Iberia: A-321 210kts at 3.8nms ......

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting approach yesterday afternoon at LHR by a sister company's A319 - 3375' AGL and 210kt IAS at 5.0 DME for 27R, at which point the approach was thrown away..

[RoyHudd]

Surely not?

Simply not possible. LHR have new-fangled radar plus trained controllers. They do not allow nonsense like that.

[rgsaero]

But----- new-fangled radar and newly trained controllers aren't "in control"

And please don't call them surely........

[Juan Tugoh]

But 180 KIAS with a gs of 210 at 3.8 is smart flying? Don't make me laugh. This was stupid particularly if wind changes and shears are to be expected. No amount of excuses and apologist posts or posts talking about knowing your aeroplane and how to operate it and not be a "child of the pink string" excuses this piece of poor airmanship. This crew eroded the safety margins that we are paid to keep in place putting the safety of our passengers ahead of our desire to be slick or to show off to our colleagues that we are sh1t hot. Perhaps it's a cultural macho thing but this was not smart aviation. At best it was a poor piece of mitigation - remember that Avoid Trap Mitigate? This was not a crew on top of its game doing their best for the passengersand no amount of BS will change that.

[kick the tires]

Alpagueur320 - have you any idea how difficult it is to slow a 320 series with a 30kt tailwind??

Just look at what you are trying to defend. Lets take your case- 180kts KIAS at 3.8 miles, if so one would hope CONF 2 (if not, CONF 1 - not 1+F but just CONF 1 first stage slats only!) You think that at 1000ft agl it is what a professional pilot (s) should strive for? Remember we are looking at a snapshot here, the crew saw this coming from miles away but didnt have the balls or the common sense to step in and sort it out. The Spanish macho I cant lose face side?

I hope I dont find myself on one of your flights if you think it acceptable to fly an approach in such a reckless manner in the hope that the wind changes and all will be well!

[kick the tires]

They could very well have been doing 180 knots indicated with a 30 knots tailwind at that stage. The wind could have dropped after that, or even turned into a headwind!! ... Tenerife South is well know for massive wind shifts/shears on final.

I didnt 'twist' them too much did I, the inference with your 'local knowledge' is plain to see.

[DaveReidUK]

They could very well have been doing 180 knots indicated with a 30 knots tailwind at that stage.

There are enough data points quoted in the CIAIAC report to make a reasonable estimate of IAS at that point (3.8 DME), say 195-200kt:

6nm - 232kt GS
5.7nm (FAP) - 215kt IAS
3.8nm - 210kt GS
THR - 155kt IAS

Surface wind is quoted as 2-3kt southerly, and wind at the 6nm point (say 1900') as around 10kt northwesterly.

[skidoodog]

As other have mentioned this AC was way outside the window of acceptable "stable" parameters. Anyone familiar with the Airbus famili knows the 321 (particularly at heavy landing weights) is a"Bitch" to slow down.

You might get away with the above hot & high scenario in a light 319 definitely not a 321 without some serious pilot heroics. Not good or desirable in either case

And yes stable means final landing configuration, on glide path, on speed and thrust above idle at 500 ft agl and 1000ft IFR.

I cant believe the debate on this subject out there......

Cowboy days are over boys......

[nitpicker330]

If that is Iberia SOP then I respectfully suggest they "dumb it down" a bit.

[DaveReidUK]

Where did you get the wind quoted from? I haven't seen it in the report. I've only seen mentioning of 'speed over the ground'

As I said, from the CIAIAC report.

"the surface winds were weak (2-3 kt) and from the south" (Page 147)

"aircraft IBE3415 was some 6 NM away from the runway on final at a ground speed (GS) of 232 kt. The wind was from the NW at around 10 kt" (Page 152)

"The IAS decreased constantly throughout the descent, from 215 kt at the FAP to 155 kt above the threshold" (also Page 152)

which makes me believe the investigators only used data from the radar, and not from the aircraft itself...

"The parameters recorded on the QARs (Quick Access Recorder) on both aircraft were available to investigators. The information obtained was compared against the radar data in order to reconstruct the sequence of events." (Page 148)

http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/B...051_IN_ENG.pdf

[doubleu-anker]

Alpagueur320

"And to all you guys who can't handle 180 at 4 on a normal day, do something else in life.."

What one can do and what one should do, are two totally different things.

With the approach in question, was it, "working in" with other traffic? In this case, clearly not, so the approach was unsafe, on that point alone. It may have been "efficient" (until the missed approach).

Oh, talking of safety, do you speak English on the radio in all airspace, in which you operate?

[OPEN DES]

This smells like typical bashing of the Spanish. 3.8 miles is closer to 1300ft AAL than the 1000ft as mentioned btw. Agreed: on the fast side, but who are we to judge from the sideline; we dont have all info. My anglosaxon airline also mandates 1000ft gate for stable criteria. I comply because its my job and keeps me in the job.
If the company can demonstrate 100% compliance with stable approaches there is a huge saving on the insurance premiums in some cases. I am happy to oblige, but its a false economy. Just think about the following: Some are happy to land stable on a 1500m wet runway but have concerns about a 4000m dry runway with vapp+15@500ft and consider it a deathsin, just how contradictive is that with regards to actual safety and riskmanagement!! Pilots enslaved to rules imposed by pencil pushers!
Just acknowledge that stable-approach statistics are used for costsaving in a shortterm bonus culture and get of your 'higher moral' horses.
I just jumpseated (no ticket) on an iberia a321 and we did a visual approach turning final at 500ft, safely and efficiently! Please dont look down on Iberia because they can actually exercise a bit of discretion and are able to fall back onto hard earned flyingskills.
As my colleague above described: i am fed up of presumably brits who are so overly keen to attack our iberian flying brethren on any occasion.
Just because my and your company has imposed 1000ft as a stable-gate (on a false economy) doesnt mean that the rest is wrong!

[Juan Tugoh]

Stable approach criteria a cost saving measure? Sorry but that is fundamentally wrong. SAC is about trying to avoid runway overruns which seem to be a particular cause of hull losses in recent years. Both Boeing and Airbus advocate an SAC policy for this very reason. The point about short wet runways is well made but it misses the point, an SAC will not in itself prevent a pilot doing something stupid but it sure as heck helps. Ignoring it because, there is a long runway or any other reason you care to think of, to justify ignoring a manufacturers recommendation on a nice day with all systems working is just poor thinking. We are not there to show just how slick we can be, we are there to deliver our passengers to where they want to be AS SAFELY AS IS POSSIBLE. ALL COMMERCIAL and personal reasons are subservient to that tenet, as any lawyer will tell you. The last place you want to be learning that lesson is in court.

[blind pew]

Alpagueur and Open des..".well said...
One has to remember that in the history of les anglo Saxons aviation 3000 ft was the target for a stabilised approach with the FO flying it...the so called "monitored approach"....it was a big shock when heathrow decided to get slick and require 180knots to the outer marker.....but but....this was occasionally ignored as were many of the SOP procedures on the Trident....mainly because they were instigated by (IMHO) questionable "gentlemen" - both in their intellect and flying abilities....just look at their dreadfull accident history in the 70s.
Not forgetting that bea Airtours nearly took out a block of flats in Hong Kong!
When BOAC pilots took over they had a huge job and 1000ft stabilisation was a big step for some......and it apparently hasn't changed...
So don't be too hard on those who don't know any better

[Jwscud]

On a point of order, I'm pretty sure we are in fact paid to follow SOPs as well as to fly safely. There is certainly a line or two in my contract about following company SOPs.

[drivez]

SAC criteria is not a cost saving measure, it is put in place to prevent overruns etc. but I won't labour the point because every professional pilot on here already knows that.

To those saying energy management lack of flying skill etc as to reasons why approaches such as this are not dangerous, well just because I can doesn't mean I should. In facts spooling up at 500' isn't something to be proud of. Sometimes it happens sure and the approach is just about stable, but 500' is a limit not an aiming point for being stable.

[4468]

There are some deeply concerning posts on here. Anyone suggesting the cockpit is a good place for a shot of testosterone is from an age before the top wing was dispensed with, and the cockpit became enclosed!

Or at least they don't remember TFS! (The largest loss of life in aviation's history?)

If you REALLY ARE in this job, it's the wrong one!

[JOSHUA]

Well said 4468.

Alpagueur320 - your arrogance astounds me, I hope my family are never sat in your aircraft. I'm sure your handling skills are outstanding given all the "honing" you profess to doing but a safe operation isn't just about handling skills, where is your colleague at as you race toward 500' demonstrating your superior flying skills......is your less experienced colleague keeping pace or are they some 4-5 miles behind you - what use is your colleague then when a late emergency presents itself, flaps or gear that won't extend resulting in a late go around.....

I cut my teeth in a small freight outfit flying turbo props, SOP's were pretty slack and I learnt a lot about aircraft limits and my own limits at that point in my career. I now fly 747's, I know which outfit I felt safer in - the current one where the stable height for the aircraft is not viewed as a target but an absolute gate that must not be bust, in viewing it not as a target, ensuring stabilisation is achieved comfortably before, ensures significantly more capacity for both pilots to monitor the flight path &/or deal with any problems that arise - hell, if they do arise it even gives you time to discuss the G/A before it's initiated!

[Hand Solo]

Having sat as a third pilot and watched two highly skilled guys bust the 500ft gate because of ATC induced overload I certainly don't buy the "It'll never happen to me" ideology. Perhaps Alpagueur only flies diddy jets to places he's familiar with and with large performance margins. Once you fly something very big, very heavy and with less room for error the importance of a more conservative gate becomes apparent. I've flown to both 500 and 1000 foot gates. When I was young, foolish and knew the aircraft inside out I thought raising the gate to 1000 was bonkers. Now I'm older and wiser I realise I'm not as good as I thought I was and prefer to be stable at 1000. I don't want to see gusto and panache in the flight deck because invariably the guys who think they are displaying it are the unpredictable SOP cowboys who are hard work. If you want panache wear a fetching cravat, dont fool yourself that it's a high energy approach where you just stabilise at 500 ft.

[Hand Solo]

Alpagueur as a general I find that people who make a point of saying how much their FO's like flying with them are the ones to watch out for! The good skippers don't need to ladle on the self-adulation. You do a wonderful line in what they call in Top Gun (probably your favourite film) "blowing sunshine up your own ass". You don't actually have many flying hours and they're restricted to small-ish aircraft. Perhaps you should leave the conversation to the experienced pilots? You know, the ones with double your hours who've had twice as much time to learn from their mistakes (assuming you make mistakes, which I'm not sure you'd ever acknowledge anyway). You bear some of the hallmarks of the cadets we occasionally hire from the Low Countries. Fortunately once they've been given enough space to screw it up for themselves they tend to be a bit more humble and have less of the unjustified supreme self confidence.

BTW would you call 3000ft at 7 milescand 30 kts fast but stable at 500ft high energy?

BBTW Did you go to the KLM Academy?