Airbus Bounce Recovery:

Recovery from a light bounce

In case of a light bounce, the following typical recovery technique can be applied:

•

−

−

Note:
Spoiler extension may induce pitch up effect.

•

•

•

Recovery from a high bounce

In case of a more severe bounce, do not attempt to land, as the remaining runway
length might not be sufficient to stop the aircraft.
The following generic go-around technique can be applied:

•

•

•

•

•

−

•

• Reengage automation, as desired, to reduce workload.

The AC touched the runway then went up and then touched very hard the runway. Some sets of chairs in the aft cabin area jumped off. Both main landing gears were replaced. Both pilots are suspended.

.. from the cockpit roof ? :)

Sata hard landing
 

Pilots grounded??!!!
So much mistery, so much misery...
Wouldn't it be more simple if Sata explained what happened?

Sooner or later, something official will have to be available, if indeed this happened at all. Where is the data? What's the source? Other than one story in the Herald which hasn't been verified, there is no evidence this occurred. Until an official report is seen, this is just one more rumour on a rumour board.

For what it is worth it has made JACDEC

I think I know what went wrong.
They tried to land on an IDE runway!



Just couldn't help myself - outside already.

A320 solid? ha
 

A bit out of theme...I had a tolk with some engineers about the A320 vs B-planes.

The question was, if it is normal on A-planes to have a fuel leak so often? (light leak is acceptable for 600 hours!!! if you do everyday inspections)
I used to fly B737-300-800 and have never seen it!?

Why's it so often on A-planes? Any ideas?

Maybe the build quality difference between A & B... :ugh:

"Sooner or later, something official will have to be available, if indeed this happened at all. Where is the data? What's the source? Other than one story in the Herald which hasn't been verified, there is no evidence this occurred. Until an official report is seen, this is just one more rumour on a rumour board."


This is not a rumour and I didn´t see it on Herald! I´m from Portugal and I work in Lisbon´s airport in another airline. Got lot´s of friend working in Sata. The reason of the hard landing still´s a mystery. An investigation is being done. Nothing official was released.

The key here is, did the airline fly the aircraft after they knew it had had the hard landing under discussion?

The question is not about someone's skill or stage of learning. Nor is this an A vs B matter.

This is a question as to whether there was an intentional decision on the part of SATA management to fly an aircraft they knew had far exceeded an airframe loads limit and it is a question about the justifications for such a management decision under, we must assume, an SMS-type safety reporting process.

It is the data and the report, when/if available, that will verify that this happened, not anectdotal comments. Trying to turn this into a slagging or an A vs B argument is simply unprofessional.

couldnt agree more pj2...
as far as i know the A320 went straight into TAP air portugal's hangar for maintenance, this was said by a friend that received it in the hangar, the aircraft didnt perform any further sectors after the hard landing.

Xarula;

Thanks, but until we see either data or a report of the hard landing and subsquent SATA/Airbus actions, it's not possible to proceed with opinions/conclusions/criticisms or atta-boys. However, given the passing of time it looks like it's going to go down the memory hole as if none of what's stated here happened.

typical on this side of the world lol...:ugh:

Yeah...seems like a universal principle, doesn't it? The one I know about disappeared down the memory hole as well. It "never happened", and the crews who flew the airplane for another 4 or 5 days before it was grounded never knew either. We did what we were required to do with the data but it was dismissed and the airplane continued to fly.

Don't worry, insurers are well aware of the event (and the NW A320). It won't just vanish. However, these events highlight a difficult area when it comes to applying the Annex 13 definition of an accident. I'd argue that both of these sound like they do meet the definition of an accident and therefore should be investigated etc but...

Apart from tail scrapes and hard landings, which I guess depend on how bad they are, two other gray areas spring to mind - lightning strikes on helicopters where the heli lands safely but where components may need to be overhauled/replaced (expensive) and 'over limit' landings, perhaps not technically a 'hard' landing but a few days later when the QAR is looked at, oh dear, the undercarriage is scrap!

The Aircraft DID NOT fly another comercial flight. It was ferried to Lisbon so that the TAP Portugal engineers can check it out.

SATA (est. 1942) is the oldest airline in Portugal, yes even older than TAP(est. 1945). They have only lost two aircraft in their history, an Avro Dove and a British Aerospace ATP. They take safety very seriously, there is no way they would have allowed that aircraft to continue service.

Jorge1,

As an aside, was it an Avro aircraft of some type or was it a DH (later HSA) Dove?

One could argue that an ATP is (was) an Avro aircraft but not a Dove!

Saman

SATA's first accident was with a Beechcraft UC-45B Expeditor (s/n: 6076) on the 5th of August, 1947, when it disappeared somewhere between S. Miguel and Santa Maria, not a Dove.

Rui

Thanks Saman and Rui for the correction on the type of aircraft that went down in 1947. My basic point is that SATA has culture of safety that has long been established. SATA is not some banana airline.

Jorge

I'm sorry, but don't know if it is by not having the all picture or if any body in this forum is hidding something.. but the A320 did flew not just 1 sector with pax on board am I incorrect Jorge???
SATA Mx checked the load report on the CFDS at LPPD but he was not qualified to read it, so... he said the a/c was good to go. Flew 2 more sectors between LPPD/LPMA and then to LPPT were TAP Mx checked again the CFDS history and were amazed with the results.

SATA is indeed an old airline with the monopoly of the Azores (SATA Regional) but SATA Internacional is a prety young company on the market. Much younger than TAP Portugal... And the LOBBY exists :D