TACA aircraft crashed in Honduras
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We Boeing pilots don't have to delay reversing for a ground spoilers call because we have a handle that the PNF verifies or pulls so ground spoilers don't go through computer logic. We can reverse at touchdown. It is a nice safety feature.
My record: 10,000 + on short and slippery/icy runways in 732, about 1,000 in the 320. Caveat emptor.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dream Land
Actually I do use a rudder to de-crab the aircraft in cross wind conditions, a nice increasing pressure during the flare works well, it's the bit that the students have a hard time learning
First of all, that would seem to rule out crossing the controls (banking into wind balanced by a touch of opposite rudder) to reduce the amount of crabbing required to stay in line ("Before flare height, heading corrections should only be made with roll").
Secondly, the procedure appears to rule out use of ailerons during the 'decrab' ("Use of rudder, combined with roll inputs, should be avoided, since this may significantly increase the pilot's lateral handling tasks. Rudder use should be limited to the "de-crab" maneuver in case of crosswind, while maintaining the wings level with the sidestick in the roll axis.").
Don't fancy having to do it that way one bit. Apart from anything else, I was always told, besides using the rudder to de-crab,' to drop a wing slightly into a strong crosswind, to make sure that the wind didn't get under the wing and also that, if anything, the upwind wheel got 'planted' first? According to the quoted procedures, you can't do that in an Airbus?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airfoilmod - Rwa
AIRFOILMOD
Suggest you re-read the post!!
You are the one that seems to have the problem.
My comment about "pink bottom over Pride" in simple terms for you means that MY and everyone else's bottom on the aircraft is MORE important than MY pride and it should be for every pilot. If you do not know what inputs to make to correct the aircrafts attitude without seeing what the "yoke" is doing I suggest you get another job.
RWA
Unfortunately you do not know what you are talking about!! A lot of you guys are failing to understand that this is an aircraft and funny old thing you actually have to fly it sometimes. What do you think
means?? Using rudder with aileron!!! We are in the flare here RWA. Boeing say you can use wing down or crab technique on the approach, Airbus just suggest crab technique to reduce possible PIO's with wing down.
Suggest you re-read the post!!
You are the one that seems to have the problem.
Mr. Iceman- I take it to mean saving "Pink Bottom over Pride" to mean a presence of Ego in your cockpit. If your Head is in to face saving at all, you are fatally (perhaps) Behind the A/C. You cannot always save face and ass concurrently.
You can instantly interpret what input is critical by a snapshot of A/C posture? You are not talking out of your face.
You can instantly interpret what input is critical by a snapshot of A/C posture? You are not talking out of your face.
RWA
Slight misunderstanding, Dream Land. As I understand the Airbus recommended procedures, you can use EITHER ailerons OR rudder, but not both at once.
First of all, that would seem to rule out crossing the controls (banking into wind balanced by a touch of opposite rudder) to reduce the amount of crabbing required to stay in line ("Before flare height, heading corrections should only be made with roll").
Secondly, the procedure appears to rule out use of ailerons during the 'decrab' ("Use of rudder, combined with roll inputs, should be avoided, since this may significantly increase the pilot's lateral handling tasks. Rudder use should be limited to the "de-crab" maneuver in case of crosswind, while maintaining the wings level with the sidestick in the roll axis.").
Don't fancy having to do it that way one bit. Apart from anything else, I was always told, besides using the rudder to de-crab,' to drop a wing slightly into a strong crosswind, to make sure that the wind didn't get under the wing and also that, if anything, the upwind wheel got 'planted' first? According to the quoted procedures, you can't do that in an Airbus?
First of all, that would seem to rule out crossing the controls (banking into wind balanced by a touch of opposite rudder) to reduce the amount of crabbing required to stay in line ("Before flare height, heading corrections should only be made with roll").
Secondly, the procedure appears to rule out use of ailerons during the 'decrab' ("Use of rudder, combined with roll inputs, should be avoided, since this may significantly increase the pilot's lateral handling tasks. Rudder use should be limited to the "de-crab" maneuver in case of crosswind, while maintaining the wings level with the sidestick in the roll axis.").
Don't fancy having to do it that way one bit. Apart from anything else, I was always told, besides using the rudder to de-crab,' to drop a wing slightly into a strong crosswind, to make sure that the wind didn't get under the wing and also that, if anything, the upwind wheel got 'planted' first? According to the quoted procedures, you can't do that in an Airbus?
Rudder use should be limited to the "de-crab" maneuver in case of crosswind, while maintaining the wings level with the sidestick in the roll axis.").
We are in the flare here RWA. Boeing say you can use wing down or crab technique on the approach, Airbus just suggest crab technique to reduce possible PIO's with wing down.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RWA, In a crosswind condition, I fly this airplane as if it were a DHC-2 on floats, a little rudder pressure and lower the wing, the upwind MLG gently touching down, all well under control, where one must be careful is landing in extreme and gusty crosswinds as often seen in Funchael, Madeira Island, it's easy to get a wingtip and or donk this situation, better served to use a runway more in line with the wind or divert.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dream Land
An experienced pilot doesn't necessarily require a moving control yoke in their hand to be ahead of a new pilot provided you don't put that student in a situation over his or her head to begin with, I feel in complete control with my hand guarding the joystick and red button as you feel with your yoke, how do I know what the control inputs are, by years of experience.
A lot of people putting emphasis on the control inputs, I'm afraid this point isn't compromising flight safety in my opinion, when the aircraft is close to the ground, my focus of attention is simply the trajectory of the aircraft, I am fully following on the rudders for the simple reason that I am fully responsible for the outcome of the landing.
A lot of people putting emphasis on the control inputs, I'm afraid this point isn't compromising flight safety in my opinion, when the aircraft is close to the ground, my focus of attention is simply the trajectory of the aircraft, I am fully following on the rudders for the simple reason that I am fully responsible for the outcome of the landing.
So why not stay one step ahead ?
Why a new technology should deprive us from such live and vital information ?
Because Bernard Ziegler thought it was not necessary ?
But you pretend that ‘years of experience’ provide you with the FP control inputs knowledge … I really don’t see how and you remain pretty secretive on that but if you’re ready to share … PLEASE DO !
I’m afraid I’ll have to retire before I discover that enigma on my own.
Put the HAM case in a Airbus 310 and there was no restriction as long as CAPT was able to confirm that the adjustment was done at the proper time in the proper direction and with the appropriate amplitude.
Monitoring and supervision at their best
But your only cure is: “the captain (or most experienced) should be the handling pilot”
You put here your finger on the point and indirectly acknowledge the following:
FBW Airbus pilots must know supervision is restricted compared to all other technologies, therefore, the Pilot in COMMAND should act in consequence ...
It does not mean FBW Airbus tech is crap, VERY far from that, it just means it does not allow the same level of crew interaction therefore the same level of supervision.
No change to this earlier post
Have a look also to that one
I simply don't agree that the technology limits my ability for monitoring pilots, I haven't seen it
Many airliners are born since the eighties and none of them has yet replicated the Airbus sidestick architecture and / or philosophy … maybe the next Bombardier, let’s wait and see ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
iceman50
I merely meant that a snapshot of attitude doesn't inform the non-flying Pilot of the most recent History of the Flight Path. Basically you may be called on to recover from an unusual attitude not knowing if a Roll was gust driven or pilot induced (input). If, as A/C is Rolling left, you assume a crosswind, your Roll right (after taking control, again, without knowing the immediate cause), your continued input is based on what you guess is the cause, you may overcorrect. What if the Roll was control induced and the crosswind is calm? If you make corrections based on a delay you are close to PIO in my opinion. With an A/C that "thinks" you have a third "Pilot" to consider. Why induce an additional "thought Path" into a dicey mash? Why not fly a "dumb" A/C that responds instantly and mechanically to input? Yoke movement is a redundant call out; instantaneous, un-biased, and free of "interpretation" and software. It is precisely, exactly, "communication", an aspect of CRM that some don't or won't acknowledge. "Rolling Right", nose Down, Back, End Roll, Nose Up, etc. As an AB Pilot, you must wait for the A/C to notify you of its "condition" rather than know ahead of time by seeing the "command".
If my post offended you, I do Apologize, but I stand by my conclusions about moving redundant Flight Controls.
Airfoil
If my post offended you, I do Apologize, but I stand by my conclusions about moving redundant Flight Controls.
Airfoil
Last edited by airfoilmod; 5th Jun 2008 at 15:50.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just communicated with my friend at TGU and got an update of the accident. The wind was 190 at 10 knots or a direct tailwind when they landed. The tower told them the active runway was 20 and the runway was wet. Taca said they would land on 02 because they didn't think they could keep the runway in sight if they circled on 20. He said the flaps were not in landing position and the left gear was not locked down when they crashed so speculation is they may have attempted a go around. Also they touched down about 100 ft past the taxiway 700 ft past the displaced threshold which was our go around spot if we were not on the ground. The FDR will tell the story when it is examined. I asked if they had attempted a straight in landing on 02 over the hill on final but haven't got a reply yet. That would be a total no no for us.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: PARIS FRANCE
Age: 77
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DREAMLAND:RWA, In a crosswind condition, I fly this airplane as if it were a DHC-2 on floats, a little rudder pressure and lower the wing, the upwind MLG gently touching down, all well under control, where one must be careful is landing in extreme and gusty crosswinds as often seen in Funchael, Madeira Island, it's easy to get a wingtip and or donk this situation, better served to use a runway more in line with the wind or divert.
I could not agree more! And the A320 family (with a little extra caution for the A321 which I found sometimes unpredictable during the flare) has a characteristic: the less you touch the stick, the better the approach. At the beginning we have an urge to "overpilot it" if that is the right word. But in gusty weather, don't touch it, a wing lifted by turbulence will settle back exactly where it was before, only slight corrections to keep the axis are needed, do not look at the stupid speed trend(oversensitive) jumping all over the place and it will be a gentle approach. If you look at the videos (Airbus, crosswind etc...on Utube) of the demonstration flights including the A380 in Iceland, with 40 knots crosswind, the test pilot keeps the crab with horizontal wings until the very last moment, than just pushes the rudder...No fighting with the plane...
I could not agree more! And the A320 family (with a little extra caution for the A321 which I found sometimes unpredictable during the flare) has a characteristic: the less you touch the stick, the better the approach. At the beginning we have an urge to "overpilot it" if that is the right word. But in gusty weather, don't touch it, a wing lifted by turbulence will settle back exactly where it was before, only slight corrections to keep the axis are needed, do not look at the stupid speed trend(oversensitive) jumping all over the place and it will be a gentle approach. If you look at the videos (Airbus, crosswind etc...on Utube) of the demonstration flights including the A380 in Iceland, with 40 knots crosswind, the test pilot keeps the crab with horizontal wings until the very last moment, than just pushes the rudder...No fighting with the plane...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got the reply from TGU. Taca did overfly the airport and make left traffic for 02. For some reason Taca didn't feel they could keep the runway in sight landing on 20. Sometimes arriving from that direction clouds are on the downwind side west of the airport requiring a descent to get below them. With 2,000 broken clouds he could maneuver easier overflying the runway and descending below the clouds landing on 02. I have pushed a high approach to 20 with a last minute runway change because the captain is on the outside of the circle and has a difficult time seeing the airport in a low visibility approach. Minimums there are 5km, 3miles and typically they show multiple visibilities above and below minimums in several directions. If any visibility was 5km I did the approach even though some directions, as in this case, were below. We use prevailing visibility in the US for limiting. Down there the prevailing visibility is meaningless terminology. Nobody, including the FAA, could say what visibility was limiting. Everybody down there thinks it was pilot error landing long with a 10 knot tailwind on a wet runway so hopefully they will eventually open TGU again for jets.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: KHPN
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbers44: "He said the flaps were not in landing position and the left gear was not locked down when they crashed so speculation is they may have attempted a go around."
Does the speculation that they were trying to go around make sense given the (relatively) minor damage to the airplane?
Does the speculation that they were trying to go around make sense given the (relatively) minor damage to the airplane?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts too. Just repeating what my friend in TGU said. Why didn't they have landing flaps if they were landing? Maybe circling they forgot? Landing with a 10 knot tailwind on a wet runway there is not an option.
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am quite surprised that no one has thought of making some basic computations on this flight :
At an - estimated - OEW of 42,000 kg
- an estimated traffic load of 12,000 kg (124 passengers plus some freight )
- a reported 6,000 kg of fuel remaining (2,000 USG )
The landing weight is in the vicinity of 60,000 kg
At that value, the required wet runway length - from the *in flight performance* charts would be 2100 meters
The final approach IAS would be 130 kt which translates into 138 kt TAS and a ground speed of 148 kt with the 10 kt tailwind.
With the above in mind and considering the available runway length, the displaced threshold, the reported *slippery* surface, and a challenging circling approach with marginal visibility, I would say that in order to remain inside the runway length, every aspect of that landing had to be perfectly right and the margin for error close to NIL.
I might add that the influence of operating reversers is worth some 8% of the required landing distance, i.e some 150 meters.
Conclusions ?
At an - estimated - OEW of 42,000 kg
- an estimated traffic load of 12,000 kg (124 passengers plus some freight )
- a reported 6,000 kg of fuel remaining (2,000 USG )
The landing weight is in the vicinity of 60,000 kg
At that value, the required wet runway length - from the *in flight performance* charts would be 2100 meters
The final approach IAS would be 130 kt which translates into 138 kt TAS and a ground speed of 148 kt with the 10 kt tailwind.
With the above in mind and considering the available runway length, the displaced threshold, the reported *slippery* surface, and a challenging circling approach with marginal visibility, I would say that in order to remain inside the runway length, every aspect of that landing had to be perfectly right and the margin for error close to NIL.
I might add that the influence of operating reversers is worth some 8% of the required landing distance, i.e some 150 meters.
Conclusions ?
Last edited by Lemurian; 6th Jun 2008 at 01:07. Reason: just for clarity
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Bubbers44 for the information, and for getting back to the thread, we had an over run where I work not too long ago, shorter, wet runway with a 20 KT tailwind 
, floated and touched down halfway down the runway and a long delay for reverser's.
, floated and touched down halfway down the runway and a long delay for reverser's.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemurian
At that value, the required wet runway length - from the *in flight performance* charts would be 2100 meters
Now I may have miscalculate something ... (?)
bubbers44, for comparison do you know what would be the number for a 757 ?
Dream Land, a bit disappointing you attack someone but you're not able to back up your statement. Apology does not hurt either ... especially from a 'check airman' and your guys will appreciate.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bubbers44
He said the flaps were not in landing position and the left gear was not locked down when they crashed
Originally Posted by bubbers44
asked if they had attempted a straight in landing on 02 over the hill on final but haven't got a reply yet. That would be a total no no for us.
http://avherald.com/h?article=4077cedf/0016
Not conclusive - but captain clearly says, "Tower, TACA three niner zero. We have the runway in sight. Circling runway zero two."
PS Found that phtograph on Page 1 of the thread - Post 15. Flaps down, outboard spoiler panel only deployed.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=329140
Last edited by RWA; 6th Jun 2008 at 05:18.
Good estimation CONFiture! My perf manual shows ALD for 60t A320, on wet rwy, conf full, 10kt tailwind, at 3000 ft amsl to be 1600m. However I operate under JARs and RLD for me in this case would be 1.92xALDdry and that's 2120m.
I cannot comment on TACA's required margins, though.
Also 60t is an estimate. At the time being, we don't know if it was the real weight. We don't know what was the speed over the fence. We don't know where was the touchdown point. We don't know when the braking was started and if it were manual or autobrake. we don't know wheteher spoilers were deployed. We don't know if thrust reversers were activated. So untill FDR and CVR are read out, at least 85% of this thread will be pure speculation.
I cannot comment on TACA's required margins, though.
Also 60t is an estimate. At the time being, we don't know if it was the real weight. We don't know what was the speed over the fence. We don't know where was the touchdown point. We don't know when the braking was started and if it were manual or autobrake. we don't know wheteher spoilers were deployed. We don't know if thrust reversers were activated. So untill FDR and CVR are read out, at least 85% of this thread will be pure speculation.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why a new technology should deprive us from such live and vital information ?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: u.s.
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RWA,
I think the word choice in the description is not as clear as it could be. Flaps not in landing configuration does not necessarily mean stowed. From a flaps full landing configuration to go-around would mean repositioning to flaps 3. From flaps 3 landing configuration to flaps 2 for go-around. Flaps full and 3 are considered normal landing configurations.
The spoiler panel deployed appears to be panel 5. Panels 2-5 are used in flight to varying degrees. It is difficult to tell if the position of the left aileron is consistent with slight roll being commanded or just normal aileron droop with flaps deployed.
I think the word choice in the description is not as clear as it could be. Flaps not in landing configuration does not necessarily mean stowed. From a flaps full landing configuration to go-around would mean repositioning to flaps 3. From flaps 3 landing configuration to flaps 2 for go-around. Flaps full and 3 are considered normal landing configurations.
The spoiler panel deployed appears to be panel 5. Panels 2-5 are used in flight to varying degrees. It is difficult to tell if the position of the left aileron is consistent with slight roll being commanded or just normal aileron droop with flaps deployed.