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

Hard Landing Airbus A320 Avianca on 08/10/21 - at Ibagué

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

Hard Landing Airbus A320 Avianca on 08/10/21 - at Ibagué

Old 29th Oct 2021, 19:39
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: FL398
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hard Landing Airbus A320 Avianca on 08/10/21 - at Ibagué

Does anyone know anything more ? 4.9G ?

"Preliminary data based on the notification from the Colombian authorities:

According to preliminary statements, during a first airline operational check flight (validating the new approach procedures) to operate the Airbus A320 in Ibagué Airport (SKIB), the Avianca N742AV had a hard landing event on Runway 32 reached a peak of 4.9 G’s."

bea website article
TheEdge is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2021, 20:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EDLB
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
5900 feet runway at 3000 feet elevation sounds more as turbo prop territory.
With legal W+B I would question if the operation is very economic with a A320.
EDLB is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2021, 21:05
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Flight profile looks more like a training detail.

Aircraft was back in the air to Bogotá a couple of hours after landing, but hasn't flown in the 3 weeks since.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2021, 05:30
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Runway short AND only 29m wide. If one is used to the "picture" on a 50m-wide runway, easy to misjust HAT, and fly it into the surface.

Had a CFI give me a very good demonstration of that early in my PPL training. "Now, this runway is only 30 feet wide, so we'll appear to be higher than we are. We have to be careful not to flare too (Slam!) - uhhh, late."
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2021, 23:12
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Posts: 2,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The A320 has the advantage of radio altimeter auto call outs approaching touchdown. The more rapid the call outs, the greater is the possibility of a firm touchdown. In any case, the crew will have had simulator training to gain practice of the different perspective between a 45 metre width (standard) runway and a 29 metre width (narrow) runway. In addition, training should have included day and night maximum crosswind take offs and landings (often 20 kts, but depends on individual company procedures) and engine failure during the take-off run (challenging at low speed). I’ve flown one day to/from 60 metre runways and the next 30 metre runways, never had a landing firmer than 1G 🤥.
Nightstop is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2021, 23:22
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: In an aluminium tube
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Did the radalt have enough time for the call outs for a 4.9g touch down?
TheFiddler is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 00:28
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Probably something like “50”, “10”. bang😂
Roj approved is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 00:50
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 6 Posts
Well, it would have been more - you are descending at 1G and there must be some force to stop the settling descent after the flare, small though it may be. You don't plan on "greasers" in an airliner. You plant it. More so in the wet.
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 15:02
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Posts: 2,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You’re all assuming the hard landing was caused by a late or no flare. That’s not necessarily the case. The Airbus A320 family has/had a long history of high G landings due to untimely spoiler extension following a bounce. To mitigate this, a modification to the Spoiler Elevator Computer known as SEC 120 was introduced. For those interested, the full story can be found in Airbus Safety First February 2010 Edition. However, despite this modification, the aircraft can still be subjected to a high G touchdown if the Thrust Levers are still in the CLB detent after the aircraft has bounced (Lift spoilers deploy).
Nightstop is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 15:33
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If they flared then why THR levers in CLB detent? Normally aircraft bounces due to insufficient or no flare and during bounce throttles are closed causing spoilers to deploy, leading to a hard landing.
vilas is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 16:44
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Posts: 2,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airbus hard landing graph (example, not this event)


Airbus A320 hard landing example

Last edited by Nightstop; 31st Oct 2021 at 18:26.
Nightstop is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 20:15
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saigon SGN/VVTS
Posts: 6,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Out of interest, what is the limiting load factor, before a heavy-landing inspection is required?
India Four Two is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 20:51
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Posts: 2,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From memory, 2.5G on touchdown will annunciate on the SD EFIS (lower central display). Not sure if that results in a heavy landing check as routine, maybe an Engineer could advise?
Nightstop is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 22:34
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2.2G on Boeing airframes.
Banana Joe is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 22:35
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Load 15 report
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2021, 23:43
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ascend Charlie

but not at 4.9g you don’t. That’s a crash
3Greens is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2021, 00:02
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: In an aluminium tube
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
737...

Banana Joe

737 maybe. 757 is 1.8. Don't know about all the other Boeing airframes.
TheFiddler is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2021, 05:20
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Singapore
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If I recall right A320 is VRTG of 2.6 to 2.86g or RALR of 10 to 14ft/s is considered a Hard Landing. Above 2.86g or 14ft/s it is a Severe Hard Landing and it is phone Airbus.

Main entry is pilot report of a hard landing, anyone who relies solely on a auto-print of a Load 15 report may get caught out some day as this auto-print feature can and has been switched off in the software. Also any load 15 report must start with a Code 4XXX. As sometimes the inexperienced will pull off a Manual Report with code 1XXX, which would not be representative of the last landing event.
Station Zero is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2021, 12:27
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The worst I’ve heard is 4.2g at AirAsia. Exactly
the same situation, training flight. Many dollars and months later it returned to service.

No passengers in either of these, however I pity my spine should I be sitting over the exit on such a landing. Nobody has yet to test the limits on what it takes to break a A320 in half however I don’t think they would have been far off.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2021, 13:01
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Took over a 737 which recently had a 4,5G landing recorded in the tech log. Hadn't been that many days or weeks since and it had flown plenty. Either it was a lucky, built like a tank or the recording device not very accurate?
172_driver 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 © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.