TAP extra long landing
 

Well, that's pushing it! Tea and biscuits?

Runway excursions are twice the fun at Madeira.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeir...adeira_(2).jpg

Indeed! They touched down by the yellow taxiway sign, so farther than halfway down the runway (just before the opposite touchdown zone). This is insane, especially at this airport...

They touched down at least 4000 feet down the runway,ridiculous!Also,it doesn’t look like a stable approach.My previous airline had a policy that any touchdown beyond 3000 feet was a mandatory go around.Apparently TAP doesn’t have this.

Do you have any personal experience landing an aircraft at Funchal? Achieving a so-called stable approach there can be very challenging depending on the conditions. Having said that, I would certainly agree that they should have gone around.

Stable approach? Funchal? Good luck with that;)

Halfway through watching that on Youtube, a popup appeared suggesting the next video i watch: ....

"Suggested: Go Around at Madeira Airport".

I couldn't agree more, YouTube!

I was watching this Live yesterday on YT. That flight had already had a late go-around and this was the second attempt at landing.

"it doesn't look like a stable approach"..!?
Hummmmm... Tks God it's Gatwick 👌

I’m interested in the human factors surrounding this landing (and the previous go around). Was this the Captain’s first landing in the 321 at FNC after simulator training? What was the “authority gradient” in the flight-deck, two Captains or one Captain and a brand new F/O? Pre-flight rest and roster patterns? CRM training? Any external pressures to succeed in landing, perceived or otherwise? Etc. etc.

Maybe so,but I assume TAP has a stable approach definition somewhere in their SOP’s.If there is an exception great but if not you better have a good explanation if something happens when you continue.

That was interesting. I spent the last 5-10 seconds of the flypast thinking “they must do a baulked landing off this one” and they didn’t! I wonder much of the runway was left when they came to a stop...?

Wonderful comments from people that do not know how to fly ..Trial by youtube again .. Looking at the winsock in the end of the video that gives a clue as to what most probably hapenned. The A320 has good brakes but a go around would have most probably be better, but we do not know which fuel they had. and what the conditions were in Porto Santo. .Anyway they made it OK in the end , so good landing by the old definition.

Many landings into FNC. The runway is a lot longer than one imagines, but the sudden drop at the end (190ft or so) should concentrate the mind.

However, as people are “specially chosen” and certified to operate there, they should know how to fly a go around/baulked landing at any airfield; there is no shame. Far too far in the float…..

Think you can get away with it? Nope, there is always someone with a camera!

Me

I never thought of myself as specially chosen, but thanks anyway. In fact, the minimum number of Command hours on type required to be approved by the Portuguese CAA as Commander into FNC is quite low, provided the required training has been completed satisfactorily.

IT’S A COMPUTER GAME! Jesus Christ can people apply a little common sense.

"Fifty-forty-thirty-twenty-ten-twenty-thirty-forty-fifty" ;)

Not a chance.This is simply a game for armchair warriors to criticize. Yes a go around might have been more prudent but real world senarios
take precedence. Btw A320/321 brakes are very effective.

And apparently some even more wonderful comments from people that don't remember how to fly either.

They floated WAY past the end of the TDZ, wind,brakes, aircraft type are entirely irrelevant. Float it beyond the TDZ, go around. There is no special circumstances other than a fire that would make it acceptable to do anything else. They would have never rocked up at Funchal with a plan to commit. If they couldn't have made the first approach without being forced to commit to FNC due to fuel, they made the wrong decision making the first approach.

'Old definitions' be dammed, we've learned better definitions. With all due respect, your thoughts on the matter are a little out of date.

Forcing it on regardless how far down the runway makes you wonder how much fuel they had left

Sorry but no. If you know how to fly, you know that was a mandatory go-around. If they're short on fuel, they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Definitely not a good landing, a terrible one actually.

I assisted to a SIM for new CPT being trained for FNC, the first thing that said the TRI is : 'The only thing you must be capable, is to take the decision to go around"

A stable approach and a landing in the TDZ are two not necessarily mutual things. The approach looked great to me, given it was a circle. Plenty of nose-up the whole way in, no drastic pitch or roll yugs.

The landing: had they gone down another 2 feet it would have been perfect, right on the big white squares. Unfortunately, they overflared just a tad and the rest is history.

If there's any doubt, there's no doubt. Go around!

The windsock is horizontal. A sudden gutload of headwind and you’ve just gained 20kts as you were about to grease it on. :{

I am not an armchair expert as I actually did the job into this challenging airport. I was FNC qualified for many years on the B737. That approach and landing was firstly too long and secondly characterised by a lack of discipline. They were extremely fortunate to stop. Those with long memories will recall a horrendous run off the end by a B727 with many fatalities and by the same airline. Not much point having stabilisation criteria and a disciplined approach to landing in the tdz if you are not going to comply. I agree FNC can be challenging and I did my share of go arounds. Always take lots of fuel…

No disagreement, but just for the record at the time of the B727 accident the runway was only 5200 feet long leaving even less margin for error than today. It is now 9100 feet long.

But even in the good old days, the 'old definitions' were not meant to be taken literally, no? And just to be pedantic, by the 'old definitions', this was a *great* landing.

Not all that familiar with the 320 configurations, however to my untrained eye, he doesn't seem to be carrying much in the way of flap.
Any comments from more experienced eyes appreciated.
Maui

There are only two flap configurations on the A320 series - 3 and full. It's difficult to float an A320 in config 3 unless you get a gust in the flare or have added a significant speed increment to Vapp.

I don't think configuration is relevant here since the tendency to float is totally different to the obviously flawed decision making that went on in this landing, to the extent, in fact, that I thought initially that this was a Microsoft Flight Simulator video posted as a troll.

Yes I agree FUMR, you are quite correct, the old runway was seriously short and I should have mentioned that when quoting the catastrophic overrun of the TAP B727. I flew in to the old short, FNC as a youthful (!) first officer on the Boeing 737-200 and it was a fairly buttock clenching exercise…

I honeslty can't fathom some of the comments, this board has certainly lost it's technical expertise in the 20 years I have been on here.

For me, this landing would definitely qualify for a "please see the Chief Pilot" message in that crews inbox. I would have ripped a new one in one of my student pilots on his first solo, let alone a jet crew.

I am not sure who you are aiming at nomorecatering but I have personally flown into Funchal on many occasions in challenging and other conditions. I even flew into the as mentioned short version of the airport which contributed significantly to the fear factor. I am not keen on Willy waving but with 25 years on the B737 and 20,000 hours plus associated training quals just how much technical expertise do you need? I really apologise for any perceived immodesty but I have done the day job into FNC as have many other contributors. I have looked over this thread and nobody appears to be condoning what is obviously a badly flown approach underpinned by serious indiscipline which should have resulted in a go around by any company standards. Nobody appears to be disagreeing…

5200 feet is probably about what the TAP had left...

TAP Extra Long Landing
 

Olster ; we might have gone in there together. "Make sure you take lots of fuel"- yes but remember, way back, we were probably LW restricted. We probably worked for a professional outfit but one cowboy outfit would have you in the office for taking 1kg more than FP fuel- anywhere.

Most of us took TFS alternate fuel. If weather was perfect, PortoSanto.. Bort, it sure was butt-clenching all the way, using either alternate.

Interesting read on the Wizzair thread into Madeira too.

As John posted;" glad it's all over".

Looking at the video it seems to have touched down about level with the 3000 ft to go marker, which means that's about 5000 ft past the threshold.

Off topic but...
 

Can anyone point to a fix for the problem where the relevant links are just not showing in the post?

Time to touchdown after Threshold
 

Never operated into this airport but the airplane took approximately 20 seconds from crossing over the threshold to touchdown ( should be 7-8 seconds normally).

That was textbook, great job!

I think this thread is living in a parallel universe.

Land within the touchdown zone or go-around. This landing was unacceptable for a commercial airline operation.

Having had a quick look via a GIS I concur.

There were also heavy showers, poor vis with 7 Octa's, and they had nil effective braking due to aquaplaning. IIRC there may have been a tailwind component as well. Making no comment on this approach/landing whatsoever, but the conditions are quite different.

FP.