Tail strike at Faro
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Tin Can
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD
for info I was referring to a previous item mentioned by spy regarding the link between Manual Thrust and tailstrikes so maybe spy could furnish you more gen.
Refer to Supplementary Techniques for "phase advance" of autothrust. Its not a fairytale.
for info I was referring to a previous item mentioned by spy regarding the link between Manual Thrust and tailstrikes so maybe spy could furnish you more gen.
Refer to Supplementary Techniques for "phase advance" of autothrust. Its not a fairytale.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more chaps. Much as I'd love to get my hands on a 'bus eventually, the thought of having to fly one scares the living daylights out of me just now. I'll be quite happy to stick with old-fashioned, uncomplicated machinery until I know what I'm doing thank you.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a fairly new bus driver the A321 does have the tendency to pitch up on touchdown. This nose up tendency is more apparent when using MED autobrake, which I suugest was use going into FAO due to the length of Rwy.
The idea of adding a few knots is one I use on the A321. The ATHR is just too slow to react to gusts.
On a recent APP using managed speed, a strong headwind (30kts) died off to virtually nothing in the last 100' and the result was the ATHR taking the extra Gnd Speed Mini knots off causing us to be at idle thrust at 50'. Even putting the thr levers fwd of the CLB detent was not enough to stop the cruncher.
The instinct is to counteract by increasing the pitch attitude to stop the splat but you just have to let it land flat and hard and hope it doesn't print out ! !
Nice comfy cockpit though !
The idea of adding a few knots is one I use on the A321. The ATHR is just too slow to react to gusts.
On a recent APP using managed speed, a strong headwind (30kts) died off to virtually nothing in the last 100' and the result was the ATHR taking the extra Gnd Speed Mini knots off causing us to be at idle thrust at 50'. Even putting the thr levers fwd of the CLB detent was not enough to stop the cruncher.
The instinct is to counteract by increasing the pitch attitude to stop the splat but you just have to let it land flat and hard and hope it doesn't print out ! !
Nice comfy cockpit though !
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in the hills
Age: 68
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember smashing a 757 into rwy28 about three years ago. Scared the sh1t out of me, and knocked my confidence big time. I had more than the 150 discussed hours here though.... and I didn't hit the tail.
Quite frankly, it could happen to anybody... senior Captain just as easily as a junior FO, with exception that a senior Captain may notice the symptoms earlier than a junior FO. That is probably because he smashed one in somewhere when he was a junior FO.
The poor bloke who had this event happen probably doesn't want to read all of us pontificating about this and that.
GOOD LUCK. Monarch are a good company. You have little to be concerned about I would suggest.
Quite frankly, it could happen to anybody... senior Captain just as easily as a junior FO, with exception that a senior Captain may notice the symptoms earlier than a junior FO. That is probably because he smashed one in somewhere when he was a junior FO.
The poor bloke who had this event happen probably doesn't want to read all of us pontificating about this and that.
GOOD LUCK. Monarch are a good company. You have little to be concerned about I would suggest.
"The poor bloke who had this event happen probably doesn't want to read all of us pontificating about this and that."
Possibly not, but if they are reading this, they may be comforted by the amount of people recognising the ease in which this situation can occur. We have all made mistakes, and we are normally better pilots for them!
Possibly not, but if they are reading this, they may be comforted by the amount of people recognising the ease in which this situation can occur. We have all made mistakes, and we are normally better pilots for them!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Tin Can
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only as an aside, its kinda interesting how a pilot can make a slightly inappropriate comment on the radio (Britannia 034A), and suddenly a whole company, pilot group and ethos come under pages and pages of criticism, abuse and cries of professional misconduct, and yet, most posters here are so blase', tolerant and accepting of tailstrikes.
All is forgiven, no probs, can happen to anyone kind of comments.
Absolutely correct comments of course, no argument there, just interesting the level of reaction thats all.
All is forgiven, no probs, can happen to anyone kind of comments.
Absolutely correct comments of course, no argument there, just interesting the level of reaction thats all.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am getting a suspicion that people are being taught to fly the 320 and 321 diferently to how the manufacturer originally intended. In the beginning, all training was done by Airbus, you were taught Airbus Philosophy and I believe the way we were taught in 1992/3 was good.
Over time, various operators have brought training into 3rd party suppliers or in house and seem to have speeded up the whole process. I now fly with guys who haven't got a basic understanding of many of the areas of Airbus operation that should be taught, particularly how groundspeed mini works and why it works, the need for a stable approach and most importantly the different characteristics of the aeroplanes in the flare with different engine fits.
A 320 behaves differently with V2500's than CFM's, the thrust reduction is different, the initiation of the flare is different. Same on the 321, same on the 330.
This is a critical phase of flight and more time should be given in training. The take off scenario is rather simpler. Provided you have reached or have exceeded a Vr that is correct for the runway and conditions, most rotation techniques will suffice and the aeroplane will fly away without a tailstrike.
I hope that this guy isn't discouraged and continues with Monarch.
Over time, various operators have brought training into 3rd party suppliers or in house and seem to have speeded up the whole process. I now fly with guys who haven't got a basic understanding of many of the areas of Airbus operation that should be taught, particularly how groundspeed mini works and why it works, the need for a stable approach and most importantly the different characteristics of the aeroplanes in the flare with different engine fits.
A 320 behaves differently with V2500's than CFM's, the thrust reduction is different, the initiation of the flare is different. Same on the 321, same on the 330.
This is a critical phase of flight and more time should be given in training. The take off scenario is rather simpler. Provided you have reached or have exceeded a Vr that is correct for the runway and conditions, most rotation techniques will suffice and the aeroplane will fly away without a tailstrike.
I hope that this guy isn't discouraged and continues with Monarch.
All training (flying) done inhouse at Spotty m. Tech course as well done by Spotty M Peeps.
With it being a training flight, the classic tailscrape on the 321 is a hard landing with a bounce, and if you are not quick and go-around, a second landing, with back stick, and a possible tailcrape.
Lets stop pontificating for now, and see what the AAIB says, ta very much from a Spotty M Driver
EGGW.
With it being a training flight, the classic tailscrape on the 321 is a hard landing with a bounce, and if you are not quick and go-around, a second landing, with back stick, and a possible tailcrape.
Lets stop pontificating for now, and see what the AAIB says, ta very much from a Spotty M Driver
EGGW.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: South
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Salvation
I think the course down in tls is very poor now, the ground school consists of sitting down in front of a computer followed by an open book exam. The sim training is done with SFI's most from the french airforce who have never flown the airbus! The only time you meet someone who has is during the skills test. The sims are all geared up with each lesson plan stored, punch it in and go.
TLS is just a sausage machine.
At least these third party outfits (that i know of) are run by guys that have flown the bus offering practical advice and tips which i think is excellent.
MF
I think the course down in tls is very poor now, the ground school consists of sitting down in front of a computer followed by an open book exam. The sim training is done with SFI's most from the french airforce who have never flown the airbus! The only time you meet someone who has is during the skills test. The sims are all geared up with each lesson plan stored, punch it in and go.
TLS is just a sausage machine.
At least these third party outfits (that i know of) are run by guys that have flown the bus offering practical advice and tips which i think is excellent.
MF
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airbus is just one of the present day aircraft in which the possibility is always there of a tail strike.
Why on earth don't they fit tail bumpers/skids/wheels to all of them? (As the 737-400 had in my day-not to mention the Ambassador)
Or would that be too simple?
The savings in tea and biccies would probably pay for them.
Why on earth don't they fit tail bumpers/skids/wheels to all of them? (As the 737-400 had in my day-not to mention the Ambassador)
Or would that be too simple?
The savings in tea and biccies would probably pay for them.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all I have flown the MD83, Boeing 757/767 and now fly the A320, A321 and A330. I mention this to make clear that I am not interested in the Boeing is better than Airbus argument or visa versa. All of the above aircraft have been great fun to fly and I would be happy to fly any of them any time.
My own company has experienced four tail strikes. Three involving the Airbus and one 757, all but one were put down to unstable approaches flown with manual thrust, A/thr out being standard on the Boeing. The odd one out was an A321 in Funchal which was the victim of a nasty down draft. Analysis of the FDR showed the pilot could have done little to prevent the incident at the time. Since then TOGA 10 go-arounds have been introduced as routine training.
Swashnob
Airbus may well have said the proximity of the approach speed to VLS is not an issue but you would hardly expect them to say anything else. In the main it is not a problem unless of course you get caught in some low level turbulence or shear. My own airline for some time recommended adding 5 kts to the approach speed to help out in this situation but this was an unofficial fix. As has already been mentioned this method is fine as long as you have checked the landing performance.
Nigelondraught
Airbus have always recommended leaving the auto thrust in. The technique you refer to involving pushing the climb levers out of climb and then back to recover speed can be found in the Airbus training manual, so I am not surprised you have not seen it. It can now also be found in FCOM Bulletin 54 Feb 04. This document is a must read for all Airbus pilots and is entitled “Aircraft Handling In Final Approach”. It for the first time recommends the use of manual thrust if large speed decreases are anticipated on the approach.
I have seen the A321, A330 and today a new CFM A320 loose speed at a late stage on final approach with no response from the auto thrust. The problem is linked to manual flight and auto thrust.
From Bulletin 54.
“ A/THR response to airspeed variations is the result of a design compromise between performance and comfort and it is optimised when the AP is engaged. Therefore, in turbulent conditions and when flying manually, the pilot may sometimes find it to be too slow or lagging ………. “
The Airbus is a fine aircraft and many negative comments generally come from the uninformed. The aircraft is like any other, just a little more complicated and requires a bit more thought from its pilots. At the end of the day if the aircraft is not doing what you want with the automatics in make it! In this example use manual thrust or crack the levers above the climb gate and then back, in the latter case as long as you are above 100 feet!
My view on the incidents involving tail strikes whilst using manual thrust is that the manoeuvre is rarely practiced on the Airbus. Therefore, when the workload increases the chance of a tail strike also increases due to reduced spare capacity.
My own company has experienced four tail strikes. Three involving the Airbus and one 757, all but one were put down to unstable approaches flown with manual thrust, A/thr out being standard on the Boeing. The odd one out was an A321 in Funchal which was the victim of a nasty down draft. Analysis of the FDR showed the pilot could have done little to prevent the incident at the time. Since then TOGA 10 go-arounds have been introduced as routine training.
Swashnob
Airbus may well have said the proximity of the approach speed to VLS is not an issue but you would hardly expect them to say anything else. In the main it is not a problem unless of course you get caught in some low level turbulence or shear. My own airline for some time recommended adding 5 kts to the approach speed to help out in this situation but this was an unofficial fix. As has already been mentioned this method is fine as long as you have checked the landing performance.
Nigelondraught
Airbus have always recommended leaving the auto thrust in. The technique you refer to involving pushing the climb levers out of climb and then back to recover speed can be found in the Airbus training manual, so I am not surprised you have not seen it. It can now also be found in FCOM Bulletin 54 Feb 04. This document is a must read for all Airbus pilots and is entitled “Aircraft Handling In Final Approach”. It for the first time recommends the use of manual thrust if large speed decreases are anticipated on the approach.
I have seen the A321, A330 and today a new CFM A320 loose speed at a late stage on final approach with no response from the auto thrust. The problem is linked to manual flight and auto thrust.
From Bulletin 54.
“ A/THR response to airspeed variations is the result of a design compromise between performance and comfort and it is optimised when the AP is engaged. Therefore, in turbulent conditions and when flying manually, the pilot may sometimes find it to be too slow or lagging ………. “
The Airbus is a fine aircraft and many negative comments generally come from the uninformed. The aircraft is like any other, just a little more complicated and requires a bit more thought from its pilots. At the end of the day if the aircraft is not doing what you want with the automatics in make it! In this example use manual thrust or crack the levers above the climb gate and then back, in the latter case as long as you are above 100 feet!
My view on the incidents involving tail strikes whilst using manual thrust is that the manoeuvre is rarely practiced on the Airbus. Therefore, when the workload increases the chance of a tail strike also increases due to reduced spare capacity.
Last edited by spy; 16th Jun 2004 at 22:46.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing 773 has it's software programed in such a way that the AOA is limited at VR to preclude a tail strike. (No need for a tail bumper). I don't know if the AOA is limited by the software for the approach phase.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Luton
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
conditions are not what they used to be, and are being further eroded by management, still cheap f/o's provide good savings, until you need to fork out for mending bent jets
or did you mean the wx?
or did you mean the wx?
stilljustanothernumber
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the night sky
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The frames are not damaged, so it's just going to be a bit of re-skinning and a lick of paint. The beancounters will still think the monarch flying school is a good thing.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flex 33
Can't comment on the Monarch Faro incident but two of our tail strikes occurred in good weather with little wind/turbulence and good visual conditions. One involved a wet lease A320 with a low houred F/O at the controls (A/THR out) the other an A321 with an experienced F/O handling (A/THR out). The Latter had some interesting CRM issues.
I think the only real training issue is Airbus until recently have pushed the use of A/THR in all conditions with a healthy aeroplane. Therefore, operators have frowned on pilots flying the aircraft with manual thrust. Interestingly Airbus has always recommended the use of manual thrust with certain failures. One policy seems at odds with the other as pilots become less comfortable flying with manual thrust but are advised to do so at times of high workload.
Can't comment on the Monarch Faro incident but two of our tail strikes occurred in good weather with little wind/turbulence and good visual conditions. One involved a wet lease A320 with a low houred F/O at the controls (A/THR out) the other an A321 with an experienced F/O handling (A/THR out). The Latter had some interesting CRM issues.
I think the only real training issue is Airbus until recently have pushed the use of A/THR in all conditions with a healthy aeroplane. Therefore, operators have frowned on pilots flying the aircraft with manual thrust. Interestingly Airbus has always recommended the use of manual thrust with certain failures. One policy seems at odds with the other as pilots become less comfortable flying with manual thrust but are advised to do so at times of high workload.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: london
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SPY interesing post you wrote earlier.
Im a moderatley experienced F/O (same company).
Couple of questions.
1. On the approach after going from CLB to MCT then back into CLB again does the A/TH re-engage automatically?
2. You said that this method should only be used above 100', why is this? Surely its below 100' when this technique could be extremely useful.
Dont know if youre a trainer SPY but out of interest during my conversion this potentially interesting trait of the 321 or possible recovery techniques were never mentioned.
Im a moderatley experienced F/O (same company).
Couple of questions.
1. On the approach after going from CLB to MCT then back into CLB again does the A/TH re-engage automatically?
2. You said that this method should only be used above 100', why is this? Surely its below 100' when this technique could be extremely useful.
Dont know if youre a trainer SPY but out of interest during my conversion this potentially interesting trait of the 321 or possible recovery techniques were never mentioned.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have a couple of mates in Monarch and apart from the usual gripes that most of us have,they are pretty happy especially with the way incidents like this get handled.Guys have broken a 757 in Gib and took off 330 wingtips in the carribean( who put that palm tree there?) and the old chief pilot even landed a 1-11 with the wheels up....before he made C.P!Monarch know that **** happens,we are human after all.They take a realistic approach and providing guys aren't grossly negligent,will retrain them & let others learn from the mistakes. A culture of what is to blame rather than who......unlike a certain UP'NCOMING middle east operator who is fireing anyone who has anything to do with the A340 overun at J'burg ! Enough said! Wheelbarrow is right,the F/O WILL be okay....i hope,just a little thats all!
thats all!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: South
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Chaps
If you are above 100 ft radio and select mct then back to climb the autothrust engages, but not below.
I agree it would be useful, its all documented on the blue bulletins i think its no. 54
MF
If you are above 100 ft radio and select mct then back to climb the autothrust engages, but not below.
I agree it would be useful, its all documented on the blue bulletins i think its no. 54
MF