SATA brand new A320 ; hard landing in Lisbon
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Azores
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A preliminary report on this hard landing was released by the Portuguese accident investigation authority GPIAA . It's in Portuguese, and can be found here: http://www.gpiaa.gov.pt/tempfiles/20...70340moptc.pdf
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Azores
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just finish reading it and the key aspects are:
-The hard landing was in PDL on the 4th of August.
-First hard touchdown of 2,13G with the throttles in CL detent, then bounce to 12 ft, throttles to idle, the spoilers extended and there's a 4,86G impact on the runway.
- The aircraft flew 6 more sectors after this, then finally stopped for a scheduled A check.
-The hard landing was in PDL on the 4th of August.
-First hard touchdown of 2,13G with the throttles in CL detent, then bounce to 12 ft, throttles to idle, the spoilers extended and there's a 4,86G impact on the runway.
- The aircraft flew 6 more sectors after this, then finally stopped for a scheduled A check.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....then just say the pilot changed the trust levers position to idle...
According to Airbus, main causes for hard landings:
35% Late / weak flare
23% External Perturbations
20% Nose down orders
17% Retard during bounce*
5% Dual input
*17% of the 82 Hard Landings 1998-2008 were due to retarding of levers after bounce. That 17% accounted for 40% of total L/G replacements.)
Last edited by nnc0; 11th Oct 2009 at 01:26.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Load 15 Report clearly shows the exceedence so I wonder then, what maintenance procedure permitted the aircraft to be dispatched again after a 4.86g landing?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nnc0;
Are those stats published somewhere? Can you provide the source?
Thanks
According to Airbus, main causes for hard landings:
35% Late / weak flare
23% External Perturbations
20% Nose down orders
17% Retard during bounce*
5% Dual input
35% Late / weak flare
23% External Perturbations
20% Nose down orders
17% Retard during bounce*
5% Dual input
Thanks
Jazz Hands;
Funny thing...I suspected this all along so it's no surprise.
Link to the Report in English
Your answer to that question appears to be here:
Baffled engineers left A320 to fly on after severe landing
Baffled engineers left A320 to fly on after severe landing
Link to the Report in English
Last edited by PJ2; 19th Feb 2011 at 16:06.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a c**k up! High hours for the co-pilot too, and both pretty experienced. Some sort of 'training' trip? (which would make it worse!). Says a lot for the airframe and nothing for engineering and flying standards in the company..
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand the situation, the software detected that a hard landing had been made. That information was available, but not immediately understood. 
So why can't the software be configured that it prevents the aircraft from taking off following a heavy landing (perhaps by restricting engine power to only that sufficient to taxi), thereby forcing an inspection and action by engineers before return to service or to allow a ferry flight?
So why can't the software be configured that it prevents the aircraft from taking off following a heavy landing (perhaps by restricting engine power to only that sufficient to taxi), thereby forcing an inspection and action by engineers before return to service or to allow a ferry flight?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May l suggest that, even in these times, the Captain should know.
And if he/she doesn`t then further training is needed.
A tad surprised VC that Marvel Comic graphics are needed.
And if he/she doesn`t then further training is needed.
A tad surprised VC that Marvel Comic graphics are needed.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody questions the engineers, or atco`s, over their cockups.
Why is that ? Could it be that pilots - the biggest cost from yesteryear - are now prepared to fly for nothing ?
The fact that money up front can`t buy experience has been showing itself in the news reels.
Loss of pay, loss of pensions, loss of conditions, and the only other branch reliant on medical status isn`t interested.
Money talks.
Why is that ? Could it be that pilots - the biggest cost from yesteryear - are now prepared to fly for nothing ?
The fact that money up front can`t buy experience has been showing itself in the news reels.
Loss of pay, loss of pensions, loss of conditions, and the only other branch reliant on medical status isn`t interested.
Money talks.
Psychophysiological entity
*17% of the 82 Hard Landings 1998-2008 were due to retarding of levers after bounce. That 17% accounted for 40% of total L/G replacements.)
Flight-control logic in the A320 led the aircraft computer to deploy the spoilers as the thrust levers were retarded in mid-bounce, destroying lift and causing the heavy second impact.
Seems to be shouting something. What kink of 'logic' turns an aircraft into a brick while it's in the air?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by unindentified
Flight-control logic in the A320 led the aircraft computer to deploy the spoilers as the thrust levers were retarded in mid-bounce, destroying lift and causing the heavy second impact.
Originally Posted by Loose Rivets
What kink of 'logic' turns an aircraft into a brick while it's in the air?
The point is that the MLG compression is latched for 3 seconds, and ground spoilers come when thrust levers are retarded to idle.
Since there have been other incidents during which flight crew have not retarded thrust levers before or at touchdown, but while in the air upon a bounce, the logic has been changed.
This entire sequence seems to me, on the face of it, what one would expect. The logic of the automation behavior is predicated on specific crew behavior; this specific crew behavior has not always occurred; the automation behavior has been modified to adapt to these rare instances in which crew do not follow SOPs.
PBL
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody questions the engineers, or atco`s, over their cockups.
In this case the Pilots should have entered the hard landing in the log, the engineers in should have asked the crew to enter the hard landing in the log.
I find it frustrating in our company how many crews think its acceptable to not enter a fault in the log and wait for the return base sector to snag it. It saves money for the company but can and does regularly come back to bite.
They knew they'd done a hard landing, why not enter in the log and leave the engineers to properly inspect the aircraft?
The AMM is quite clear on what to do in case of hard landings and how to find their severity from the report. The eng's can't be expected to know everything about every aircraft they look after but the should recognise when they're out of their depth and make the right calls before releasing the aircraft.
Last edited by Fargoo; 20th Feb 2011 at 12:41.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LR - it is appropriate to note that this 'experienced' crew did not maintain power after the bounce in order to cushion the return to earth as per 'normal'. Had they done so I guess the boards would not have popped at that height which might have knocked a few 'g' off the second go.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PBL
A logic that expects and requires flight crew to retard the thrust levers before touchdown as per SOPs.
Keep some thrust as late as desired to control indicated airspeed and vertical speed with appropriate attitude.
Interesting to note that the A/THR didn't react to the decrease of IAS below Vapp during the flare. Rate of descent was still above 700 feet/min and pitch already at 7 degrees : Obviously some thrust was needed to help !
Another example of the poor A/THR response for a late wind change. A bit of thrust under manual thrust would have helped to improve the first touchdown and avoid what came next.
Dog Tired
I'm slightly confused about this matter of the spoilers.
Having sat next to countless newbies on their first-ever circuits (base training, we call it here) I must have seen more interesting arrivals than the average but never, as far as I am aware, have the spoilers deployed in the air.
I always understood that they simply cannot.
Having sat next to countless newbies on their first-ever circuits (base training, we call it here) I must have seen more interesting arrivals than the average but never, as far as I am aware, have the spoilers deployed in the air.
I always understood that they simply cannot.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF - you'll have to excuse PBL - he does not know much about swept wing handling
fantom - I am not sure whether you are talking AB but if you are perhaps you didn't let Bloggs close the thrust levers on a bounce?
fantom - I am not sure whether you are talking AB but if you are perhaps you didn't let Bloggs close the thrust levers on a bounce?