Do I recall one of MyTravel's A320's having a long history of a similar "braking difficulty"?

Any similarities with the Leisure International A320 which went off the end at IBZ in 1998?

Report Here

Which bit of "...Touched down late..." or "...looked to land well past the normal touchdown point..." from the first two posts in this thread don't some of you understand? :rolleyes:

Now go and play with your Airfix models and leave the grown-ups to discuss what usually happens when a jet lands long on a short runway. :hmm:

"Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that Jordan Aviation were banned by the French CAA (DGAC) from flying into France some time ago because of safety concerns. Why is it that an operator is banned in one or more EU countries, yet can quite happily continue to operate into others ?"

Charterguy, I believe you will remember the old Radio Yerewan jokes because in principal you are right - but in reality the ban was removed within a matter of 10 days - the a/c concerned was an L1011 and it happend to arrive CDG from transatlantic flight and had a bit of oil dripping from one of the engines.

And as for the poorwanderingwun, I wish to point out that Jordan is actually a country with ICAO Category 1 Status - that should lift it slightly above the 3rd world country standard that you so despice off.

And as for the operating crew I would wish that all European Crews I had the pleasure of working with in the past are as professional and dedicated as most Jordan Aviation Crews I have met over the years.

Just to answer your inevitable questions beforehand - NO I'm not a JAV Staff and I'm not on their payroll for PR but I have nothing but good experience in operating Leases and Charters with them in the past.

Flaps40,

Calm down there. Not trying to teach anyone to suck anything, but in the 10+ years I've been sending a/c on their way I have come across many a pilot to whom the SLF are beneath them and not worthy of their presence let alone making a call to those peasents in the back to let them know that everything is A-ok and they are not actually going to die.

I think this type of pilot needs to remember once in a while who is actually paying for the kids private school and the bit on the sides credit cards and the nice flash motor(s) on the drive.

Anyway getting off topic now.

Anymore news on the nature of the damage to the a/c or when it's going to leave ?.

:)

leezyjet
 

I feel so guilty now, I'm afraid I've had to sack the butler, put mary poppins on part time and swapped the Dom Perignon for good old Bolly.

I'll never look at passengers in the same light again. Good Lord, I thought the company looked after the old payslip, not the passengers! Mind you it's not been the same since Atlee got in!

I didn't realise hoi polloi would be at all interested in the technical details of such a minor mishap, I should have thought they'd be too busy with their Sunday Sports to worry about what was going on outdoors.

Didn't I see you once on Airport, the third twit on the left as I recall, anyway, back to the Bolly if you don't mind, slumming it with the middle classes isn't so bad after all!

I'll get the orangery gold plated with the money I've saved.

The runway is not that short Cargo Boy. Landing a bit long at Leeds, whilst clearly not desirable, should still easily be recoverable with a little extra braking. Perhaps you should grow up and become "Cargo Man" before you make more more posts which display your complete lack of experience.

Three points about LBA RW 14
1 The runway is displaced, therefore the landing distance is less than 6,000 ft so it is in this instance a shortish runway. (someone give me the facts for both runways)
2 The glide path angle is greater than the normal 3 degrees leading to an increased chance of a long landing.
3 The runway is constructed in sections of concrete, as you pass over the concrete joints the aircraft bounces slightly. On a wet or damp runway the brake anti-skid tends to back off then come on again giving the impression that it is not operating normally.

Sky9, absolutely right 14 is less than 6000ft LDA but only just. 32 is also displaced but has a LDA of over 6000ft just. Can't quite grasp how the 3.5 degree glideslope means you land long though. I have landed 14 many times and usually touch down before the tunnel so approx 5500ft to go. As for the concrete I agree the whole thing needs resurfaceing but at least it was grooved after the L1011 overrun.

Hooded,

Depends what you fly: a 6000ft runway, touchdown point 1000ft in, leaves 5000ft. Add a bit of water and it all looks a bit short.

I don't understand why 3.5deg should make for a long landing, surely the opposite?

I think LBA is a poor airfield at which to land a large aeroplane. Lets face it: it has a poor reputation amongst pilots.

On the plus side, ATC are very good, as are most of the ramp staff, IMHO.

Sky9, LBA is 7380ft/2250m. It also has a soft flat grass overrun of around 500ft at the end of 32/start of 14. It has a displaced threshold at both ends with 32 being a little over 1000ft displaced and 14 being around 1500ft displaced due to the high ground on approach requiring a 3.5 degree glideslope.(Dont have the exact figures to hand) The 32 threshold was displaced to give an undershoot area when the runway was extended in the 1980s. Prior to that the threshold was almost at the end of the runway. There are no obsticles on the 32 approach/14 climb out but the ground falls away sharply as the L1011 found out as very nearly did this A320 and there is no overrun other than the downward slope into the approach lights. Beyond this is a housing estate. The runway is concrete and undulates as it is built on solid rock and falls away slightly after the 32 touch down point.
So whats the answer to the problem of unfamiliar crews occasionally frightening themselves on 14 landings?

Firstly reduce the 3.5 glideslope and move the thresold back, possible with modern precision aproach aids/GPWS.
Secondly build up a flat soft overrun at the end of 14 just as the one on 32s end. This would end up almost in someones back garden and the threshold on 32 could then be moved back as an added bonus giving 2000m + LDA on 32 with this RESA in place.

Both options are expensive and require ILS/lights to be taken out of service for a while.

Sadly I can't see either happening anytime soon as the rapid growth of movements/pax means prioritys are eleswhere at the moment (like providing more apron space).

Hope this helps.

As has been said before less than 6000' in some aircraft is not that long!

Trust me the picture on 14 in a 757/767 on the approach looks a little strange (3.5 deg, uphill slope, displaced thr etc)

Indeed in my airline 14 is captains only due to the LDA. We are also warned about GPWS alerts off the Chevin.

Coupled with a southerly breeze makes for an interesting time.

Re the incident involved - landing beyond the 27/09 intersection is not a good place to be. Not sure about A320 brakes, but max autobrake would be required in a 75/76.

There used to be a graph in the A320 FCOM showing that the shallower the glide slope the greater the landing distance, the steeper the glide slope the shorter the landing distance. The examples used in the graph were 2.5°, 3.0° and 3.5°

Chris wannabe,

The runway remaining from the intersection is around 4200 ft. The max autobrake stopping distance for a 757 at 86 tonnes is just over 4000 ft on a flat dry runway with no headwind but that is from a height of 50 ft. The manual allows 1000 ft to flare and touchdown before braking commences, so a 757 touching down at the intersection and using max autobrake would have stopped with around 1000 ft to spare (in theory). Yes I know it is down hill but the autobrakes try to apply a specific decelleration rate. 1% down only adds 50 ft. Max manual braking is even more powerful don't forget. 757's can stop pretty damn quick when reqiured. Maybe someone could enlighten us on how well the A320 can stop.

On 14, from the intersection it is uphill.

Tight circuit,

Agree that max manual braking is plenty but as I'm sure you know the Performance Inflight figures are actual landing distances and not factored.

We'll never know the exact touch down point/speed/weight but as we've both said the ability/reliability of A320 brakes seems to be the key issue.

Wasn't there an A320 brake problem at Ibiza?

http://www.mfom.es/ciaiac/publicacio...1998_019_A.pdf

Regards

Going by the amount of rubber going off the runway by the 32 threshold not too sure that there was much of a problem with the brakes. Any thoughts?

A 320 can stop in 800 mtr or so if required at MLW. just from memory

"An A320 can stop in 800 mtr or so if required at MLW. just from memory".

So, can you tell us all just how many times you have actually practised this exercise in a real A320 at MLW and can you tell us exactly just how many thermal plugs were left in place at the end of each exercise?

Have you actually landed an A320 at MLW?

Or did you perhaps do it once in the sim or, even worse, perhaps read the statement in a book published in Toulouse?

The 320 does not stop as well as a 757. I don't care what the perf figures may say. In the real world, the 75 is a much better stopper.

Friend of a friend has just supplied me with a couple of new pictures. One showing clearly how near the a/c got to the steep bank at the end of 14.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/timmcat/F24b.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/timmcat/F06.jpg

:eek: - don't want to be any closer..........

Have now found the LBA 14/32 distances.

14 TORA/ASDA 6932ft/2113m LDA 5912ft/1802m TODA 10397ft/3169m

32 TORA/ASDA 7185ft/2190m LDA 6286ft/1916m TODA 7838ft/2389m

Given the runway is 7382ft/2250m then you can see that the CAA required displaced thresholds reduce LDA in both directions though 14 is worst affected.

Having said that I remember a Wardair 747 landing on 14!

Hope this helps.

Would love to have seen Wardair 747 land on 14!.Remember seeing JAT 707,Aviaco DC8-61 land on 14 though.Those were the days!.

Would've thought the Aviaco DC-8-61 would have been more interesting than the 747. Pity I missed that one.

back again
 

hey

the very same aircraft was back again yesterday morning. with four people on the flight deck.

the captain also landed the damn thingperfectly and stopped well before delta taxiway.

Good work lads

laters

Thanks for the post JW411. Actually i have practiced it in the sim. I witness many RTOs, MLW landings and the like for 2 weeks every month. I have a few goes to experiment myself at the end of the checks i do on people. I see crews stay on the rwy and those who go off with the same conditions. You need to brake hard. The fact that all the tyres survived makes me suspect that max braking wasn't used. In the end its debatable what is worse, a brake fire or going off the end, but thats another story.
The figure of 800 or so is an ALD from 50' above the threshold, chop the throttles, don't flare and apply max braking. No reverse. But then you seem so knowledgable i'm sure you know this.
And i have landed at MLW, a lot in places all over the world, but as i'm always on the numbers, i don't need to thrash the brakes. I have also done the same in a 757. Can't say i have seen much difference to speak of.

I had a bit of personal familiarity with the two Wardair 747-200's they ordered straight from Boeing (they also had -100's from the aftermarket). These had all the structural upgrades for 820,000# MTOGW, but were delivered with earlier brakes which limited them to 785,000 if memory serves. This was intentional to avoid landing fee excess costs at HKG etc.

They soon upgraded the brakes, and could have applied for the higher TOGW if it ever seemed worthwhile, but meanwhile they had two 747's that could stop on a Canadian dime.

ia1166

Your post seems to contain some contradiction and exageration. The most glaring being that anyone who thinks it is clever to land an airliner "on the numbers" really should not be doing simulator cx on anybody.

I don't know about the A320 but if you were to land a 757 from a 3 degree approach without some sort of flair it would involve a lot of hangar time for the ship. I don't suppose an airbus is that much stronger.

I guess stopping an A320 in 800mtrs from 50ft across the threshold at MLW is possible. My figures for a 757 state less than 3000 ft at "average" landing weight, which would probably equate, but a flare is allowed for in taking 1000 ft from 50 over the threshold to touchdown.

If your facts are correct then why spoil your argument with all the other stuff? It doesn't impress really.

I only put that bit in get him to react with another attack. I'm a bit bored at the moment. The figure is an airbus one so involves a test pilot with a test ac so it is optimistic to believe us mere mortals could reproduce it. The airbus does stop extremely well though, and not far off from the 800 quoted, but you will definately blow a few plugs and may start a fire. But this is how boeing generate their figures as well. When they tested the asdr figures for the 777 they set fire to both MLG. You have to press and press as hard as you can. it has anti skid and as any F1 driver will tell you, changing over to carbon brakes is the biggest thing when starting in F1. They are very powerful.
The bus and 757 both land at an attitude of around 2-3 deg nose up. Although a slight flare is required, when i was an fo i witnessed a no flare landing. The rubber jungle fell out, and one tyre was damaged. a bit of hangar time but no hvy maintenance. The problem is landing on 3 points or the nose only. Or dropping it on the rwy from 100 feet after flaring early, or encountering windshear etc etc.
All in all it doesn't seem to have gone far off the runway. And it hasn't blown any tyres. One wonders if there was no braking malfunction and the cause was a long landing, whether the crew got on the brakes early enough and trusted the anti skid. Airworld used to operate the 321 out of bristol at mlw. No mean feat for the crews, and i believe bristol is shorter than leeds?Anyway, no harm done and everyone walked away.
This thread has degenerated into a 757 320 pissing contest so i'm off.

1166,

Yes I agree with all that. I am only talking 757 because that is what I know about. I have no axe to grind. I still have trouble with the no flare bit though. It is very difficult psychologically not to flare and in the instance you quote a slight, or very gentle flare would perhaps have been made. Just enough to take the edge off the impact. A small reduction in the flight path angle makes a big difference to the vertical speed on touchdown. On the 75 most people start to flare much earlier than the Boeing recommended technique. If you do it the Boeing way the ground really seems to be rushing up in the last second or so. It takes a steady nerve, but it works.

Yes this thread has drifted off course so I will shut up now too.

Cheers