Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

A321 runway excursion Lyon.

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

A321 runway excursion Lyon.

Old 7th Apr 2013, 13:44
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: uk
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Couldn't agree more with the above comment, tricky blighters with many traps for the unwary. The theory is great, but the practice, at least in the airbus, is never confidence inspiring and the decisions that the software is making on when to descend and at what rate are often opaque. Give me an NDB any time, at least i was in charge of things!.
bacp is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2013, 17:09
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From the QRH of an IAE powered A321:
Landing dist :
-Dry Runway @78T
-Conf Full
Autobrake Medium= 1480m
Low=2100m
Autoland +260m
Spd +5kt>Vls MED+100m/LOW+140m
Tailwind,per5kt TW MED+140m/LOW+210m
No factor for reversers.
The AvHeraldshows the weather as having been raining and a slight tailwind at the time of the incident
tubby linton is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 09:11
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by vfenext
At the moment all it takes is the wrong QNH to be set in the FMS and the approach wont work as your crossing heights will be wrong. There are numerous examples of ATC passing the wrong setting! Think I will stick to ILS for a few more years.
...Are you seriously suggesting that these guys were doing an RNAV approach to 36R and that contributed to their instability ??? I would suggest you take a look at the METAR information above again. An ILS was their only option.

@ MoonAndBack.... Six hours not possible on an A321 ??? You are sorely mistaken... I believe my personal record is closer to 6h45 before needing to use the auxiliary tanks.
Magplug is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 09:22
  #44 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Maggie
...Are you seriously suggesting that these guys were doing an RNAV approach to 36R and that contributed to their instability ??? I would suggest you take a look at the METAR information above again. An ILS was their only option.
- I think you have been confused by the 'contamination' of the thread by Tom Imrich (mostly page 1) regarding RNAV approaches etc and I suspect 'vfenext' is replying to that and not referring to this specific incident?
BOAC is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 09:38
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Hi Mike.... Take your point. We seemed to get all the way to post #7 before somebody took off on a completely unrelated tangent!

Have you finally hung up those white gloves yet ?
Magplug is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 12:09
  #46 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yup, Richard - they are on EBay if you need a pair.
BOAC is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2013, 22:36
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dorking
Posts: 491
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Friend operated a flight to and from Lyons last week. A320 FO.

He said that it was pretty obvious that reversers were used (at least in the mud) from the amount of the clag all over it.
boguing is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2013, 12:35
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a plane
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whether the A321 can do the flight in one go or not is not the point - They started in Dakar so there should not have been an issue of tiredness.

Also, they had CFM engines, not IAE.
MoonandBack is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2013, 12:44
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
There is no factor for the use of reverse on a dry runway in the QRH so the engine type is irrelevant.
tubby linton is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2013, 01:33
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ILS/RNP - good choices - GBAS/GLS+RNP a 1000 yr answer

I concur on your comment that ILS will appropriately be with us for a long time, and it provides good, albeit at times imperfect and typically expensive service. Also, particular current generation autoflight systems implementing RNP procedures can certainly benefit from some further evolution, simplification and enhancement. But overall, the combination of RNP with GBAS/GLS is likely to provide us with an extremely robust low cost and very safe family of globally available path solutions for navigation (not just for takeoff and landing), perhaps for centuries to come. It is time for operators and ANSPs, as well as authorities to now get on board. It is the future of navigation.
7478ti is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2013, 04:15
  #51 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,736
Received 19 Likes on 11 Posts
RNP vs Ground based navaids :
It is the future of navigation.
My turf now : You are probably right depending on your definition of " future",
long term , probably , next 20-30 years ? probably not.
We all thought in the 80'and early 90's that HF, NDBs , VORs and ILS would have disappeared by 2000. But here we go, HF transmitters and NDBs ( mainly IAFs), ILS are still manufactured new today as we speak..
Main reason is redundancy and ownership . GPS is still a military system owned by the US Military who can switch it off or degrade its accuracy when they like,
Many States do not like this.
So as long as Gallileo or whatever new independent system comes up ( but at a cost of course) , ground navaids are here to stay in some parts of the world at least .
mark my words,
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2013, 10:14
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've been sent a couple of pics by a friend in Paris but unforunately can't seem to upload them; one shows the aircraft from above, and it is parked next to a socking great hole; could have been way, way worse....

Last edited by Nopax,thanx; 12th Apr 2013 at 10:15.
Nopax,thanx is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2013, 11:48
  #53 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Courtesy of Nopax,thanx - these will make your eyes water!



BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2013, 15:53
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Most unusual colour scheme !!!
TSR2 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2013, 15:57
  #55 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Merde, in French.
BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2013, 18:01
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Doesn't look like CONF FULL, does it?
C212-100 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2013, 21:10
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 58
Posts: 1,923
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Waa that was a close one ! They overshot by quite a distance !
atakacs is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2013, 23:29
  #58 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,563
Received 356 Likes on 83 Posts
I wonder if they deliberately turned to avoid the LOC TXR? Not sure if its Flap full - the 321 does have different flaps to the rest of the Airbus narrow body series. If they'd gone down that hole.......

A4
A4 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2013, 01:04
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: location location
Posts: 89
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
C212-100 and A4

For info an A321 doing a manual landing with manual braking will use @1200mtrs with conf full and prob only an extra 50-100 mtrs using conf 3 at sea level.
Not really a factor in the over run, landing conf 3 or full I would suggest.

Incidentally some operators land A321 into Skiathos (LGSK) at 75T/no wind/35*c and can still stop in @800 metres

So even after an (extremely) long autoland and not touching down until the start of the red/whites a light A321 would easily stop before the end of the runway.

Last edited by charlies angel; 13th Apr 2013 at 01:17.
charlies angel is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2013, 08:19
  #60 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,563
Received 356 Likes on 83 Posts
Incidentally some operators land A321 into Skiathos (LGSK) at 75T/no wind/35*c and can still stop in @800 metres
And what temp do the brakes get to? The figures in the QRH are Airbus test pilot figures - new aircraft, new brakes, over the fence at exactly 50', plant it and STAND FULL on the brakes. Get the tape measure out and there's your ACTUAL landing distance. Us mere mortals need to add 15% (at least) to take account brake wear, generally inability etc etc

I'm still mystified as to how they went so far off the end. Also v surprised that the name has not been white washed of the aircraft - hardly a great advert is it?

A4
A4 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.