EK A330 Heavy Landing at BHX
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not entirely sure.....
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Came in on EK37
The a/c is currently grounded with damage to the undercarriage, FDRs have been removed so they can have a look at what happened.
No further details at the mo.
S78
The a/c is currently grounded with damage to the undercarriage, FDRs have been removed so they can have a look at what happened.
No further details at the mo.
S78
I have always found the A330 to be very good at stopping unlike an A321.I would suggest that this incident will be traced back to the lack of response from the athr late in the approach.I have seen it do this myself and it is especially marked on almost calm days.I believe a UK operator had a similar incident last year.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know nothing of this incident, but I do fly the 330.
For reasons known only to Airbus, below 400 ft radio height the autothrust logic changes. Thrust response 'relaxes', rather than trying to chase the speed. Any small increase - or decrease, crucially - in IAS does not provoke a change in thrust.
If speed falls a long way, there is a thrust response. But thrust levels on the 330 on approach are very low anyway as it's all wing. Furthermore, the three-spool engine configuration means thrust builds quite slowly.
The net result is that below 400 ft, by the time the autothrust responds the speed can be very low - I've seen 12 kts low - and whilst N1 is increasing, there is little increase in thrust.
This normally becomes a problem in light winds, particularly with gentle tailwinds on approach.
For reasons known only to Airbus, below 400 ft radio height the autothrust logic changes. Thrust response 'relaxes', rather than trying to chase the speed. Any small increase - or decrease, crucially - in IAS does not provoke a change in thrust.
If speed falls a long way, there is a thrust response. But thrust levels on the 330 on approach are very low anyway as it's all wing. Furthermore, the three-spool engine configuration means thrust builds quite slowly.
The net result is that below 400 ft, by the time the autothrust responds the speed can be very low - I've seen 12 kts low - and whilst N1 is increasing, there is little increase in thrust.
This normally becomes a problem in light winds, particularly with gentle tailwinds on approach.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe someday the Airbus-Neverland will admit that the fixed throttle was not that good an idea.
It confused more than one crew and has never proved any advantage over the moving cousin.
How i liked the good old wrist-shot on short final .....
It confused more than one crew and has never proved any advantage over the moving cousin.
How i liked the good old wrist-shot on short final .....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the a/c was coming in way too fast and damaged a part of the landing gear hence why it was AOG for a while. A part had to be sent in From Airbus so that it could be fixed.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: evicted
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The net result is that below 400 ft, by the time the autothrust responds the speed can be very low - I've seen 12 kts low - and whilst N1 is increasing, there is little increase in thrust.
Why bother keep your hand on the TLs then?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's funny as far as l know, no damage found on inspection.
FDR had been removed and to sent to main base and a/c given a one off to fly Nil pax back to base.
What happens next is what figures are on the FDR readout, could end up with a gear change.
FDR had been removed and to sent to main base and a/c given a one off to fly Nil pax back to base.
What happens next is what figures are on the FDR readout, could end up with a gear change.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who have not flown the Airbus or who have the Boeing fanboy bias against them: The thrust levers are in the climb detent with the auto thrust active from thrust reduction after takeoff to retarding the levers on landing. If you want more thrust you only have to move the thrust levers forward out of the climb detent. Then the thrust goes to the thrust lever angle (TLA) setting.
This however can cause a rapid increase in thrust and with the power available in A330 engines can lead to embarrassment on short finals and a go around. However you do have manual control over the thrust.
Similarly thrust lever retarding below the climb detent will provide a maximum thrust through the auto thrust limited by the TLA position manually selected.
Or you can cancel the auto thrust completely and control the thrust manually through the thrust levers.
Now what was the problem?
This however can cause a rapid increase in thrust and with the power available in A330 engines can lead to embarrassment on short finals and a go around. However you do have manual control over the thrust.
Similarly thrust lever retarding below the climb detent will provide a maximum thrust through the auto thrust limited by the TLA position manually selected.
Or you can cancel the auto thrust completely and control the thrust manually through the thrust levers.
Now what was the problem?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flappy
Yes, you can do that, but you proved my point very nicely by stating that the thrust in doing so might be too much, at least not what you wanted. You won't have that effect on a Boeing ..... you will get exactly what you push for.
Another little inconvenient: Try doing your little trick below 100 feet, and that's where most of us would be likely to do it to save the landing, and with the fantastic AB logic ..... you end up with GA thrust!!!! Definitely not what you intended methinks.
Finally, if you do the approaches with manual thrust to avoid such landings, whats the point of having the AutoThrust in the first place? On Boeings you don't disconnect it, it helps you and you can help him, on AB's it's either one or the other.
If you take away the AB or B glasses, any logical thinking pilot would have to admit that the B system is more flexibel, to use a less provocative term.
but that's just my view of the things.
Yes, you can do that, but you proved my point very nicely by stating that the thrust in doing so might be too much, at least not what you wanted. You won't have that effect on a Boeing ..... you will get exactly what you push for.
Another little inconvenient: Try doing your little trick below 100 feet, and that's where most of us would be likely to do it to save the landing, and with the fantastic AB logic ..... you end up with GA thrust!!!! Definitely not what you intended methinks.
Finally, if you do the approaches with manual thrust to avoid such landings, whats the point of having the AutoThrust in the first place? On Boeings you don't disconnect it, it helps you and you can help him, on AB's it's either one or the other.
If you take away the AB or B glasses, any logical thinking pilot would have to admit that the B system is more flexibel, to use a less provocative term.
but that's just my view of the things.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kelsterbeach
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately the company I work for still allows the use of manual thrust whenever the pilot wants to use it (not during CAT III or such, though).
We routinely fly manually and when AP off, the A/THR shall also be disengaged.
The A/THR has its flaws, none of which can be done away with by thrust levers moving back and forth, or else it will no longer be an Airbus.
We routinely fly manually and when AP off, the A/THR shall also be disengaged.
The A/THR has its flaws, none of which can be done away with by thrust levers moving back and forth, or else it will no longer be an Airbus.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gretch,
In fact on the 737 you do disconnect the auto thrust on the approach. Not doing so will result in the auto thrust chasing the speed with consequent porpoising.
You can leave the A/THR enagaged on the airbus because in normal law the nose will remain pointing down the glideslope regardless of any increase or decrease in thrust.
The 777, being fly by wire, also allows the A/THR to remain engaged, but it certainly insn't the case with the 737.
In fact on the 737 you do disconnect the auto thrust on the approach. Not doing so will result in the auto thrust chasing the speed with consequent porpoising.
You can leave the A/THR enagaged on the airbus because in normal law the nose will remain pointing down the glideslope regardless of any increase or decrease in thrust.
The 777, being fly by wire, also allows the A/THR to remain engaged, but it certainly insn't the case with the 737.