Iberia Aborted Landing in Bilbao
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still amazes me how people think Flight Simulators can teach them how to land a real A330 in gusty conditions...
Do they feel as well that playing F1 Grand Prix will give them a shot at beating Hamilton at Silverstone in his new McLaren?...
Do they feel as well that playing F1 Grand Prix will give them a shot at beating Hamilton at Silverstone in his new McLaren?...
As for not knowing the basics, do you really think they would be flying if they didnt..
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: europe
Age: 52
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus FBW
It is true that, with the AP disengaged, neutral side-stick on the A320 family normally gives zero roll-rate. Deflecting the stick to left or right commands a rate of roll (proportional to the deflection). In the event of a sudden side gust or yaw, however, the A/C rolls rather like any other. Once it has been rolled, say, 15 degrees to the left, it will stay there unless the pilot uses side-stick to pick the wing up (effectively by calling for a roll-rate to the right).
The difference from a traditional A/C is: once you have achieved the desired bank angle (zero, in this case), you remove pressure from the side-stick, whereupon the FBW will stop the A/C rolling (probably using a momentary bit of left aileron).
The difference from a traditional A/C is: once you have achieved the desired bank angle (zero, in this case), you remove pressure from the side-stick, whereupon the FBW will stop the A/C rolling (probably using a momentary bit of left aileron).
1. Congratulations to the pilots involved in this landing at Bilbao. They did what was required and show very good pilot skills in my opinion !
2. Concerning the above text mentionned by Chris Scott about roll rate :
In my opinion you are very wrong !
In the 330-340 aircrafts; the flight control "NORMAL LAW" reverts ("blend in") to "DIRECT LAW" once below 100ft RA if I remember well.
Is this different on the 320 ? I would really doubt about this (same family of aircrafts).
You are referring to "roll rate" command which is the case in "NORMAL LAW" (above 100 ft RA) but in "DIRECT LAW" (during landing and t/o - below 100ft), the side stick inputs are commanding surface deflection (angle of deflection)- hence "DIRECT" called.
Very very much like in conventional aircrafts !!
You need bank to correct ? Just bank like in any aircraft : the stick input you give will correspond to an angle of deflection of the ailerons, no more no less.
This permitting to give more natural feeling of the handling of the aircraft during those difficult phases.
These "flight control law" changes are not announced in the cockpit but part of theoretical knowledge and part of the flt ctl software.
Anyone to comment on this ? to confirm or refute ?
Thanks !
Be positive please, how can you give such negative critics (some of you) without having been in the cockpit of this aircraft on that day ??? !!!
cheers
flyer146
FCOM 1.27.20
You guys can suppose and doubt all you like, this is what an A320 does. Maybe you would like to confirm the 330/340 qualities from your manual. 
NORMAL LAW
When the aircraft is on the ground (in "on ground" mode), the sidestick commands the aileron and roll spoiler surface deflection. The amount of control surface deflection that results from a given amount of sidestick deflection depends upon aircraft speed. The pedals control rudder deflection through a direct mechanical linkage. The aircraft smoothly transitions to "in flight" mode shortly after liftoff.
When the aircraft is in the "in flight" mode, normal law combines control of the ailerons, spoilers (except N° 1 spoilers), and rudder (for turn coordination) in the sidestick. While the system thereby gives the pilot control of the roll and heading, it also limits the roll rate and bank angle, coordinates the turns, and damps the dutch roll.
The roll rate requested by the pilot during flight is proportional to the sidestick deflection, with a maximum rate of 15° per second when the sidestick is at the stop.
When the aircraft is in "flare" mode, the lateral control is the same as in "in flight" mode.
After touchdown, the aircraft smoothly transitions from "in flight" mode to "ground" mode.
When the aircraft is on the ground (in "on ground" mode), the sidestick commands the aileron and roll spoiler surface deflection. The amount of control surface deflection that results from a given amount of sidestick deflection depends upon aircraft speed. The pedals control rudder deflection through a direct mechanical linkage. The aircraft smoothly transitions to "in flight" mode shortly after liftoff.
When the aircraft is in the "in flight" mode, normal law combines control of the ailerons, spoilers (except N° 1 spoilers), and rudder (for turn coordination) in the sidestick. While the system thereby gives the pilot control of the roll and heading, it also limits the roll rate and bank angle, coordinates the turns, and damps the dutch roll.
The roll rate requested by the pilot during flight is proportional to the sidestick deflection, with a maximum rate of 15° per second when the sidestick is at the stop.
When the aircraft is in "flare" mode, the lateral control is the same as in "in flight" mode.
After touchdown, the aircraft smoothly transitions from "in flight" mode to "ground" mode.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: europe
Age: 52
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys can suppose and doubt all you like, this is what an A320 does. Maybe you would like to confirm the 330/340 qualities from your manual.
Appoologies to Chris Scott if I was wrong, as posted I was "feeling" a certain way and needed your opinion on the subject.
I take good note of your interesting posts.
As you know a software is easily changed. It is a known fact Airbus has done these changes from normal to direct law during landing on 330/340.
Maybe as well on the A320 ??
Be aware the FCOM does not reveal all the software logics though.
Quite interesting as we know that in certain companies they do cross qualification on 320-330/340.
If an Airbus specialist would comment ...
See u,
flyer146
Flyer146,
No problem with your opinions. My post was really a reaction to the finger wagging poster who has since deleted his post. I can confirm though that our minibuses do as advertised in the FCOM. I have to say I am amazed that Airbus have changed the flight control laws for such a critical stage of flight without notification through FCOMs.
No problem with your opinions. My post was really a reaction to the finger wagging poster who has since deleted his post. I can confirm though that our minibuses do as advertised in the FCOM. I have to say I am amazed that Airbus have changed the flight control laws for such a critical stage of flight without notification through FCOMs.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: europe
Age: 52
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right Way Up : no offence felt really !! 
You have proven that my opinion was not correct, thanks for that as I was looking for confirmation/refute of it
Now, concerning those flt ctl laws : Airbus has "fine tuned" a lot on their different machines. Mostly following incidents/accidents. And indeed this was not always directly communicated to us pilots... (example : flt ctl new software implementation before update of FCOM...yes it happenened!) Hopefully this "communication" has improved they say...
An example of modif being the modification of the flare law on A320 following an accident of Iberia in Bilbao during a windshear... (yes...what a coïncidence right !)
I have to admit, it apparently only consist of a modification on the pitch law though and not on the roll law (still roll in normal law as you very correctly say).
The "new" pitch law giving roughly more control to pilots than before in high AOA... That was communicated correctly in due time apparently.
Now, to my understanding in this landing, the aircraft touched down before the bank developped (am I right ???). Hence, I suppose it is then in "direct" law - ground law - as this law seems to be active 0.5s after touch and through take off till 50 feet... Again, just a question I am asking myself in view of better understanding of this beautiful machine !
flyer146
You have proven that my opinion was not correct, thanks for that as I was looking for confirmation/refute of it
Now, concerning those flt ctl laws : Airbus has "fine tuned" a lot on their different machines. Mostly following incidents/accidents. And indeed this was not always directly communicated to us pilots... (example : flt ctl new software implementation before update of FCOM...yes it happenened!) Hopefully this "communication" has improved they say...
An example of modif being the modification of the flare law on A320 following an accident of Iberia in Bilbao during a windshear... (yes...what a coïncidence right !)
I have to admit, it apparently only consist of a modification on the pitch law though and not on the roll law (still roll in normal law as you very correctly say).
The "new" pitch law giving roughly more control to pilots than before in high AOA... That was communicated correctly in due time apparently.
Now, to my understanding in this landing, the aircraft touched down before the bank developped (am I right ???). Hence, I suppose it is then in "direct" law - ground law - as this law seems to be active 0.5s after touch and through take off till 50 feet... Again, just a question I am asking myself in view of better understanding of this beautiful machine !
flyer146
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: madrid
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interview to the captain
Here is the link to a interview to the captain of flight IBE446. It is in spanish. The problem was a strong wind gust who moved the right plane.
There is no info about flight details but a lot about the special features of Bilbao. By the way, the only time I have landed there I had the same problem.
http://www.deia.com/es/impresa/2008/...tea/435060.php
There is no info about flight details but a lot about the special features of Bilbao. By the way, the only time I have landed there I had the same problem.
http://www.deia.com/es/impresa/2008/...tea/435060.php
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
330/340
FCOM 1.27.20
When the aircraft is in "flare" mode, the lateral control is the same as in "in flight" mode.
FCOM 1.27.20
When the aircraft is in "flare" mode, the lateral control is the same as in "in flight" mode.
Originally Posted by flyer146
I suppose it is then in "direct" law - ground law -
After touchdown, the aircraft smoothly transitions from "in flight" mode to "ground" mode
Just another day at the office
Oh dear, I should have known I would end up in trouble if I tried to air my limited recollection of even one aspect of the A320-family flight-control laws (post#56). Now that I have a life 
, what manuals I was able to keep are gathering mildew, and are un-amended since my retirement in late-2001.
Thanks anyway, flyer 146! But I think Right Way up is correct in respect of the A320 family. Re. the flight under discussion here, there are two points:
(1) the touchdown was very brief - less than the half-second you mention;
(2) we can assume that TOGA thrust was selected before, during, or immediately after.
To discuss lengthily is not necessarily to find fault; those who quickly and loudly condemn usually have issues of their own. When we have ceased to learn rationally from our own and others' experiences, and to recognise our own fallibility, it's time to give up.
Now that we have a link to 6 photos in the sequence (post#63), the circumstances are clearer. The event was either a sensible late go-around, during the course of which the main-wheels briefly touched down; or a bounced landing, followed immediately by a sensible go-around.
Perhaps other experienced flyers will forgive me continuing to try and interpret the photos?
Image#1 shows the A/C continuing its approach; and possibly making a slight heading adjustment, to correct the fact that the A/C is tracking slightly downwind (left) of the extended centreline.
Image#2 shows touchdown, wings level, just left of the runway centreline, tracking gradually towards it. Pitch attitude has increased; whether for the landing flare or a go-around is unclear. There has been no apparent de-crab. [De-crab cannot be done during a go-around, but is preferable on a landing.]
Image#3 shows the touchdown smoke (from left and right gear tyres) blowing rapidly downwind. The A/C has just left the ground, although a slight de-rotation is not consistent with a go-around at this point. It seems to have yawed slightly to the left. [There is a possibility that the wheels may have contributed to this during the brief touchdown.] The right wing is lifting; due either to a gust, the yaw, or an unintentional pilot roll-input (easily done in rough conditions with the side-stick); or some combination of these factors.
Image#4 shows the aeroplane clearly going-around: height and pitch have increased considerably. The roll is giving cause for concern, and must be recovered by side-stick.
The timing of images#5 and #6 suffers from the long-distance perspective of the camera, foreshortening the forward dimension; and the lack of a time-base. Judging from the moving smoke, the interval between #4 and #5 is similar to that between #3 and #4.
Image#5 shows the A/C in a typical G/A attitude, roll recovered. It seems to have yawed to the right; whether due to a gust, or possible right rudder (to try and assist the roll recovery), is debatable. [If Iberia analyse all their flights, using QAR data, any large rudder deflection in flight might flag up.]
Image#6 (time interval uncertain) shows the A/C climbing normally on the runway heading, drifting downwind. The main gear is still visible, but there's never any need to rush and, in a "wind-shear go-around", the crew must leave the gear down until satisfied that ground clearance is assured. This is partly because retracting the gear initially increases drag, as the gear doors open.
Going back to the control laws on the various FBW Airbuses, I always thought that pilot multi-rating capability and short conversion courses are an Airbus sales pitch? So the handling qualities need to be as similar as possible. Thanks, CONF iture, for confirming this.
, what manuals I was able to keep are gathering mildew, and are un-amended since my retirement in late-2001.Thanks anyway, flyer 146! But I think Right Way up is correct in respect of the A320 family. Re. the flight under discussion here, there are two points:
(1) the touchdown was very brief - less than the half-second you mention;
(2) we can assume that TOGA thrust was selected before, during, or immediately after.
To discuss lengthily is not necessarily to find fault; those who quickly and loudly condemn usually have issues of their own. When we have ceased to learn rationally from our own and others' experiences, and to recognise our own fallibility, it's time to give up.
Now that we have a link to 6 photos in the sequence (post#63), the circumstances are clearer. The event was either a sensible late go-around, during the course of which the main-wheels briefly touched down; or a bounced landing, followed immediately by a sensible go-around.
Perhaps other experienced flyers will forgive me continuing to try and interpret the photos?
Image#1 shows the A/C continuing its approach; and possibly making a slight heading adjustment, to correct the fact that the A/C is tracking slightly downwind (left) of the extended centreline.
Image#2 shows touchdown, wings level, just left of the runway centreline, tracking gradually towards it. Pitch attitude has increased; whether for the landing flare or a go-around is unclear. There has been no apparent de-crab. [De-crab cannot be done during a go-around, but is preferable on a landing.]
Image#3 shows the touchdown smoke (from left and right gear tyres) blowing rapidly downwind. The A/C has just left the ground, although a slight de-rotation is not consistent with a go-around at this point. It seems to have yawed slightly to the left. [There is a possibility that the wheels may have contributed to this during the brief touchdown.] The right wing is lifting; due either to a gust, the yaw, or an unintentional pilot roll-input (easily done in rough conditions with the side-stick); or some combination of these factors.
Image#4 shows the aeroplane clearly going-around: height and pitch have increased considerably. The roll is giving cause for concern, and must be recovered by side-stick.
The timing of images#5 and #6 suffers from the long-distance perspective of the camera, foreshortening the forward dimension; and the lack of a time-base. Judging from the moving smoke, the interval between #4 and #5 is similar to that between #3 and #4.
Image#5 shows the A/C in a typical G/A attitude, roll recovered. It seems to have yawed to the right; whether due to a gust, or possible right rudder (to try and assist the roll recovery), is debatable. [If Iberia analyse all their flights, using QAR data, any large rudder deflection in flight might flag up.]
Image#6 (time interval uncertain) shows the A/C climbing normally on the runway heading, drifting downwind. The main gear is still visible, but there's never any need to rush and, in a "wind-shear go-around", the crew must leave the gear down until satisfied that ground clearance is assured. This is partly because retracting the gear initially increases drag, as the gear doors open.
Going back to the control laws on the various FBW Airbuses, I always thought that pilot multi-rating capability and short conversion courses are an Airbus sales pitch? So the handling qualities need to be as similar as possible. Thanks, CONF iture, for confirming this.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 3rd Feb 2008 at 17:09. Reason: Addition of "immediately" in para. 4.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Madrid
Age: 70
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iberia´s Captain began his career as Spanish Air Force pilot. Actually has 17.000 flying hours in the airline.
Iberia´s Operations Manual is very clear about operating in Bilbao, is absolutelly forbiden to iniciate an approach while south winds components of 15 knots...
That day on runway 12 was windy, from the east-south-east 25 knots gusty 35, but wind changed suddenly to south 70 knots!, nothing to do in that conditions... just fly away to Vitoria.
Iberia´s Operations Manual is very clear about operating in Bilbao, is absolutelly forbiden to iniciate an approach while south winds components of 15 knots...
That day on runway 12 was windy, from the east-south-east 25 knots gusty 35, but wind changed suddenly to south 70 knots!, nothing to do in that conditions... just fly away to Vitoria.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Iberia´s Operations Manual is very clear about operating in Bilbao, is absolutelly forbiden to iniciate an approach while south winds components of 15 knots...
A4
help? re g-avyd w/o bilbao
have read these posts with interest, also...
in 1975 a british airways (BAS northeast division, was BKS) trident 1E G -AVYD ? was written off landing ? here in Bilbao,
im trying to find ANY report,
there is confliciting reports on the internet saying landing incident AND a RTO!
i was working for the company who charterered these tridents for weekend holiday flights but it was all a bit hushed up and i forgot all about it.
anyone help please?
thanks
in 1975 a british airways (BAS northeast division, was BKS) trident 1E G -AVYD ? was written off landing ? here in Bilbao,
im trying to find ANY report,
there is confliciting reports on the internet saying landing incident AND a RTO!
i was working for the company who charterered these tridents for weekend holiday flights but it was all a bit hushed up and i forgot all about it.
anyone help please?
thanks
Last edited by rog747; 6th Feb 2008 at 09:08. Reason: adds
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: clear air turbulence
Age: 65
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TE RANGI
It appears there is some sort of unresolved professional resentment behind your posts here.
Appart from Quito incident/accident which is under investigation at the moment, ¿have you any proof, I mean proof, of any incident related to IB flight on Dec, 2 Bos-Mad?.
It appears there is some sort of unresolved professional resentment behind your posts here.
Appart from Quito incident/accident which is under investigation at the moment, ¿have you any proof, I mean proof, of any incident related to IB flight on Dec, 2 Bos-Mad?.
Quote from jose 4499:
Iberia´s Operations Manual is very clear about operating in Bilbao, is absolutelly forbiden to iniciate an approach while south winds components of 15 knots...
That day on runway 12 was windy, from the east-south-east 25 knots gusty 35, but wind changed suddenly to south 70 knots!, nothing to do in that conditions... just fly away to Vitoria.
[Unquote]
kispo (post#25) supplied us with the following METARS, apparently relating to the day in question:
LEBB 151300Z 20019G33KT 150V240 CAVOK 16/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151330Z 20020G37KT 140V250 CAVOK 16/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151400Z 20023G38KT 160V240 CAVOK 17/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151430Z 20029G45KT 170V260 CAVOK 17/05 Q1004 NOSIG=
LEBB 151500Z 21027G48KT 140V260 CAVOK 17/05 Q1003 NOSIG=
LEBB 151530Z 20026G42KT 160V230 CAVOK 17/04 Q1003 NOSIG=
My understanding is that the pictures were taken at 1515 CET, 1415Z.
The 1430 METAR would report the highest gust since the previous report, i.e., 45 kts. So I doubt the surface W/V gusted to 70 kts either before. or after, the approach we are discussing.
That is not to say that the wind at, say, 1000ft might not have reached 70 kts.
The turbulence, predictable wind-shear, and frequent surface gusts of 40 - 45 kts - straight across the runway, would be quite enough to persuade most older guys to divert to a more suitable aerodrome, if available.
But we don't know precisely the conditions when the approach was started. By the way, was it a 321, or a 320?
Iberia´s Operations Manual is very clear about operating in Bilbao, is absolutelly forbiden to iniciate an approach while south winds components of 15 knots...
That day on runway 12 was windy, from the east-south-east 25 knots gusty 35, but wind changed suddenly to south 70 knots!, nothing to do in that conditions... just fly away to Vitoria.
[Unquote]
kispo (post#25) supplied us with the following METARS, apparently relating to the day in question:
LEBB 151300Z 20019G33KT 150V240 CAVOK 16/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151330Z 20020G37KT 140V250 CAVOK 16/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151400Z 20023G38KT 160V240 CAVOK 17/05 Q1005 NOSIG=
LEBB 151430Z 20029G45KT 170V260 CAVOK 17/05 Q1004 NOSIG=
LEBB 151500Z 21027G48KT 140V260 CAVOK 17/05 Q1003 NOSIG=
LEBB 151530Z 20026G42KT 160V230 CAVOK 17/04 Q1003 NOSIG=
My understanding is that the pictures were taken at 1515 CET, 1415Z.
The 1430 METAR would report the highest gust since the previous report, i.e., 45 kts. So I doubt the surface W/V gusted to 70 kts either before. or after, the approach we are discussing.
That is not to say that the wind at, say, 1000ft might not have reached 70 kts.
The turbulence, predictable wind-shear, and frequent surface gusts of 40 - 45 kts - straight across the runway, would be quite enough to persuade most older guys to divert to a more suitable aerodrome, if available.
But we don't know precisely the conditions when the approach was started. By the way, was it a 321, or a 320?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Madrid
Age: 70
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Scott Said:
"The 1430 METAR would report the highest gust since the previous report, i.e., 45 kts. So I doubt the surface W/V gusted to 70 kts either before. or after, the approach we are discussing."
Gust included in METAR is the maximum instantaneus speed reported in the last 10 minutes. WMO standard defines a gust as the maximum wind speed exceeding the "mean speed" by 5 m/s (10 knots) during the 10-minute interval.
So the 1430 METAR in my opinion will never indicate any gust produced before 1420, and so on...
"The 1430 METAR would report the highest gust since the previous report, i.e., 45 kts. So I doubt the surface W/V gusted to 70 kts either before. or after, the approach we are discussing."
Gust included in METAR is the maximum instantaneus speed reported in the last 10 minutes. WMO standard defines a gust as the maximum wind speed exceeding the "mean speed" by 5 m/s (10 knots) during the 10-minute interval.
So the 1430 METAR in my opinion will never indicate any gust produced before 1420, and so on...
