Hard Landing Airbus A320 Avianca on 08/10/21 - at Ibagué
PoppaJo
Though, given that the Avianca A320 flew back to Bogotá after the incident, I think it's safe to assume that the engines stayed attached this time around ...
Though, given that the Avianca A320 flew back to Bogotá after the incident, I think it's safe to assume that the engines stayed attached this time around ...
I seem to recall on a different Boeing recorded G didn’t always correlate well as a late sharp flare also caused a G spike that was hard to separate from touchdown in the data.
A Manual Report (Code 1XXX) is a snapshot of the parameters being received from the aircraft systems and stored by the DMU/FDIMU at the moment the report is generated. Which may be different to the ones which would have been recorded at the touchdown.
Last edited by Station Zero; 1st Nov 2021 at 23:32.
Technically the Airbus doesn't have a limiting 'G' as such but is more of a rate of descent on impact. An engineer told me that the hard landing report will trigger in our airline at around 2.2g and a full inspection is required in the 2.6-2.8g range. In a previous airline an A321 did a 3.9g landing during a Windshear Go Around and it was deemed uneconomical for repair as it was going to require a new wingspar and tail. I would be very surprised if this aircraft should have flown after a landing than hard. Remember the UK charter A320 that flew home a few years back after a 3.5g landing and on departure the Gear wouldn't come up as the airframe was so distorted. On closer inspection there was rippling of the skin under the wings.
This is a ACMS report, so it is a pre-defined layout and the DMU/FDIMU is filling the slots with received parameters when the triggers are met, same as all the other reports such as cruise report etc, the standard report definitions are found in AMM ATA31 if I remember right. As this is Code 1000 it wouldn't be appropriate to use when deciding whether a hard landing has occurred as per the the Maintenance Manual.
If in disagreement and currently working on Airbus aircraft, would suggest a posing a question through engineering to Airbus to ask whether a Code 1XXX (Manual Report) can be utilsed for determining whether a hard landing has occurred.
If in disagreement and currently working on Airbus aircraft, would suggest a posing a question through engineering to Airbus to ask whether a Code 1XXX (Manual Report) can be utilsed for determining whether a hard landing has occurred.
So what’s the go with conducting another flight? That’s a whole another investigation in itself.
I’m amazed it didn’t fall apart at some point. Impressive if it vacated on the second landing without losing any piece at all. I think you will find things probably did fall apart.
I’m amazed it didn’t fall apart at some point. Impressive if it vacated on the second landing without losing any piece at all. I think you will find things probably did fall apart.
Training Captains usually not paying attention from what I’ve seen in many previous examples. Then one tries to react or takeover at the last minute, the end result is much unchanged.
I have seen one who tried to throw the FO under the bus also....oh but I took over at the last minute when I noticed things were going bad...No you were doing sweet F All and took over as it approached its second bounce.
I have seen one who tried to throw the FO under the bus also....oh but I took over at the last minute when I noticed things were going bad...No you were doing sweet F All and took over as it approached its second bounce.
4.9g...
and it flew back home?
Cool.
3 weeks in the hangar was probably not on the maint plan.
That's stronger than it should be, although, it would have been light, and it is possible that the Gz just freaked out at the thought of the approach. For a real 4.9g the techs would have a lot of work in inspection and rework... strong plain. On a one gear touch, the pieces would still be getting collected, absorbing hard landings symmetrically eases the payne.
P.S.: that could be a record. for a plane that subsequently flew. Of all of the plain data I ever reviewed, not much with further use went much above 4g. The 200g plus planes didnt fly again, nor did the crew or occupants. 4.9g reuseable is iquite mpressive.
and it flew back home?
Cool.
3 weeks in the hangar was probably not on the maint plan.
That's stronger than it should be, although, it would have been light, and it is possible that the Gz just freaked out at the thought of the approach. For a real 4.9g the techs would have a lot of work in inspection and rework... strong plain. On a one gear touch, the pieces would still be getting collected, absorbing hard landings symmetrically eases the payne.
P.S.: that could be a record. for a plane that subsequently flew. Of all of the plain data I ever reviewed, not much with further use went much above 4g. The 200g plus planes didnt fly again, nor did the crew or occupants. 4.9g reuseable is iquite mpressive.
Jwscud
quite so, for a Boing, we used to review the VS recorded immediately before the landing, to get a better picture of the event. years back guidance came out from WA about that, as on occasion the g recording would be high but no damage occurred, yet on other occasions, damage would be evident from a lower g recorded event. Apparently, 1650fpm at TD-1 is enough to vacate the wings and gear of MD11s... certainly make you look for the tail hook.
quite so, for a Boing, we used to review the VS recorded immediately before the landing, to get a better picture of the event. years back guidance came out from WA about that, as on occasion the g recording would be high but no damage occurred, yet on other occasions, damage would be evident from a lower g recorded event. Apparently, 1650fpm at TD-1 is enough to vacate the wings and gear of MD11s... certainly make you look for the tail hook.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know what the forces were on the Delta 757 hard landing at Ponta Delgada PDL? It took a lot of work, but that aircraft was made suitable to ferry to ATL and eventually returned to service.
