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

British Airways A350 Hard Landing at Tel Aviv

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

British Airways A350 Hard Landing at Tel Aviv

Old 22nd Jan 2020, 05:39
  #1 (permalink)  
The Cooler King
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,697
British Airways A350 Hard Landing at Tel Aviv

Ouch.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/i...-aviv-airport/

Farrell is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2020, 07:12
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 74
Posts: 820
The aircraft returned to Heathrow yesterday as a cargo flight.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2020, 15:34
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Freedom Sound
Posts: 337
Not an automatic landing at Tel Aviv then?
esscee is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2020, 16:45
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,906
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
The aircraft returned to Heathrow yesterday as a cargo flight.
Are you sure it wasn't a ferry? I saw the note on BA Source but I'm not sure how the plane could operate a revenue flight even as a freighter if it wasn't OK to carry pax before maintenance work back at LHR. Were some of the passenger service units unserviceable perhaps when panels fell from the aft cabin ceiling?

Don't the BA cargo flights normally use 3000 series numerics? I realize that this was an ad hoc situation.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...625Z/LLBG/EGLL
Airbubba is online now  
Old 22nd Jan 2020, 17:04
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: EDDM
Posts: 106
No major harm done, unexpected tail wind at the wrong time.



On Jan 22nd 2020 The Aviation Herald received information that the approach had been stable until about 70 feet AGL. At 70 feet AGL the sink rate increased to 1000 fpm, the pilot monitoring called "SINK RATE". Corrective inputs were made on the pilot flying's side stick, however insufficient to arrest the sink rate. According to flight data a loss of 5 knots of IAS occurred as result of a gust (increasing tailwind) which prompted a nose down input and high rate of descent. Maintenance travelled to Tel Aviv to assess the aircraft, the damage was assessed minor. The aircraft is estimated to return to service on Jan 22nd 2020 as flight BA-163 to Tel Aviv again
https://avherald.com/h?article=4d23c7df&opt=0
oliver2002 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2020, 17:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 76
Posts: 131
Am I interpreting that wrong, but doesn't it say that the 5 knot gust created an unexpected (by the PF) software input pushing the nose down that couldn't be corrected in time by the PF with side stick input resulting in a hard landing causing enough damage that it needed to be ferried back to the UK for repair? If the pilot had full control at the time of a 5 knot wind change, would he have been able to avert the hard landing? Keep thinking of MAX and software causing a pitch down with more dire results.
NWA SLF is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2020, 19:24
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,515
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Are you sure it wasn't a ferry? I saw the note on BA Source but I'm not sure how the plane could operate a revenue flight even as a freighter if it wasn't OK to carry pax before maintenance work back at LHR. Were some of the passenger service units unserviceable perhaps when panels fell from the aft cabin ceiling?
The aircraft wasn't necessarily unsafe to carry passengers, it just didn't have any on board.

It's not unusual when a service is severely delayed for BA to re-accommodate pax on other flights, but still to carry any originally-booked cargo, so technically a cargo flight albeit with a regular passenger flight number.

There were a couple of similar instances in October.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2020, 22:23
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scandinavia
Age: 42
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by NWA SLF View Post
Am I interpreting that wrong, but doesn't it say that the 5 knot gust created an unexpected (by the PF) software input pushing the nose down that couldn't be corrected in time by the PF with side stick input resulting in a hard landing causing enough damage that it needed to be ferried back to the UK for repair? If the pilot had full control at the time of a 5 knot wind change, would he have been able to avert the hard landing? Keep thinking of MAX and software causing a pitch down with more dire results.
I’d say you’re interpreting that wrong. During manual flight in normal speed range (most likely at least VLS+5KT in this case) there will be no ”software” nose down inputs with a 5 kt increase in tailwind.
FreezingDrizzle is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 00:05
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
In my experience with Airbus, below a certain RA the autothrottle will not respond to a speed loss below Vref. This can lead to quite a surprise with a gusty tailwind in flare. As the thrust levers are still in the detent there is nothing you can do to spool the engines up except go-around. Difficult to recognise and deal with in a short space of time: note this is not a criticism of the aircrew in this situation.
FlareArmed2 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 03:34
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,966
Originally Posted by FlareArmed2 View Post
In my experience with Airbus, below a certain RA the autothrottle will not respond to a speed loss below Vref. This can lead to quite a surprise with a gusty tailwind in flare. As the thrust levers are still in the detent there is nothing you can do to spool the engines up except go-around. Difficult to recognise and deal with in a short space of time: note this is not a criticism of the aircrew in this situation.


Not flown the AB but I find this statement hard to believe, no choice between idle and go around power in the flare ?!
stilton is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 05:16
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by FlareArmed2 View Post
In my experience with Airbus, below a certain RA the autothrottle will not respond to a speed loss below Vref. This can lead to quite a surprise with a gusty tailwind in flare. As the thrust levers are still in the detent there is nothing you can do to spool the engines up except go-around.
In my experience with Airbus, I have never seen an autothrottle installed and I'm pretty sure 350 doesn't have one either (unlike A300 and A310). Also I have never flared with thrust levers in CLB detent, as company policy (not often found in the Airbus world, though) was "manual flight - manual thrust" so it was "the balls on the needles" and autothrust off usually around 1000 AAL. Below 100 RA, alpha floor is inhibited, not SPEED and this FUD BS about ATHR not working properly is with us ever since Asseline tried to clear himself of the blame for driving his 320 into the woods near Habsheim by blaming the aeroplane and the engines. Pilot who insists on flaring his Airbus with trust levers outside the idle detent will be quickly reminded by HAL what he is.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 07:52
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,810
Originally Posted by FlareArmed2 View Post
In my experience with Airbus, below a certain RA the autothrottle will not respond to a speed loss below Vref. This can lead to quite a surprise with a gusty tailwind in flare. As the thrust levers are still in the detent there is nothing you can do to spool the engines up except go-around. Difficult to recognise and deal with in a short space of time: note this is not a criticism of the aircrew in this situation.
If you don't move the thrust levers to idle as you flare, the auto-thrust will increase thrust to keep Vapp. (Remember it allows +5 and -5 kts around the speed bug). So you will continue down the runway at Vapp !!

@Clandestino; what do you mean you have never seen auto-thrust installed in an Airbus except A300/310? Every Airbus FBW I have flown has it. Is the A350 different? Oh wait, you mean auto-throttle is the wrong word. I get it now.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 08:11
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL510
Posts: 911
Autothrust, which has no moving levers.
safelife is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 08:32
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
It is supposed to keep VAPP as a minimum; however I have seen significantly below VAPP below 50 ft RA. There is no alpha floor protection below 100 ft RA, and no windshear warning below 50 ft RA. All this may depend upon Airbus type and modification, of course, so I hesitate to be definite about this for all tails. Nonetheless, below 50 ft RA if my speed decays more than a few knots below VAPP I go-around. I know of no way to simply increase thrust slightly to reduce or ameliorate the speed decay. If you know of a better technique please let us know.
FlareArmed2 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 09:30
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 167
Surely one is supposed to slow down from VApp over the threshold to touch down at Vref (or Vref-x it's depending on type) - NOT stay at VApp - that would exceed predicated landing distance. That said, younger pilots (non AB) do seem to be paranoid about getting below VApp, and I have even seen them ADDING thrust while they flare to prevent speed going below VApp (and rolling out very very long or with heavy braking) It would seem to me that an Airbus would rightly chastise this dodgy practice, and correct technique of closing the thrust during the flare would work just fine,

Another slightly unusual aspect is that a tailwind normally slightly increases airspeed in ground effect, not decreases.
Sick is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 09:52
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
The problem with moving thrust levers to idle too early is that the auto-throttle has got no authority to exceed the thrust lever position, ie any decay in speed has no correction because the thrust levers are already at idle. Please note my careful choice of words "too early". Without AT authority, no alpha floor, no windshear warning and an early thrust lever closure, any gust in TW sets you up for a hard landing. As I said, I have experienced this.

Although the FCOM doesn't mention it, I have seen little to no AT reaction to speed decay at low RA. The FCOM says it will maintain VAPP as a minimum as long as AT has authority, but I believe, and have noticed this in actual flights, that below a certain RA that doesn't happen. It's like the undocumented behaviour of the stall warning not announcing below a certain speed that was only discovered by Airbus pilots after the AF crash. There's a lot going on that's not in the FCOM.

Having said all that, it is very difficult to keep an eye on airspeed while simultaneously flaring and moving thrust levers to idle. I try to do so but it is high workload. If in doubt about gusty conditions I add a few knots; if crosswind exceeds 15 knots I add a few knots there as well. In my operations I am never constrained by runway length so I accept the additional touchdown speed.

For the pedants: a few knots.
For non-pedants: please share your techniques if you think there is a better way.
FlareArmed2 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 09:54
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by Sick View Post
Another slightly unusual aspect is that a tailwind normally slightly increases airspeed in ground effect, not decreases.
Ground effect, I believe. Reduced downwash => less drag => same thrust => speed increase.

There may be position errors as well. (edited, added) Perhaps the ADC correct for position error, but I really don't know

Last edited by FlareArmed2; 23rd Jan 2020 at 10:31.
FlareArmed2 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 11:26
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by FlareArmed2 View Post
It is supposed to keep VAPP as a minimum; however I have seen significantly below VAPP below 50 ft RA. There is no alpha floor protection below 100 ft RA, and no windshear warning below 50 ft RA. All this may depend upon Airbus type and modification, of course, so I hesitate to be definite about this for all tails. Nonetheless, below 50 ft RA if my speed decays more than a few knots below VAPP I go-around. I know of no way to simply increase thrust slightly to reduce or ameliorate the speed decay. If you know of a better technique please let us know.
Obviously I am using inferior technique of arriving at 50 ft with proper speed (Vref+additons planned during approach preparation, rechecked during descent and approach) , proper flight path angle and appropriate thrust, config needs not be mentioned. At typical approach speeds, there will be a bit less than 3 seconds between "FIFTY" and flare initiation, which is the last point I'm interested in my speed tape indication and whatever happens after that, inertia will deal with it, which is incidentally one of the reasons why windshear alerts are inhibited at that point (if you got this low, they are already useless). I really admire experten who are so multitasking capable they are able to check continuously their speed below 50RA and perform windshear escape outta flare. I hope some day I'll be like them.





If you are wondering, yes, I'm taking a at hilarious flight technique advice that is best left to be tried at MSFS only; it's too risky even for X-plane.

Seems that Speedbird pilot tried to exchange altitude for airspeed. Might be a good idea but you need some of it available for exchange.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 11:44
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 167
. . I really admire experten who are so multitasking capable they are able to check continuously their speed below 50RA and perform windshear escape outta flare. I hope some day I'll be like them.
Ha ha, I like your brand of irony. That said, many inexperienced pilots do try and do exactly this. Whatever happened to coming into the flare at the correct speed ... then just looking out of the window at the attitude, using the seat of the pants, stick and trust, and landing it like any other plane, (mitigating gusts and dips with usual control inputs) It seems just when the Airbus finally gives the pilot full direct control, it induces a mild state of panic!
Sick is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2020, 11:49
  #20 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 3,528
Originally Posted by stilton View Post
Not flown the AB but I find this statement hard to believe, no choice Red tween idle and go around power in the flare ?!
I am clueless about the 350, with the smaller ones your choices are
- Idle
- present thrust as commanded by the A/THR
- anything above CL which you need to then reduce using MAN thr (an obscured mode reversion)

The range between the commanded thrust and CL+ is not readily available with a reflex action. Also, it is not possible to prevent the a/thr from reducing unwisely with a handy intervention.


FlightDetent is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.