BA A321 tailstrike.
Seems BA A321 had a tailstrike in Glasgow on the !9th of July.
|
G-EUXF, inbound, looks like it's still there.
|
Positioned GLA-MAD 27 July
for mtce ('thebasource.com') |
|
A321 again! And it wasn't even bad weather!
|
Our friends in TLS aren't helping matters. Despite 1100+ A321s being built and another 1500+ on order, they refuse to produce a datapack for the A321 so currently all FSTDs are A320 only.
|
At least they noticed the tail strike!
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...pdf_500002.pdf When Boeing introduced the B737-400 they also included a tail bumper. Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321? |
In my day I always flew plus 10 on a 321 and it was always a power on landing with little nose up.......yeap totally against the grain.....never scraped a tail and stop dist never an issue. Flew the 73 400s the same.
|
Who says they noticed the tail strike........?
|
Agreed - I was told that a member of the public had seen 'sparks' on landing and reported it to the airport.
Passengers had disembarked before people (including the fire service) started paying attention to the tail end of the aircraft. |
When Boeing introduced the B737-400 they also included a tail bumper. Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321?
So it's not true then; the pilot can take an AB outside its comfort zone. A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input. Being a Boeing man I thought that's what all these Toulouse electrons was about. Don't let the pilot bend the a/c. There have been other demonstrations of this myth being false; here's another. But I do ask the question as a technician, not a pilot: why not have proximity sensors in the tail linked to pitch channel; both take off and landing? |
Originally Posted by RAT 5
(Post 9068746)
When Boeing introduced the B737-400 they also included a tail bumper. Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321?
So it's not true then; the pilot can take an AB outside its comfort zone. A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input. Being a Boeing man I thought that's what all these Toulouse electrons was about. Don't let the pilot bend the a/c. There have been other demonstrations of this myth being false; here's another. But I do ask the question as a technician, not a pilot: why not have proximity sensors in the tail linked to pitch channel; both take off and landing? |
I heard that the reporting might even have been more convoluted than that...........
|
I heard that the reporting might even have been more convoluted than that........... |
Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321? A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input. why not have proximity sensors in the tail linked to pitch channel; both take off and landing? |
A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input.
No aircraft works that way. No a/c worked that way until AB, F16, FBW, Stealth a/c. They have built in anti-stall pitch limiters; alpha floor etc. Until these a/c 'no a/c worked that way.' Remember the 1st autoland; look no hands? Times move on. Telephones were just that; wires and things. then came cordless phones, then mobile phones and then they had cameras, and then they internet and are in fact hand-held computers. But no phones worked that way. Now they do! It's called evolution and development. 25 years ago there was no TCAS. No need, we have radar ATC. That didn't work so well. It will happen that there will be automatic RA manoeuvres on a/c. Good grief it is already on motor cars with active cruise control and auto braking functions. To save embarrassment there is not auto parking. Talk about dumbing down of PF skills. You don't need to be able to brake or park. point and shoot and get out at the other end. When my phone can 'beam me up' then I know Star Trek has become real. Every year is closer. |
It will happen that there will be automatic RA manoeuvres on a/c. When Boeing introduced the B737-400 they also included a tail bumper. Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321? |
swh - How about this, from Boeing
Flight testing of the Boeing 777-300ER has verified the performance of numerous special features. One such feature, Tail-Strike protection, helps prevent tail contact with the ground on takeoff. Operating through the airplane's fly-by-wire flight controls, the system allows the airplane to lift off at reduced speed, increasing allowable takeoff weight by 4,000 to 10,000 pounds (1,814 to 4,536 kilograms), depending on airport conditions and airplane structural limits. "It's in the primary flight computer," said Frank Santoni, Boeing 777 chief pilot, of the special feature. "It's a function that looks at rate of closure of the tail to the ground during rotation, measuring how fast and at what distance the tail is moving toward the pavement." If the tail gets too close to the ground, the system moves the elevator for slower nose rotation. During abuse takeoff testing, where Santoni has deliberately rotated the airplane early and fast, the system has responded as designed. "It's doing a superb job, which is testament to our engineering team," Santoni said. "On the 777-300 program six years ago we did the same takeoff performance tests and contacted the tail about 12 times, which is expected during flight-test. On this program, we haven't touched once." |
It will happen that there will be automatic RA manoeuvres on a/c. |
Later s/n Airbus have a pitch limit symbol which appears on the PFD at 400ft Radalt to help avoid a tailstrike on landing.
|
A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input. No aircraft works that way. No a/c worked that way until AB, F16, FBW, Stealth a/c. You learn something every day. |
Originally Posted by RAT 5
No a/c worked that way until AB, F16, FBW, Stealth a/c. They have built in anti-stall pitch limiters; alpha floor etc.
Originally Posted by Cough
How about this, from Boeing
|
[AP/FD RA] Standard on Std 1.9 A320 too now |
swh - Yup, the SKID has gone, but the tail strike prevention software is operational. Reread the article... Or even this from the 777 flight control section from SmartCockpit
Tail Strike Protection During takeoff or landing, the PFCs calculate if a tail strike is imminent and decrease elevator deflection, if required, to reduce the potential for tail skid ground contact. Activation of tail strike protection does not provide feedback to the control column. |
The tail skid assembly that Boeing installed on the 737 is positioned for the tail strike on takeoff. Remember on t/o the aircraft is rotating around the main gear so any potential tail strike will be in a fixed position. On landing the tail skid is irrelevant as in the flare the aircraft is now rotating around its c of g. This tail strike (as most are) was on landing and they are the ones that do the serious damage.
|
Yup, the SKID has gone, but the tail strike prevention software is operational. |
No aircraft works that way. Protection during landing is based on the height above ground level (calculated using two radio altimeters) and protection during take-off is based on vertical speed. |
When the A340-600 was introduced it was the longest airliner airframe, and it had anti-tailstrike software.
|
Originally Posted by Localiser Established
(Post 9069936)
Completely wrong there. The E190 employs a very similar system called Tail Strike Avoidance (TSA). The fly-by-wire system limits pitch angle to 8 degrees nose up during take-offs, landings and go-arounds if an impending tail strike is sensed.
Protection during landing is based on the height above ground level (calculated using two radio altimeters) and protection during take-off is based on vertical speed. |
Alternative Option
How about equipping the Airbus range with a wide angle HUD and fly the approach on Angle of Attack? Include a CCIP dot in the picture and train pilots to fly a constant Alpha approach with a brief check in pitch as the rad alt counts down through 20 feet.
Works in the FJ world believe it would work on the Bus. |
Originally Posted by ZFT
(Post 9063058)
Our friends in TLS aren't helping matters. Despite 1100+ A321s being built and another 1500+ on order, they refuse to produce a datapack for the A321 so currently all FSTDs are A320 only.
From the report: The non-discovery of the damage during the engineer's external inspection for the turn round is difficult to understand. |
SWH
A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter that resists further pilot input. "No aircraft works that way." B777-300 have just such a system and have removed the tail skid as a result. The semi-levered MLG also helps. :ok: It also has a contact sensor just in case. |
I believe the 777-300 TSP system works by computing pitch angle/rate, rather than being directly driven by a Rad Alt in the tail.
|
The Embraer E190/195 has had tail strike prevention in the FBW software for as long as I can remember.
|
Tail Skid purpose
The purpose of the tail skid on the 737.400 is being oversimplified here. The tail skid had dimples which told you if you had just touched with no damage, there were many of those. There was a crush cartridge which told you of a bad one, you or someone else, so there was an element of warning/training in that system
|
vapilot2004
Quote: Originally Posted by ZFT http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif Our friends in TLS aren't helping matters. Despite 1100+ A321s being built and another 1500+ on order, they refuse to produce a datapack for the A321 so currently all FSTDs are A320 only. This seems very strange. Could you confirm ZFT? Not just the A320 family either. For the A330 you have single choice of an A320-200 datapack, the A350 an A350-800 datapack etc.. So for operators such a CX and VNA (and others) who operate or will operate A330-300, A350-900/1000 and A321s only, their FSTDs are not fully representative. |
ZFT:
I confirm. Not just the A320 family either. Yesterday, a Check Airman stated his informed thoughts on the matter and the reasons given were: proprietary data concerns, regular flight control software updates rendering previous flight dynamics models obsolete, how Airbus prefers to train thoroughly for the base model, then focus on differences training, and finally and most importantly (to the airline), cost. Any of this ring true for you, ZFT? |
i just want to intervene either guys..
I've just flown the A321 Simulator from lufthansa, D-AIRN, its a company choice if you order your aircraft with tailstrike protection which is definetly highlighted in the pfd with symbols or you order a gpws warning which warns you from a potentially tailstrike "pitch pitch" My a321 didn't had both of these systems. And tailstrikes in an a321 are nothing special.. the a321 is the most difficult aircraft in the a320-line or in general in the complete airbus series. Just my 2 cents.. |
yannickue
That particular FSTD is around 20 year old. Airbus in those days would produce a datapack for a specific tail number and IIRC DLH and Swissair ordered specific A321s. However today Airbus will not longer supply. |
vapilot2004,
I concur that the Airbus policy is to train thoroughly for the base model, then focus on differences training and indeed they have stated this at various conferences. Many operators have also strongly disagreed with Airbus at said conferences, especially those that only operate A321s. I would disagree re cost as Airbus generate massive revenues (and profit) from Datapacks and the additional tests (whether flight or engineering) to support an A321 variant would be really quite insignificant and as pointed out by yannickue, they did provide A321 data in the past. (Many of the tests within the current datapack are years old and are as applicable now as when initially produced). The issue of regular flight control updates is already addressed by bi annual datapack updates which currently Airbus provide FOC for 10 years although I understand this is being reduced to 5 years. Don't quite understand the proprietary data concern. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.