Tail strike at Faro
Aircraft G-OZBE returned (very gently) at FL90 from Faro to Luton late this afternoon, with engineers on-board. Speed was restricted and a maximum descent rate of 300 fpm was required.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: here and there
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A321s
Must be a 321 specific problem. I saw a KTHY A321 in IST and asked our IST based mx guy what happend to it. Answer: Tailstrike in DLM during ldg. He told me that OHY did one as well in BJV (?) (also during ldg.) about a week ago. Both acft parked in front of the THY hangar in IST now.
I'm not flying 320s but like to ask: Is A/T used on appr. even if when flying manual on these machines?
I'm not flying 320s but like to ask: Is A/T used on appr. even if when flying manual on these machines?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bed
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what point do you fella's in Monarch call 'pitch' on the A321 & A320?
I understand that a couple of years ago the rate of tail strikes on the A321 was 1 per month. Anyone got any details on that from Airbus?
I understand that a couple of years ago the rate of tail strikes on the A321 was 1 per month. Anyone got any details on that from Airbus?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Chaps
Take a look at FCOM 1 under Auto Flight/Auto Thrust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Below 100 feet radio altitude
When the radio altitude is below 100 feet and the pilot sets both thrust levers above CL detent or one above the MCT detent, the auto thrust will disconnect."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below 100 feet you will either end up going around if you use the above technique or reverting to manual thrust. Below 100 feet be prepared to use TOGA 10 instead of a standard go-around to avoid a tail strike if it all goes wrong.
This technique has only been mentioned until now in the Airbus instructor manuals. I was fortunate enough to be given a copy some years ago and have passed the information on to those I have flown with. At last Blue Bulletin 54 has put this technique and the advice on auto thrust in print for all to read.
Incidentally you would not have found TOGA 10 in our manuals until a few of years ago!
The A321 is clearly prone to tail strikes if circumstances conspire against the crew. I believe becoming familiar with TOGA 10 and the above technique greatly reduces the risk. I also believe becoming familiar with flying the aircraft with manual thrust will greatly improve the situation. This is a controversial point of view in some circles but if both crew clearly brief what is intended and prevailing conditions are taken in to account then approaches with auto thrust out are easier in the Airbus than almost any other large aircraft I have flown. Of course in areas where a high cockpit workload is expected, full use of the automatics should be made but be prepared like all good boy scouts!
Take a look at FCOM 1 under Auto Flight/Auto Thrust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Below 100 feet radio altitude
When the radio altitude is below 100 feet and the pilot sets both thrust levers above CL detent or one above the MCT detent, the auto thrust will disconnect."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below 100 feet you will either end up going around if you use the above technique or reverting to manual thrust. Below 100 feet be prepared to use TOGA 10 instead of a standard go-around to avoid a tail strike if it all goes wrong.
This technique has only been mentioned until now in the Airbus instructor manuals. I was fortunate enough to be given a copy some years ago and have passed the information on to those I have flown with. At last Blue Bulletin 54 has put this technique and the advice on auto thrust in print for all to read.
Incidentally you would not have found TOGA 10 in our manuals until a few of years ago!
The A321 is clearly prone to tail strikes if circumstances conspire against the crew. I believe becoming familiar with TOGA 10 and the above technique greatly reduces the risk. I also believe becoming familiar with flying the aircraft with manual thrust will greatly improve the situation. This is a controversial point of view in some circles but if both crew clearly brief what is intended and prevailing conditions are taken in to account then approaches with auto thrust out are easier in the Airbus than almost any other large aircraft I have flown. Of course in areas where a high cockpit workload is expected, full use of the automatics should be made but be prepared like all good boy scouts!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch SOP is to call pitch at 7.5 pitch up for the A321.
Rear fuselage hit the ground at 9.7 with shock absorber fully compressed.
This is hard to notice after a normal flare and landing of the maingear especially with a sudden pitch up moment.
Rear fuselage hit the ground at 9.7 with shock absorber fully compressed.
This is hard to notice after a normal flare and landing of the maingear especially with a sudden pitch up moment.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed or Active
I was under the impression that the the A/THR remained ACTIVE in the MCT detent (ignoring the below 100' and Take off scenarios).
By putting the levers into the MCT detent you are increasing the range that the A/THR may use to an upper limit of MCT, but you are not necessarily commanding MCT.
Having said that I have often used the technique of nudging the levers out of the CLB detent in order to recover the speed and when you do this the power increases rapidly.
Therefore there must be a stage in the approach where the system changes over so that putting the levers into the MCT detent disengages the A/THR and leaves it in the armed mode, thereby commanding an increase in power.
Anybody care to clarify?
By putting the levers into the MCT detent you are increasing the range that the A/THR may use to an upper limit of MCT, but you are not necessarily commanding MCT.
Having said that I have often used the technique of nudging the levers out of the CLB detent in order to recover the speed and when you do this the power increases rapidly.
Therefore there must be a stage in the approach where the system changes over so that putting the levers into the MCT detent disengages the A/THR and leaves it in the armed mode, thereby commanding an increase in power.
Anybody care to clarify?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carloss
In answer to your question the A/THR does not re-arm below 100 feet same applies to MCT on one engine. You just end up with a lot of power on!
In other words if on one engine in MCT the system works in exactly the same way as on two engines with the levers in the CLB gate.
In answer to your question the A/THR does not re-arm below 100 feet same applies to MCT on one engine. You just end up with a lot of power on!
In other words if on one engine in MCT the system works in exactly the same way as on two engines with the levers in the CLB gate.
Last edited by spy; 20th Jun 2004 at 17:59.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly the A320/1 and have recently started flying the A319. Like everyone else early on I had my fair share of alarmingly 'firm' landings on the 321 for no apparent reason, and this caused me to really look into groundspeed mini which was frankly a mystery to me. It rapidly became apparent that virtually no one, including trainers really understood the approach speed calculation/gs mini function. It took me ages fiddling with a spreadsheet and equations to understand it but I think I now do!
The first thing that confused me was why do we have to input a wind into the perf approach page (known as the tower wind)? The answer is never formally given but if you fiddle with the equations using a spreadsheet the answer becomes clear. It is basically there to allow you to have the minimum possible approach speed. In essence you are saying to the system that the wind you enter is guaranteed to be there so you can pretty well forget about it. A gust in Airbus thinking is the difference between the tower wind (resolved along the runway axis) and the actual wind calculated by the IRS's. The majority 'gust' is therefore effectively added onto the approach speed so that if it disappears for any reason you will still have a healthy speed. Contrary to what all Airbus pilots imagine, the effect of increasing the tower wind is to decrease the approach speed! (next time you are flying an approach on a windy day, try it and you will find it is true). Therefore the first step to a really heavy landing is to put in the last minute wind given by ATC into the perf approach page, as you are effectively telling the aircraft to ignore that wind. When the gust that ATC have just given you disapppears there will be a big loss of air speed as the gsmini function has not added the necessary knots onto the approach speed. If anyone is interested I can send them a spreadsheet with calculations on to see how this all works.
I do not know the specifics of this unfortunate incident but it is possible that a combination of too high a tower wind, not adding the few knots to the approach speed and not dealing with the landing pitch-up has got this poor chap into trouble. As an aside, the 3 massive factors statistically that predispose an individual to having a tailstrike are low experience on type, the use of manual thrust and letting the speed decay below VLS. In a statistical sense if you avoid those 3 you are virtually guaranteed not to have a problem.
Incidentally, it was SOP at my previous company to not allow 'cadets' (ie new 509ers with about 200 hours on joining) to fly the 321 for their first year with the company. They also had extensive anti tailstrike training on tech refreshers and so on. They have never had a tailstrike yet which leads you to the conclusion that experience is key.
The first thing that confused me was why do we have to input a wind into the perf approach page (known as the tower wind)? The answer is never formally given but if you fiddle with the equations using a spreadsheet the answer becomes clear. It is basically there to allow you to have the minimum possible approach speed. In essence you are saying to the system that the wind you enter is guaranteed to be there so you can pretty well forget about it. A gust in Airbus thinking is the difference between the tower wind (resolved along the runway axis) and the actual wind calculated by the IRS's. The majority 'gust' is therefore effectively added onto the approach speed so that if it disappears for any reason you will still have a healthy speed. Contrary to what all Airbus pilots imagine, the effect of increasing the tower wind is to decrease the approach speed! (next time you are flying an approach on a windy day, try it and you will find it is true). Therefore the first step to a really heavy landing is to put in the last minute wind given by ATC into the perf approach page, as you are effectively telling the aircraft to ignore that wind. When the gust that ATC have just given you disapppears there will be a big loss of air speed as the gsmini function has not added the necessary knots onto the approach speed. If anyone is interested I can send them a spreadsheet with calculations on to see how this all works.
I do not know the specifics of this unfortunate incident but it is possible that a combination of too high a tower wind, not adding the few knots to the approach speed and not dealing with the landing pitch-up has got this poor chap into trouble. As an aside, the 3 massive factors statistically that predispose an individual to having a tailstrike are low experience on type, the use of manual thrust and letting the speed decay below VLS. In a statistical sense if you avoid those 3 you are virtually guaranteed not to have a problem.
Incidentally, it was SOP at my previous company to not allow 'cadets' (ie new 509ers with about 200 hours on joining) to fly the 321 for their first year with the company. They also had extensive anti tailstrike training on tech refreshers and so on. They have never had a tailstrike yet which leads you to the conclusion that experience is key.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so am i thinking that bus drivers are busy tapping on the computers on the approach ? boeing is so straight forward, look out of the window and fly the thing adding a correction for wind, aircraft fly on airspeed not ground speed or am i a relic ? 
NSF,
could you tell us what airline it is that does not allow low hour pilots to fly the 321 for the first twelve months.
second question, was this decision taken after a risk assessment? or on what grounds?
thanks
RHINO
could you tell us what airline it is that does not allow low hour pilots to fly the 321 for the first twelve months.
second question, was this decision taken after a risk assessment? or on what grounds?
thanks
RHINO
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rhino
GB Airways are the company and they are an excellent lot when it comes to safety. You would have to ask a senior manager as to the detail of the thinking but it was universally regarded as a good measure. It meant that one of the big predisposing risk factors in tail strikes, ie pilot inexperience both on type and in general, was removed and the new guys/gals could cut their teeth on the 320 first. Personally, I thought it was a great idea as it gave the new pilots a bit of time to settle in while they come to terms with flying a big jet as opposed to a light twin. I think we all know that when you first start it can be quite daunting and a bit of settling in time has to be a good thing for all concerned. The simple fact is that unlike many other 321 operators they have never had a tailstrike and they clearly do not want to. Their success in this area probably means they have got it right. Incidentally, you don't hear many complaints from the 'cadets' about this - they all seemed very happy with the restriction.
I no longer work for them but they were very safety conscious and, unless someone can say differently, I believe that they are still applying these restrictions to new entry 'cadet' pilots.
GB Airways are the company and they are an excellent lot when it comes to safety. You would have to ask a senior manager as to the detail of the thinking but it was universally regarded as a good measure. It meant that one of the big predisposing risk factors in tail strikes, ie pilot inexperience both on type and in general, was removed and the new guys/gals could cut their teeth on the 320 first. Personally, I thought it was a great idea as it gave the new pilots a bit of time to settle in while they come to terms with flying a big jet as opposed to a light twin. I think we all know that when you first start it can be quite daunting and a bit of settling in time has to be a good thing for all concerned. The simple fact is that unlike many other 321 operators they have never had a tailstrike and they clearly do not want to. Their success in this area probably means they have got it right. Incidentally, you don't hear many complaints from the 'cadets' about this - they all seemed very happy with the restriction.
I no longer work for them but they were very safety conscious and, unless someone can say differently, I believe that they are still applying these restrictions to new entry 'cadet' pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norman Stanley Fletcher
Thanks for the info and it's nice to hear of companies putting a high emphasis on safety.GB sounds like one.I know as well that Monarch have a good reputation in that department but due to fleet size/proportion of 320/321 and the very nature of charter compared to schedule,they may not be able to use that restriction.Only several years ago their CRM team presented the dangers of unstabilised approaches and the dangers of tailstrikes on landing( usually the second bounce!)They also said that statistically,they were due for one......how right they were!
Is the A330 classified as a higher than norm risk in this area.I only ask as this is the 'smallest' aircraft that Emirates Cadets get to 'cut their teeth' on.............
Thanks for the info and it's nice to hear of companies putting a high emphasis on safety.GB sounds like one.I know as well that Monarch have a good reputation in that department but due to fleet size/proportion of 320/321 and the very nature of charter compared to schedule,they may not be able to use that restriction.Only several years ago their CRM team presented the dangers of unstabilised approaches and the dangers of tailstrikes on landing( usually the second bounce!)They also said that statistically,they were due for one......how right they were!
Is the A330 classified as a higher than norm risk in this area.I only ask as this is the 'smallest' aircraft that Emirates Cadets get to 'cut their teeth' on.............
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sunny Island
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Norman Stanley Fletcher
Sorry, but your assertions about GS Mini are totally wrong. Cheers.
Before I lapse into a technical explanation why you are wrong, why don't you read the blue bulletins supplied with FComs? Specifically the ones concerning GS MINI FUNCTION...?
Also which airline is this that allows you to put in the last minute wind given by the tower?? on short finals or what?? What kind of SOP's are these?
When you land with a wind gusting 50 kts and the system does not operate efficiently let me know.
Sorry, but your assertions about GS Mini are totally wrong. Cheers.
Before I lapse into a technical explanation why you are wrong, why don't you read the blue bulletins supplied with FComs? Specifically the ones concerning GS MINI FUNCTION...?
Also which airline is this that allows you to put in the last minute wind given by the tower?? on short finals or what?? What kind of SOP's are these?
When you land with a wind gusting 50 kts and the system does not operate efficiently let me know.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that GB can afford to have this policy as they have a larger proportion of 321's to 320 and so the cadets would not be disadvantaged in terms of flying. At M - the numbers would mean many cadets not being able to fly that much. I also believe it is only six months. Not a bad idea if practical in any company.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gatport Airwick
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB Have 3 21's and 10 20's. They keep the "cadets" off the 21 until after the first recurrent sim check then give line continuation training on the 21 prior to the 2nd line check. In other words its about 6 months until they get their hands on it.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norman Stanley Fletcher, the possible reason that GB hasn't had a tail strike on the Bus yet is that they have only been operating a fraction of the number of airframes that Monarch does, on a fraction of the number of the years that Monarch has, and a fraction of the number of rotations per day that Monarch does!
Their time will come!
Their time will come!