Iberia: A-321 210kts at 3.8nms ......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 64
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Iberia: A-321 210kts at 3.8nms ......
Report: Iberia A321 and Jet2 B752 at Tenerife on Nov 12th 2011, loss of separation on runway
The report fails to look at the unstable approach by Iberia, i.e 210 kts at 3.8 nms!!
How can a crew possibly fly like this, CONF 1 under 4 miles?? For non Airbus peeps, CONF 3 or FULL at 4 nms with GS of 125 - 150 is more normal (variation for headwind/tailwind)
Frighteningly poor handling by the crew, no wonder the TWR controller didnt achieve the required separation!
The report fails to look at the unstable approach by Iberia, i.e 210 kts at 3.8 nms!!
How can a crew possibly fly like this, CONF 1 under 4 miles?? For non Airbus peeps, CONF 3 or FULL at 4 nms with GS of 125 - 150 is more normal (variation for headwind/tailwind)
Frighteningly poor handling by the crew, no wonder the TWR controller didnt achieve the required separation!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: hotel
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KTT, 210 at 3,8nm is fast, but is, depending on the wind, still within limits to be stable at 500ft. There are still many skilled pilots who are able to consistently fly decelerated approaches from 250 to Vref, being stable between 5 and 600ft.
Last edited by sarah737; 26th Aug 2013 at 14:50.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 64
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
With 15 years on the 320 series I can fly a decelerated approach without too much bother.
I must be missing something if you think that this is an acceptable way to fly approach, Sarah737.
Read the report and then comment on
or do you fly your approaches that way too??
I must be missing something if you think that this is an acceptable way to fly approach, Sarah737.
Read the report and then comment on
the Airbus was about 2.4nm from touchdown slowing through 180 knots over ground.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: hotel
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was only trying to say we don't have proof the IB conducted an unstable approach.
CP, please don't read what it did not write. I said flying a decelerated approach, day after day and always be stable between 5 and 600 ft is indeed a skill. Nowhere did I say 210 at 4 is skilled, I said: "it is FAST, but in certain conditions it is possible"
KTT, if after 15 years on the Airbus you think you should be between 125 and 150 at 4nm in order to be stable at 500, I know which airline you are flying for. The one who is well known by controllers and pilots for slowing down very very early. I was behind one of yours last week, he was at 15nm at 190kts and asked to keep the speed up, due traffic 3nm behind, with a minimum of 160 to 4. At 12nm the controller asked his speed: "160", at 4 he claimed to be still at 160, but we had 150 and we were still catching up. we went around...
CP, please don't read what it did not write. I said flying a decelerated approach, day after day and always be stable between 5 and 600 ft is indeed a skill. Nowhere did I say 210 at 4 is skilled, I said: "it is FAST, but in certain conditions it is possible"
KTT, if after 15 years on the Airbus you think you should be between 125 and 150 at 4nm in order to be stable at 500, I know which airline you are flying for. The one who is well known by controllers and pilots for slowing down very very early. I was behind one of yours last week, he was at 15nm at 190kts and asked to keep the speed up, due traffic 3nm behind, with a minimum of 160 to 4. At 12nm the controller asked his speed: "160", at 4 he claimed to be still at 160, but we had 150 and we were still catching up. we went around...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sporty approach that is for sure. However the report mentions Ground Speed and not IAS! As we don't know the wind component between 4 and 2 miles it makes it impossible to say if they were unstable. For all we know they had a 30 knot tail wind (180kt GS at 2.4 but 150kt IAS) which turned into a headwind below 500ft.
Last edited by CEJM; 26th Aug 2013 at 15:25.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Energy Mismanagement Again?
Sounds like the IB crews maths were adrift like a lot of the other incidents/accidents pondered in these pages?
As IB is now part of the IAG group, can I as a BA passenger expect to be treated to this sort of aerial display as part of my ticket cost?
I presume the IB crew are out of the same stable as the "coasting onto stand" brigade!
As IB is now part of the IAG group, can I as a BA passenger expect to be treated to this sort of aerial display as part of my ticket cost?
I presume the IB crew are out of the same stable as the "coasting onto stand" brigade!
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the report:
Constant deceleration, means not stable by 500 ft.
Possibly even low or idle thrust over the threshold.
The IAS decreased constantly throughout the descent, from 215 kt at the FAP to
155 kt above the threshold.
155 kt above the threshold.
Possibly even low or idle thrust over the threshold.
Even in Spain I have not seen landing clearances given until the runway is clear . The report doesn't make it clear exactly what was said to each aircraft. Nor does it provide a transcript of the ATC.
I would infer that the Iberia flight were talking in spanish, and received their landing clearance, whilst the Jet2 757 was communicating in english. If I heard another aircraft get a landing clearance, then was cleared to takeoff I would be clarifying fairly rapidly with ATC before going near the runway. Another argument for using english in ALL communications on frequency methinks.
I would infer that the Iberia flight were talking in spanish, and received their landing clearance, whilst the Jet2 757 was communicating in english. If I heard another aircraft get a landing clearance, then was cleared to takeoff I would be clarifying fairly rapidly with ATC before going near the runway. Another argument for using english in ALL communications on frequency methinks.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Put out to graze
Age: 64
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Jwscud, agreed.
It also begs the question as to the competency skills of the IB Captain. Landing whilst an aircraft is on the runway????
Not only that but 1250M behind the aircraft, which means IB crossed the threshold whilst the 75 was firmly on the ground, unbelievable really.
It also begs the question as to the competency skills of the IB Captain. Landing whilst an aircraft is on the runway????
Not only that but 1250M behind the aircraft, which means IB crossed the threshold whilst the 75 was firmly on the ground, unbelievable really.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why aim for the limit?
As far as I know, most SOP´s states Stabilized Approach must be met no later than 1000’IMC or 500’ VMC.
That is a limit – not a target!
I always suggest to aim to be stabilized at 1500’ IMC or 1000’ VMC whenever it is possible, because then I have 500’ to correct for any mistake. If I always go for the limit, I have no buffer and one day I will bust the limit. Will I admit my error and go around or will I try to “squeeze” it in?
What about you?
Better safe than sorry
That is a limit – not a target!
I always suggest to aim to be stabilized at 1500’ IMC or 1000’ VMC whenever it is possible, because then I have 500’ to correct for any mistake. If I always go for the limit, I have no buffer and one day I will bust the limit. Will I admit my error and go around or will I try to “squeeze” it in?
What about you?
Better safe than sorry
Last edited by Walder; 26th Aug 2013 at 19:03.
and states with regards to the Iberia crew;
Sarah
Well said...100% in agreement...it's all about training.
My first airline we had to be in landing config on hitting the glide at 3000ft.
My last...landing config by 400ft...this was introduced because many people where doing glide approaches and landings.
For my annual route check I got into landing config by 500ft ...just to be safe
Well said...100% in agreement...it's all about training.
My first airline we had to be in landing config on hitting the glide at 3000ft.
My last...landing config by 400ft...this was introduced because many people where doing glide approaches and landings.
For my annual route check I got into landing config by 500ft ...just to be safe
Minimum requirement for a stabilized approach is 500' VMC and 1000' IMC.
(if you have personal or company standards that are more conservative, that is fine - but they do not apply to anyone else).
Was this situation VMC? Yes (Iberian pilots reported "excellent visibility conditions" and both aircraft saw each other, and the tower saw both, at >3 miles).
Therefore, the aircraft's speed and configuration can only be judged stabilized, or not, below 500 feet AGL (and roughly 1.5 miles from touchdown). Speeds and other factors above that altitude are irrelevant (although they may violate other criteria, such as speed within 5 miles of the airport).
Was the airplane's speed stabilized below 500 feet? The standard is - not below Vref, and not more than 20 kts above Vref. Therefore the crew has a "window" to decelerate as much as 20 kts in the "stabilized approach zone" (between 500 feet agl and the threshold) while still meeting the criteria for a stabilized approach. Therfore, being at 174 kts passing 500 feet, and decelerating to 155 kts at the threshold, would still qualify as a stabilized approach.
Did the aircraft exceed that range below 500 feet? We cannot tell for certain, since Vref would depend on information not available - weight, and flap setting. Someone can probably calculate weight fairly closely, based on fuel burn Orly-Tenerife, and cabin loading (153 pax). And flaps can probably be assumed to be 3, since the crew mentions specifically that it was "common" to use less than full flaps at Iberia (as well as decelerating approaches).
Presumably someone with A321 figures can give a good estimate of the weight, and thus the Vref for flaps 3 in this case. If that was exceeded by 20 kts any time below 500 feet, the approach was not stabilized. Otherwise, it was.
Equally presumably, the investigators DID have the numbers needed. They had every opportunity to point out that the approach was not stable, if such was the case. They did not.
Personally, I agree with the Iberian crew decision (in the absence of ATC input) to continue the landing on the same grounds they did - that two planes in the air at 1250 meters or less (and with neither having sight of the other) is more dangerous than a separation bust with one plane airborne and the other decelerating on the ground.
Had I been the controller, I hope I would have called both a take-off abort AND a go-around while Jet2 was still getting lined up.
(if you have personal or company standards that are more conservative, that is fine - but they do not apply to anyone else).
Was this situation VMC? Yes (Iberian pilots reported "excellent visibility conditions" and both aircraft saw each other, and the tower saw both, at >3 miles).
Therefore, the aircraft's speed and configuration can only be judged stabilized, or not, below 500 feet AGL (and roughly 1.5 miles from touchdown). Speeds and other factors above that altitude are irrelevant (although they may violate other criteria, such as speed within 5 miles of the airport).
Was the airplane's speed stabilized below 500 feet? The standard is - not below Vref, and not more than 20 kts above Vref. Therefore the crew has a "window" to decelerate as much as 20 kts in the "stabilized approach zone" (between 500 feet agl and the threshold) while still meeting the criteria for a stabilized approach. Therfore, being at 174 kts passing 500 feet, and decelerating to 155 kts at the threshold, would still qualify as a stabilized approach.
Did the aircraft exceed that range below 500 feet? We cannot tell for certain, since Vref would depend on information not available - weight, and flap setting. Someone can probably calculate weight fairly closely, based on fuel burn Orly-Tenerife, and cabin loading (153 pax). And flaps can probably be assumed to be 3, since the crew mentions specifically that it was "common" to use less than full flaps at Iberia (as well as decelerating approaches).
Presumably someone with A321 figures can give a good estimate of the weight, and thus the Vref for flaps 3 in this case. If that was exceeded by 20 kts any time below 500 feet, the approach was not stabilized. Otherwise, it was.
Equally presumably, the investigators DID have the numbers needed. They had every opportunity to point out that the approach was not stable, if such was the case. They did not.
Personally, I agree with the Iberian crew decision (in the absence of ATC input) to continue the landing on the same grounds they did - that two planes in the air at 1250 meters or less (and with neither having sight of the other) is more dangerous than a separation bust with one plane airborne and the other decelerating on the ground.
Had I been the controller, I hope I would have called both a take-off abort AND a go-around while Jet2 was still getting lined up.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarah737, read Walder's post above. This is how most of us reason, I hope!
We are not here to show off who can achieve the "stable approach" criteria closest to the limit. We are here to fly safe and economical approaches (in that order!!) day after day, month after month and year after year. This is what we as commercial pilots are paid to do.
As for the case in question here - Why did the IB crew receive a landing clearance before departing traffic was airborne? Why did they not question this clearance as they could see the 757 on the runway and knew (or maybe they didn't realize?!) that their GS/IAS was relatively high? I'm thinking that they were "hot" and working hard, but too late, to slow down the aircraft and "save" the approach. In doing so they were mentally only focused on landing and a go around was never an option. Could be wrong of course, just going with what I have read so far....
CP
We are not here to show off who can achieve the "stable approach" criteria closest to the limit. We are here to fly safe and economical approaches (in that order!!) day after day, month after month and year after year. This is what we as commercial pilots are paid to do.
As for the case in question here - Why did the IB crew receive a landing clearance before departing traffic was airborne? Why did they not question this clearance as they could see the 757 on the runway and knew (or maybe they didn't realize?!) that their GS/IAS was relatively high? I'm thinking that they were "hot" and working hard, but too late, to slow down the aircraft and "save" the approach. In doing so they were mentally only focused on landing and a go around was never an option. Could be wrong of course, just going with what I have read so far....
CP