LH Another Hard Landing A340-600 KIAH
Strongest winds at Houston in the last 36 hrs.
Yesterday afternoon (local time):
KIAH 132053Z 17013G20KT 10SM BKN040 OVC075 22/15 A2979 RMK AO2 SLP087 T02220150 57026
This afternoon (local time):
KIAH 142053Z 20010G17KT 10SM CLR 31/13 A2959 RMK AO2 SLP020 T03060133 56042
Don't remember Houston well, but AvBrief indicates possible runways with that wind direction might be 15L/R, 26L/R, or 27; all long enough, but I don't know their LCNs or the A340-600's PCN.
Yesterday afternoon (local time):
KIAH 132053Z 17013G20KT 10SM BKN040 OVC075 22/15 A2979 RMK AO2 SLP087 T02220150 57026
This afternoon (local time):
KIAH 142053Z 20010G17KT 10SM CLR 31/13 A2959 RMK AO2 SLP020 T03060133 56042
Don't remember Houston well, but AvBrief indicates possible runways with that wind direction might be 15L/R, 26L/R, or 27; all long enough, but I don't know their LCNs or the A340-600's PCN.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, the landing has happened several days ago.
D-AIHA was ferried to Munich in the meantime; reportedly, replacement of R/H MLG required.
Another troublesome feature of the A346...
Cheers,
J.V.
D-AIHA was ferried to Munich in the meantime; reportedly, replacement of R/H MLG required.
Another troublesome feature of the A346...
Cheers,
J.V.
"The curse of Managed Speed has struck again.Is the A340-600 a jinxed design?It has had a lot of incidents since its launch."
A bit cryptic for the non-cognoscenti to follow, tubby linton?
If the A/THR response is anticipated to be poor near the threshold, do your SOPs (on the A330) ban you from using manual thrust? And does your GE/RR engine spool-up similarly to the Trents on the A340-600?
And are you entering the mean wind on the PERF page, or inflating any reported headwind?
Maybe a bit technical for this thread, but would be interested to have your (less-cryptic) contribution regarding Airbus FBW Managed Speeds/ GS-Mini/AutoThrust-ManualThrust here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=316201
A bit cryptic for the non-cognoscenti to follow, tubby linton?
If the A/THR response is anticipated to be poor near the threshold, do your SOPs (on the A330) ban you from using manual thrust? And does your GE/RR engine spool-up similarly to the Trents on the A340-600?
And are you entering the mean wind on the PERF page, or inflating any reported headwind?
Maybe a bit technical for this thread, but would be interested to have your (less-cryptic) contribution regarding Airbus FBW Managed Speeds/ GS-Mini/AutoThrust-ManualThrust here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=316201
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
French, or whatever...
Folks,
I remember when you could still get decent food, even on Delta, which means I'm speaking of the 1960s and 1970s.
We still have tons of good pilots, but with FBW fully accepted, how long are we going to have men and women who can really fly the craft by the seat of their pants?
[Before we flame this idea, I'm not saying that this is the way scheduled flights should be flown - unless there are circumstances like weather, aircraft problems, et cetera]
It seems like we're fastly approaching a point where anything not covered by a checklist might be a huge problem...
Any comments?
...
I remember when you could still get decent food, even on Delta, which means I'm speaking of the 1960s and 1970s.
We still have tons of good pilots, but with FBW fully accepted, how long are we going to have men and women who can really fly the craft by the seat of their pants?
[Before we flame this idea, I'm not saying that this is the way scheduled flights should be flown - unless there are circumstances like weather, aircraft problems, et cetera]
It seems like we're fastly approaching a point where anything not covered by a checklist might be a huge problem...
Any comments?
...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We still have tons of good pilots, but with FBW fully accepted, how long are we going to have men and women who can really fly the craft by the seat of their pants?
The industry in the U.S. is slowly reverting back to having the crew demonstrate their ability to fly the airplane without the automation. Before, all the emphasis on training was to use the automation. The problem is that the automation fails occasionally or the automation cannot be used for certain runways, i.e. 25 L/R @ ANC and the Canarsie to 13 @ JFK, for example.
Frankly, I think the folks who fly the highly automated airplanes need more professional discipline to hand fly the airplanes more often, rather than allowing themselves to be 'dogs watching television' and passengers in their own airplanes. After all, there are times when you just have to be a pilot, instead of a typist.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rottenray and Desert, I agree with you 100%!!! I became a pilot because I like to fly! I didnt become a pilot to be flown by an autopilot. I've flown the occasinal flight in my jet in its entirety by hand with no flight director. Typically I Just take it up to altitude and fly it back down though. Its amazing how smooth and precise you can fly an jet by looking at the horizon... Keep in mind, its one thing to handfly, but its another do to so smooth! Some people dont know the difference...
Ive read numerous posts on here and other websites complaning about Airbus's autothrottles. So if Airbus has autothrottle issues on approach, dont use it! Its pretty simple. As pilots we need to stay ahead of our machine. Strapping in and taking control is the best way to stay in front!
Ive read numerous posts on here and other websites complaning about Airbus's autothrottles. So if Airbus has autothrottle issues on approach, dont use it! Its pretty simple. As pilots we need to stay ahead of our machine. Strapping in and taking control is the best way to stay in front!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Valencia
Age: 49
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This plane can be built everywhere, but the concept of the plane is 100% french, because only the french has a twisted mind to do a machine so complex and no human friendly like this.
I think that the main problem of the Airbus is that is not an airplane at all, is a machine that resembles an airplane that flyes. Exacly is a money making machine that flyes.
This has rotten the roots of a "Could be a good aircraft", and this problem surfaces in extreme flying conditions, when a plane has to give 100% of is capability.
Because it is no really a plane, in this conditions the bus touchs the margins of it´s envelope, so unexpected or no human preparer situations or departures occur.
All new generation Airbus has problems in this conditions, remember the crosswind landings of Air France, TAP, Iberia and Lufthansa and the hard landings of Iberia.
It also have problems in machine management conditions, examples of this are the unexpected fuel transfers or no tranfers at all that ended in flameouts, and the problems of miscomunications with the machine that have ended in CFITs.
In the Gulf Air accident do you think that the F/O was perceiving that the Captain was pushing the sidestick foward?
This thing is not stated in the final report of the accident. But think about it. The other sidestick doesnt move, and the other guy dont know what the PF or the flying controls are doing, only what the plane do.
In an B757 for example, if I´m going down and I see the joke fully foward, I know in one second that something strange is happening with the PF, and I think that 99% of the PNFs will pull the joke backwards as instinc reaction.
The Airbus golden rules are another lie, or better said, half lie. You will never fly this airplane like a conventional plane, because is not a plane. The A/THR never will work like a conventional throttle, and if you use high power like TOGA, the plane will enter in GO AROUND mode in any condition, and you PNF need extra work to take this plane from this mode, and go back on CRUISE or CLB mode, performing unlogical actions in the MCDU, that in other aircraft are not necesary.
In trainning I usually see the pilots have more problems dealing with the aircraft that dealing with the failures.
Ergonomy, another lie. The only ergonomy are the tray and the seats. The lights can be better. The primary flying control are small and displaced, they are designed to not touch it. Another example, look at the spoilers, the are small and not located in a practical position, I have to extend my arm downwards and back to reach it, and I´m not seated very foward and high. You need to monitor de ECAM to confirm its deployment, while in other aircraft, only with the movement of the lever with you periferical vision you, or moving you free arm without loooking you can confirm this.
But these are my opinions as pilot and TRI of the A320. I been only flying this thing two years, and I been always flying boeings and Mc Douglas.
I know that this discursion is carried out since the begining of times, but in my case, If I have to face dificult conditions or operations, I prefer anything that Airbus. Plain and simple, just an airplane that is going to do what I command it to do, and that is going to respond as I expect.
I think that the main problem of the Airbus is that is not an airplane at all, is a machine that resembles an airplane that flyes. Exacly is a money making machine that flyes.
This has rotten the roots of a "Could be a good aircraft", and this problem surfaces in extreme flying conditions, when a plane has to give 100% of is capability.
Because it is no really a plane, in this conditions the bus touchs the margins of it´s envelope, so unexpected or no human preparer situations or departures occur.
All new generation Airbus has problems in this conditions, remember the crosswind landings of Air France, TAP, Iberia and Lufthansa and the hard landings of Iberia.
It also have problems in machine management conditions, examples of this are the unexpected fuel transfers or no tranfers at all that ended in flameouts, and the problems of miscomunications with the machine that have ended in CFITs.
In the Gulf Air accident do you think that the F/O was perceiving that the Captain was pushing the sidestick foward?
This thing is not stated in the final report of the accident. But think about it. The other sidestick doesnt move, and the other guy dont know what the PF or the flying controls are doing, only what the plane do.
In an B757 for example, if I´m going down and I see the joke fully foward, I know in one second that something strange is happening with the PF, and I think that 99% of the PNFs will pull the joke backwards as instinc reaction.
The Airbus golden rules are another lie, or better said, half lie. You will never fly this airplane like a conventional plane, because is not a plane. The A/THR never will work like a conventional throttle, and if you use high power like TOGA, the plane will enter in GO AROUND mode in any condition, and you PNF need extra work to take this plane from this mode, and go back on CRUISE or CLB mode, performing unlogical actions in the MCDU, that in other aircraft are not necesary.
In trainning I usually see the pilots have more problems dealing with the aircraft that dealing with the failures.
Ergonomy, another lie. The only ergonomy are the tray and the seats. The lights can be better. The primary flying control are small and displaced, they are designed to not touch it. Another example, look at the spoilers, the are small and not located in a practical position, I have to extend my arm downwards and back to reach it, and I´m not seated very foward and high. You need to monitor de ECAM to confirm its deployment, while in other aircraft, only with the movement of the lever with you periferical vision you, or moving you free arm without loooking you can confirm this.
But these are my opinions as pilot and TRI of the A320. I been only flying this thing two years, and I been always flying boeings and Mc Douglas.
I know that this discursion is carried out since the begining of times, but in my case, If I have to face dificult conditions or operations, I prefer anything that Airbus. Plain and simple, just an airplane that is going to do what I command it to do, and that is going to respond as I expect.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear Virgin 346 do many hard landings at Heathrow, 27R with a little wind from the south sets it up good.
Airbus have to be contacted when these hard landings occour to review the data, Airbus must have lots of data by now, but the hard landings continue, think I heard that new gear (landing) will be fitted in the future to reduce all the hard landing checks.
Has anyone got the data of rate of hard landings for the 346?
Airbus have to be contacted when these hard landings occour to review the data, Airbus must have lots of data by now, but the hard landings continue, think I heard that new gear (landing) will be fitted in the future to reduce all the hard landing checks.
Has anyone got the data of rate of hard landings for the 346?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite of the usual nagging about Airbus, I can only say that an A346 is rather easy to land. You fly it above the RWY and slowly reduce the thrust at about 30 feet +- a little bit, depending on the energy state of the aircraft (here the pantsbottom flying comes into play).
Landing the machine hard is just as likely or unlikely as any other aircraft. I found the 346 the easiest of all the airbusses to land, and I have flown everything except 318 and 380.
So in my opinion, the design is not at fault, and it is not only strong winds, that account for up or downdrafts. It can get quite bumpy in spring and summer, especially in Texas, if I remember correctly...
Nic
Landing the machine hard is just as likely or unlikely as any other aircraft. I found the 346 the easiest of all the airbusses to land, and I have flown everything except 318 and 380.
So in my opinion, the design is not at fault, and it is not only strong winds, that account for up or downdrafts. It can get quite bumpy in spring and summer, especially in Texas, if I remember correctly...
Nic
Airbus FBW: the Trainer's Influence
Quotes from Strongresolve:
(1) I think that the main problem of the Airbus is that is not an airplane at all, is a machine that resembles an airplane that flyes. Exacly is a money making machine that flyes.
(2) The A/THR never will work like a conventional throttle, and if you use high power like TOGA, the plane will enter in GO AROUND mode in any condition, and you PNF need extra work to take this plane from this mode, and go back on CRUISE or CLB mode, performing unlogical actions in the MCDU, that in other aircraft are not necesary.
(3) But these are my opinions as pilot and TRI of the A320. I been only flying this thing two years, and I been always flying boeings and Mc Douglas.
[Unquote]
So far, we seem to know nothing about what may have happened to this A340-600 at Houston, so your post is OFF-TOPIC.
But, as you have chosen to cast a slur against the entire current generation of Airbuses - despite the fact that you claim to be a Training Instructor on A320 - I hope the Moderators will allow me to answer some of your accusations.
(1) Total rubbish. During a period of 21 years I flew many types of large aeroplane; Dakota to DC10, BAC 1-11 to A310, VC10 to B707. I then spent the next 14 years flying the A320 family, and I can assure you that it is very much an aeroplane, and - like all successful aircraft - has its good points and its not-so-good ones.
(2) If you find yourself needing as much thrust as TOGA; I've got news for you - it IS time you were "going around"...
(3) So, aged 32 years, you have perhaps spent 5 - 10 years flying fine airplanes like MD80 and B757? Maybe even the B727? [That one can bite.] Perhaps you came on to the A320 because your old favourite aeroplane was being phased out? I know the feeling very well. Is it possible that you believed all the scare stories about Airbus FBW - mainly from people who have never flown it - so you did not study your new aeroplane with as much enthusiasm as you did the last one?
If you want to put your criticisms about Airbus FBW aeroplanes in a constructive way, there are several Threads in the "Tech Log" section where we are waiting to hear from you.
But, for the time being, please ask yourself if you are the right person to be training a young and impressionable new generation to fly an aeroplane when you, the instructor-pilot they look up to, have so little confidence in what you describe as "this thing"?
Your negative attitude to the aircraft will inevitably make an impression on your pupils, and this is potentially dangerous. It does not sound like "strong resolve" to me.
(1) I think that the main problem of the Airbus is that is not an airplane at all, is a machine that resembles an airplane that flyes. Exacly is a money making machine that flyes.
(2) The A/THR never will work like a conventional throttle, and if you use high power like TOGA, the plane will enter in GO AROUND mode in any condition, and you PNF need extra work to take this plane from this mode, and go back on CRUISE or CLB mode, performing unlogical actions in the MCDU, that in other aircraft are not necesary.
(3) But these are my opinions as pilot and TRI of the A320. I been only flying this thing two years, and I been always flying boeings and Mc Douglas.
[Unquote]
So far, we seem to know nothing about what may have happened to this A340-600 at Houston, so your post is OFF-TOPIC.
But, as you have chosen to cast a slur against the entire current generation of Airbuses - despite the fact that you claim to be a Training Instructor on A320 - I hope the Moderators will allow me to answer some of your accusations.
(1) Total rubbish. During a period of 21 years I flew many types of large aeroplane; Dakota to DC10, BAC 1-11 to A310, VC10 to B707. I then spent the next 14 years flying the A320 family, and I can assure you that it is very much an aeroplane, and - like all successful aircraft - has its good points and its not-so-good ones.
(2) If you find yourself needing as much thrust as TOGA; I've got news for you - it IS time you were "going around"...
(3) So, aged 32 years, you have perhaps spent 5 - 10 years flying fine airplanes like MD80 and B757? Maybe even the B727? [That one can bite.] Perhaps you came on to the A320 because your old favourite aeroplane was being phased out? I know the feeling very well. Is it possible that you believed all the scare stories about Airbus FBW - mainly from people who have never flown it - so you did not study your new aeroplane with as much enthusiasm as you did the last one?
If you want to put your criticisms about Airbus FBW aeroplanes in a constructive way, there are several Threads in the "Tech Log" section where we are waiting to hear from you.
But, for the time being, please ask yourself if you are the right person to be training a young and impressionable new generation to fly an aeroplane when you, the instructor-pilot they look up to, have so little confidence in what you describe as "this thing"?
Your negative attitude to the aircraft will inevitably make an impression on your pupils, and this is potentially dangerous. It does not sound like "strong resolve" to me.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Samsonite
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strongresolve,
I am just amazed by your casual approach to this event, and it seems that you are certainly NOT the right person to be training the new generation of pilots on "This Thing" in which you have so little confidence.
Despite your young age you should plan an early retirement from managing and trying to teach advance technology in such complex and "No human firendly machine" that "only the french has a twisted mind to do".
I am just amazed by your casual approach to this event, and it seems that you are certainly NOT the right person to be training the new generation of pilots on "This Thing" in which you have so little confidence.
Despite your young age you should plan an early retirement from managing and trying to teach advance technology in such complex and "No human firendly machine" that "only the french has a twisted mind to do".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strongresolv,
are you an armchair pilot with a Boeing fetish? Given your first sentence about Airbus=French I suspect you have no idea of how the fine engineers of Airbus actually work and frankly your comments overall are, well, another poster put it quite well already...b......
I'm training to move from E145 to A32x and so far have enjoyed every moment of learning the differences and similarities between these two aircraft. That is assuming you consider Brazil's finest to be aircraft of course...
...as for Airbus being difficult to fly in xwind situations ... yes, but then again so is my E145 and some of the Ryanair and KLM landings I've had over the past week so is the 737-800.
Anyway, my instructor said quite simple,"if it looks like an aircraft it flies like an aircraft so damn well fly it like an aircraft!"
Seems to work for me...
are you an armchair pilot with a Boeing fetish? Given your first sentence about Airbus=French I suspect you have no idea of how the fine engineers of Airbus actually work and frankly your comments overall are, well, another poster put it quite well already...b......
I'm training to move from E145 to A32x and so far have enjoyed every moment of learning the differences and similarities between these two aircraft. That is assuming you consider Brazil's finest to be aircraft of course...
...as for Airbus being difficult to fly in xwind situations ... yes, but then again so is my E145 and some of the Ryanair and KLM landings I've had over the past week so is the 737-800.
Anyway, my instructor said quite simple,"if it looks like an aircraft it flies like an aircraft so damn well fly it like an aircraft!"
Seems to work for me...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been flying these for four years now and it is usually not a hard plane to land but in strong gusty cross wind conditions it can be a little unpredictable.
Virgin had a lot of hard landings compared to other operators and it turns out that all the 346 operators were having hard landings but apparently only Virgin had set up the pin program that produced the hard landing reports (report 15) to be included in the printed post flight reports.
Airbus then looked at all the 346 operators data and sent out a few letters pointing this out...
I wonder if this felt like a hard landing or if it was a computer generated report which has to be checked out prior to the aircraft's next flight and maybe didn't feel that bad....!
Virgin had a lot of hard landings compared to other operators and it turns out that all the 346 operators were having hard landings but apparently only Virgin had set up the pin program that produced the hard landing reports (report 15) to be included in the printed post flight reports.
Airbus then looked at all the 346 operators data and sent out a few letters pointing this out...
I wonder if this felt like a hard landing or if it was a computer generated report which has to be checked out prior to the aircraft's next flight and maybe didn't feel that bad....!