A321 runway excursion Lyon.
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!.
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
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
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
@ 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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Have you finally hung up those white gloves yet ?
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.
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.
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.
Also, they had CFM engines, not IAE.
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RNP vs Ground based navaids :
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,
It is the future of navigation.
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,
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.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
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
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.
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.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Incidentally some operators land A321 into Skiathos (LGSK) at 75T/no wind/35*c and can still stop in @800 metres
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 etcI'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