunity for me to stroll through FCOM and AFM, just to make sure I do not write crap like you do. If you wanna play pilot, get a facebook account. Truly.
FD (the un-real)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightdetent
As a TRE/TRI on the said aircraft, I find your technical input pretty good but the message is lost in the delivery. Arrogant postings from a position of perceived superior knowledge is always a feature of this site,and your posting sums that up nicely.
Technically I would simply add that FCOM 3, particularly the bulletin info at the back tell most that is required in the knowledge department. However, there's no substitute for experience and it takes a while from handling conventional aircraft to learning to appreciate the benefits of the FBW system.
As a TRE/TRI on the said aircraft, I find your technical input pretty good but the message is lost in the delivery. Arrogant postings from a position of perceived superior knowledge is always a feature of this site,and your posting sums that up nicely.
Technically I would simply add that FCOM 3, particularly the bulletin info at the back tell most that is required in the knowledge department. However, there's no substitute for experience and it takes a while from handling conventional aircraft to learning to appreciate the benefits of the FBW system.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight detent
I am somewhat confused by your rant as I was suggesting that the airbus fbw does exactly as you mentioned.
I must confess to not reading the manuals as much as you seem to.
I was trying to imply that the fbw helps in a way that wasn't available in older types.
I have been retired for some time now, and may have forgotten the exact phrase that the 320 uses, but I'm pretty certain it shouted something like that which I said.
I haven't flown the 737.
I thought I was contributing to the forum but your comments suggest that I wasted my 35+ years as a professional licence holder.
I shall sign up to facebook immediately!!!
I am somewhat confused by your rant as I was suggesting that the airbus fbw does exactly as you mentioned.
I must confess to not reading the manuals as much as you seem to.
I was trying to imply that the fbw helps in a way that wasn't available in older types.
I have been retired for some time now, and may have forgotten the exact phrase that the 320 uses, but I'm pretty certain it shouted something like that which I said.
I haven't flown the 737.
I thought I was contributing to the forum but your comments suggest that I wasted my 35+ years as a professional licence holder.
I shall sign up to facebook immediately!!!
Flightdetent:
I think your attitude towards Finn was completely unwarranted. When I converted onto the Airbus in 1994 the AI instructors demonstrated that if the application of rudder to de-crab was GENTLE ENOUGH then the aircraft will indeed keep the wings level. Perhaps your experience is of the `kick off drift` rather than the `squeeze` school! By the way you can also demonstrate when base flying (circuits) the unreliability of the ND wind readout by gently squeezing on rudder as you fly level and again the aircraft flies wings level without the need for aileron.
So, my advice to you young chap would be accept that there may be experiences around which are outside your own! If your profile is indeed correct then I suspect that you may not have 8,000+ hrs on A320/A330/A340 to relate to.
I think your attitude towards Finn was completely unwarranted. When I converted onto the Airbus in 1994 the AI instructors demonstrated that if the application of rudder to de-crab was GENTLE ENOUGH then the aircraft will indeed keep the wings level. Perhaps your experience is of the `kick off drift` rather than the `squeeze` school! By the way you can also demonstrate when base flying (circuits) the unreliability of the ND wind readout by gently squeezing on rudder as you fly level and again the aircraft flies wings level without the need for aileron.
So, my advice to you young chap would be accept that there may be experiences around which are outside your own! If your profile is indeed correct then I suspect that you may not have 8,000+ hrs on A320/A330/A340 to relate to.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having joined the party fairly late, I thought I'd have a go at explain how the FBW works in a crosswind. Here goes.....
The airbus is an aeroplane, just like any other. In any other aircraft, as you decrab during the flare, you must apply into wind aileron, which gives a sideslip (!) and the net result, if performed correctly, is that the aircraft aligns with the runway, and is banked slightly into wind so that you do not drift off the centreline.
Sideslip requires a bank angle to maintain the track - hopefully runway centreline!
As the crosswind (and hence crab angle) increases, then the amount of rudder and aileron (and hence bank angle) required increases. Airbus says
"In the case of a very strong crosswind, the aircraft may be landed with a residual drift / crab angle (maximum 5°) to prevent an excessive bank (maximum 5°). Consequently, combination of the partial decrab and wing down techniques may be required. "
So, how does this fit in with the world of FBW?
After 0.5 secs airborne, you go into Normal Law, and stay there until touchdown. In roll, you demand a roll rate. Stick input results in a roll demand, until you get to the bank angle you want, when you reduce stick input to zero. Aircraft stay in bank angle selected.
During landing to remove the drift, we input rudder. To keep the aircraft on the centreline, you need some bank - the sideslip as described above. However, in my airbus experience, if you boot the drift off quickly, the control law is slower to respond and it will not catch the roll quickly enough. If you're more gentle - e.g as a previous post gave the example of sideslipping when downwind on base training, - it will keep the wings as you previously demanded i.e. level.
However, you don't actually want level, as you need some bank angle to keep it on the centreline. So you need to demand a small bank angle - using stick input- then take out the stick input when you get to the angle you need.
That's the tricky part!
For people like myself, , taking the stick input back out goes against all the muscle memory we've acquire on previous types. So you need time to get used to it.
For small crosswinds, we don't really bother too much with extra stick inputs, as the decrab and subsequent bank required is small. However, in large crosswinds, as the drift is taken off with the rudder, bank is required to maintain the centreline. And be aware what airbus say about large crosswinds - they don't want more than 5 deg bank angle, so they're happy if you land with some drift.
In summary, great piece of kit, but we all fight against our experience on previous types when we start to fly it. With crosswind landings, I still find myself putting roll rate demand in, but forget to take it out again!
The airbus is an aeroplane, just like any other. In any other aircraft, as you decrab during the flare, you must apply into wind aileron, which gives a sideslip (!) and the net result, if performed correctly, is that the aircraft aligns with the runway, and is banked slightly into wind so that you do not drift off the centreline.
Sideslip requires a bank angle to maintain the track - hopefully runway centreline!
As the crosswind (and hence crab angle) increases, then the amount of rudder and aileron (and hence bank angle) required increases. Airbus says
"In the case of a very strong crosswind, the aircraft may be landed with a residual drift / crab angle (maximum 5°) to prevent an excessive bank (maximum 5°). Consequently, combination of the partial decrab and wing down techniques may be required. "
So, how does this fit in with the world of FBW?
After 0.5 secs airborne, you go into Normal Law, and stay there until touchdown. In roll, you demand a roll rate. Stick input results in a roll demand, until you get to the bank angle you want, when you reduce stick input to zero. Aircraft stay in bank angle selected.
During landing to remove the drift, we input rudder. To keep the aircraft on the centreline, you need some bank - the sideslip as described above. However, in my airbus experience, if you boot the drift off quickly, the control law is slower to respond and it will not catch the roll quickly enough. If you're more gentle - e.g as a previous post gave the example of sideslipping when downwind on base training, - it will keep the wings as you previously demanded i.e. level.
However, you don't actually want level, as you need some bank angle to keep it on the centreline. So you need to demand a small bank angle - using stick input- then take out the stick input when you get to the angle you need.
That's the tricky part!
For people like myself, , taking the stick input back out goes against all the muscle memory we've acquire on previous types. So you need time to get used to it.
For small crosswinds, we don't really bother too much with extra stick inputs, as the decrab and subsequent bank required is small. However, in large crosswinds, as the drift is taken off with the rudder, bank is required to maintain the centreline. And be aware what airbus say about large crosswinds - they don't want more than 5 deg bank angle, so they're happy if you land with some drift.
In summary, great piece of kit, but we all fight against our experience on previous types when we start to fly it. With crosswind landings, I still find myself putting roll rate demand in, but forget to take it out again!
From Supplementary techniques - Flight Controls.
"Crosswind landings are conventional.........................The aircarft tends to roill gently in the conventional sense as drift decreases, and the pilot may have to use some normal cross control to maintain roll attitude."
John Citizen. The FCOMs contradict themselves in several areas, but as far as my company is concerned, the imperative "Should'' in our manuals is the over-riding one. It's not "Must" or "Mandatory", but when we are told that we should use the crab technique, we do not really have a choice. If you scrape a pod using a different technique, the excuses will run out very quickly.
FCOMs vary from company to company. Ours don't have the crosswind landing techniques section in 3.02.22. I have a copy of a UK operator's FCOM 3 which does. And our FCOM 3 is currently being re-written to align with our parent company, and that is different again.
The Airbus Briefing Notes also contradict our company policy - which is probably why they aren't officially made available to us. The discalimer at the end says:
"This FOBN is intended to enhance the reader's flight safety awareness but it shall not supersede the applicable regulations and the Airbus or airline's operational documentation; should any deviation appear between this FOBN and the Airbus or airline’s AFM / (M)MEL / FCOM / QRH / FCTM, the latter shall prevail at all times".
As an aside, I recently performed an autoland close to the 20kt crosswind limit. The aircraft stayed on the centreline perfectly using a progressive roll input to counter the drift as the aircraft de-crabbed. It was smoother than a no crosswind autoland, which can be a bit firm with the IAE engine fit.
"Crosswind landings are conventional.........................The aircarft tends to roill gently in the conventional sense as drift decreases, and the pilot may have to use some normal cross control to maintain roll attitude."
John Citizen. The FCOMs contradict themselves in several areas, but as far as my company is concerned, the imperative "Should'' in our manuals is the over-riding one. It's not "Must" or "Mandatory", but when we are told that we should use the crab technique, we do not really have a choice. If you scrape a pod using a different technique, the excuses will run out very quickly.
FCOMs vary from company to company. Ours don't have the crosswind landing techniques section in 3.02.22. I have a copy of a UK operator's FCOM 3 which does. And our FCOM 3 is currently being re-written to align with our parent company, and that is different again.
The Airbus Briefing Notes also contradict our company policy - which is probably why they aren't officially made available to us. The discalimer at the end says:
"This FOBN is intended to enhance the reader's flight safety awareness but it shall not supersede the applicable regulations and the Airbus or airline's operational documentation; should any deviation appear between this FOBN and the Airbus or airline’s AFM / (M)MEL / FCOM / QRH / FCTM, the latter shall prevail at all times".
As an aside, I recently performed an autoland close to the 20kt crosswind limit. The aircraft stayed on the centreline perfectly using a progressive roll input to counter the drift as the aircraft de-crabbed. It was smoother than a no crosswind autoland, which can be a bit firm with the IAE engine fit.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD
Regarding my after lift off message.
It may have solely been a feature of 320-100 series aircraft (the first ten? built) or it may have been modded out by software upgrade at a later date.
It was an annoying distraction when it ocurred.
Regarding my after lift off message.
It may have solely been a feature of 320-100 series aircraft (the first ten? built) or it may have been modded out by software upgrade at a later date.
It was an annoying distraction when it ocurred.
Only half a speed-brake
Finn, I got slashed now over my fingers and quite rightly so. Should you be willing to accept, apart from being days overdue, my apologies are honestly offered. Anyone successfuly retired after a safe lifetime career is naturally my role model. If ever I make it there and still have an idea what is the "facebook" of that time, that would really be icing on top.
Let's see where I came from. Our statements:
are not in agreement. As I read some time ago from one of the Airbus-struck contributors here, much better tempered than I, (loose wording) "Perhaps it is time to stop pronouncing how conventionally AB FBW behaves, but start pointing out the differencies as well". From my point of view, the TechLog is exactly the place we could learn about the differencies among a computer locked device, magical chariot, and a fine piece of engineering work. Keeping our inputs technically trimmed seems essential.
Im am sure that you read the books no less eagerly than I do today. Very inappropriate of me to assume your profile was faked, without checking first.
Let's see where I came from. Our statements:
wing doesn't rise as it would in older types ... The fbw keeps the wings level.
If you intend to keep wings level an input on the stick is required ... pre-emptive command of which the FBW is truly incapable of.
Im am sure that you read the books no less eagerly than I do today. Very inappropriate of me to assume your profile was faked, without checking first.
