Hard Landing Airbus A320 Avianca on 08/10/21 - at Ibagué
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: on the edge.
Posts: 78
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
"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
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."
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."
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Posts: 2,075
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 🤥.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,092
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
19 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.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Posts: 2,075
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).
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,272
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.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Posts: 2,075
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,208
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?
