LH A320 Rough Landing @ Hamburg
A320 side-stick
boofhead,
It's not that much different from the (ahhh...) "Orca" (A310), I can assure you.
On an A310, you know how much aileron you've selected, definitely. But the bottom lines are (a) roll-rate and direction of roll; (b) bank angle. When I did my A320 conversion (from the DC-10), most of the mystery disappeared on the first simulator session. It was almost a non-event, even after 20 years of control columns. The trick is: make your roll inputs short and often, except (1) rolling into, or out of, a turn; (2) on the ground (in ground law) for into-wind aileron; and (3) when you want crossed controls (briefly, as described in my previous posts). ***
Pitch inputs are also best short and often, except (1) rotation; (2) the flare, when countering the progressive forward trimming in land-mode; and (3) in recovery from a dive or steep climb.
On the ground, for T/O, you can see how much aileron/elevator you or the other pilot has selected by the white cross on your PFD, thereby avoiding "cracking" the roll-spoilers on a crosswind T/O. It's not perfect, but it works.
The main deficiency of the side-sticks (from the pilot's point of view) is that the PNF cannot easily monitor PF's inputs, while the aeroplane is airborne. [They are not inter-connected, despite what OATNetjets seems to be suggesting.] It's also rather easier - compared with a control column - to select pitch inputs, for example, when making a sudden roll input.
To answer your point about A320 pilots who move on to conventional types: YES. Because the A320 is always in the equivalent of the old "Control-wheel steering", the stab trim is always automatic. Remember the A310 in the go-around? There's a lot of forward trimming to do, and we ex-A320 pilots can easily forget it.
Hope this helps.
*** Editing POSTSCRIPT [Mar14, in the light of Post #449, Mar12/12:46, by Lemurian.]
For minor amendments to this, see my EDITED Post of Mar14/20:52, currently #474.
CROSSWIND LANDING
In airborne sideslip, (usually delayed until decrab) the sidestick roll-input must be released as soon as the desired bank is achieved. However, the opposite rudder will have the effect of lifting the lowered wing again, so you may need to reapply the roll command intermittently, elsewhere referred to as "bumping". [See Post #449, et al.] Once both main L/Gs have touched down firmly, the stick can be kept slightly displaced in the direction of the sideslip. 5 seconds later, the FBW will revert to roll-direct mode (stick-to-aileron), and continuous into-wind aileron can (and should) be applied - in the conventional manner - until the wing ceases to be vulnerable to side-gust.
CROSSWIND TAKE-OFF
A small amount of into-wind aileron can be selected before starting the T/O run, avoiding "cracking" the spoilers.* During rotation, the upwind wing tends to rise in the conventional manner, and can be countered by retaining into-wind aileron. As the main L/G lifts off, any downwind rudder will be eased off, yawing the aeroplane into wind. This will temporarily assist the aileron. Half a second after lift-off, however, Normal Law in roll is introduced. At that point, any remaining roll input needs to be released.
5 seconds after main L/G lift-off, Normal Law also becomes effective in pitch (so the white cross on the PFDs should disappear). Stick-to-elevator control is now removed, and pitch-attitude can be refined by small nudges of sidestick.
* Roll-spoiler deployment can be avoided by placing the PFD white-cross so that its inner edge is not noticeably to the side of the centre spot.
It's not that much different from the (ahhh...) "Orca" (A310), I can assure you.
On an A310, you know how much aileron you've selected, definitely. But the bottom lines are (a) roll-rate and direction of roll; (b) bank angle. When I did my A320 conversion (from the DC-10), most of the mystery disappeared on the first simulator session. It was almost a non-event, even after 20 years of control columns. The trick is: make your roll inputs short and often, except (1) rolling into, or out of, a turn; (2) on the ground (in ground law) for into-wind aileron; and (3) when you want crossed controls (briefly, as described in my previous posts). ***
Pitch inputs are also best short and often, except (1) rotation; (2) the flare, when countering the progressive forward trimming in land-mode; and (3) in recovery from a dive or steep climb.
On the ground, for T/O, you can see how much aileron/elevator you or the other pilot has selected by the white cross on your PFD, thereby avoiding "cracking" the roll-spoilers on a crosswind T/O. It's not perfect, but it works.
The main deficiency of the side-sticks (from the pilot's point of view) is that the PNF cannot easily monitor PF's inputs, while the aeroplane is airborne. [They are not inter-connected, despite what OATNetjets seems to be suggesting.] It's also rather easier - compared with a control column - to select pitch inputs, for example, when making a sudden roll input.
To answer your point about A320 pilots who move on to conventional types: YES. Because the A320 is always in the equivalent of the old "Control-wheel steering", the stab trim is always automatic. Remember the A310 in the go-around? There's a lot of forward trimming to do, and we ex-A320 pilots can easily forget it.
Hope this helps.
*** Editing POSTSCRIPT [Mar14, in the light of Post #449, Mar12/12:46, by Lemurian.]
For minor amendments to this, see my EDITED Post of Mar14/20:52, currently #474.
CROSSWIND LANDING
In airborne sideslip, (usually delayed until decrab) the sidestick roll-input must be released as soon as the desired bank is achieved. However, the opposite rudder will have the effect of lifting the lowered wing again, so you may need to reapply the roll command intermittently, elsewhere referred to as "bumping". [See Post #449, et al.] Once both main L/Gs have touched down firmly, the stick can be kept slightly displaced in the direction of the sideslip. 5 seconds later, the FBW will revert to roll-direct mode (stick-to-aileron), and continuous into-wind aileron can (and should) be applied - in the conventional manner - until the wing ceases to be vulnerable to side-gust.
CROSSWIND TAKE-OFF
A small amount of into-wind aileron can be selected before starting the T/O run, avoiding "cracking" the spoilers.* During rotation, the upwind wing tends to rise in the conventional manner, and can be countered by retaining into-wind aileron. As the main L/G lifts off, any downwind rudder will be eased off, yawing the aeroplane into wind. This will temporarily assist the aileron. Half a second after lift-off, however, Normal Law in roll is introduced. At that point, any remaining roll input needs to be released.
5 seconds after main L/G lift-off, Normal Law also becomes effective in pitch (so the white cross on the PFDs should disappear). Stick-to-elevator control is now removed, and pitch-attitude can be refined by small nudges of sidestick.
* Roll-spoiler deployment can be avoided by placing the PFD white-cross so that its inner edge is not noticeably to the side of the centre spot.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 15th Mar 2008 at 15:45. Reason: [Mar04/18:15] OATNetjets' post; [Mar14] Pitch-inputs paragraph added. See PS for amendments/clarifications. [Mar15] Referal to #474.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet but your best source of realtime information on FMC equipped aircraft during landing is Prog page 2 (Boeing types). I know there is a similar prompt on Airbus aircraft, just don't know what it's called. It gives realtime wind direction/speed, crosswind speed in knots and either L or R direction, and vertical track error in feet from whatever type approach has been selected. I always have one of the FMC's on that page during landing. It keeps me legal and keeps me from getting surprised. Having said that, even with all the automation/computers available to us, at the end of the day it still boils down to being able to do "Pilot" stuff.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Troviscais, Odemira, Portugal, 7630-488
Age: 82
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technique
Maybe crosswind landings should be reviewed by the company!
Changing to the ill-advised "crab technique" (around 20' looking at the video) is both stupid & dangerous!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRr5u__Uqh4
Changing to the ill-advised "crab technique" (around 20' looking at the video) is both stupid & dangerous!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRr5u__Uqh4
drkraft,
I agree FMGC info is a good situational awareness tool, but on the 'bus there is a weakness especially if you are using it to keep legal. The wind arrow/windspeed is IRS driven and thus can be subject to large errors.
I agree FMGC info is a good situational awareness tool, but on the 'bus there is a weakness especially if you are using it to keep legal. The wind arrow/windspeed is IRS driven and thus can be subject to large errors.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: italy
Age: 67
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boofhead do you really think that a Pilot would trust his/her life on a computer? I do so in a Cat 3b apporoach but I'm always ready to take over or go around..but in a bad weather xwind landing I'm the one flying the plane on the centerline (hopefully) not the computer...Airbus (319/20/21) are just like other planes..once you get used to it....
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with RIGHT Engine's post.
There was a post that I didn't quite understand indicating that the copilot made the landing.
I would like to know:
who made the landing/approach?
who made the go around?
who made the later, happier, landing?
Does anyone have the real information?
There was a post that I didn't quite understand indicating that the copilot made the landing.
I would like to know:
who made the landing/approach?
who made the go around?
who made the later, happier, landing?
Does anyone have the real information?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right way up
My experience, especially during windshear or heavy winds, is the information given by the tower "can be subject to large errors" depending on the location of their measuring equipment and the runway you are using. Also, just about every Airport/Runway has something unusual about it, depending on wind direction. For many runways, the last 100 feet during high winds, can be very challenging.
My experience, especially during windshear or heavy winds, is the information given by the tower "can be subject to large errors" depending on the location of their measuring equipment and the runway you are using. Also, just about every Airport/Runway has something unusual about it, depending on wind direction. For many runways, the last 100 feet during high winds, can be very challenging.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Central Europe
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ sevenstrokeroll
I would like to know: (what for
)
- who made the landing/approach? - the crew
- who made the go around? - the crew
- who made the later, happier, landing? - the crew
- Does anyone have the real information? - the crew, possibly LH as well...
As for the decision-making.... wait and see.
I would like to know: (what for
)- who made the landing/approach? - the crew
- who made the go around? - the crew
- who made the later, happier, landing? - the crew
- Does anyone have the real information? - the crew, possibly LH as well...
As for the decision-making.... wait and see.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frosch:
I ask the same questions again.
I certainly understand that each crewmember has vital duties during an approach and landing. I will ask :
who was the pilot flying the plane druing approach and landing? (aka PF or handling pilot depending what part of the world you live in)
Who was the pilot flying the go around?
Who was the pilot flying the second landing?
I will further ask, if the copilot was the PF/handling pilot during the landing, did the captain takeover at any point?
You ask why I want to know? I can't imagine any pilot on this forum NOT WANTING to know.
And please don't say the crew was flying the landing unless you mean BOTH PILOTS were manipulating the flight controls.
Perhaps we use different terminology?
I ask the same questions again.
I certainly understand that each crewmember has vital duties during an approach and landing. I will ask :
who was the pilot flying the plane druing approach and landing? (aka PF or handling pilot depending what part of the world you live in)
Who was the pilot flying the go around?
Who was the pilot flying the second landing?
I will further ask, if the copilot was the PF/handling pilot during the landing, did the captain takeover at any point?
You ask why I want to know? I can't imagine any pilot on this forum NOT WANTING to know.
And please don't say the crew was flying the landing unless you mean BOTH PILOTS were manipulating the flight controls.
Perhaps we use different terminology?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: bruxelles
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a pilot but the very many I travel in airplane and I have acquired one sure experience. Case of Hamburg seems to me that where the conditions weather were prohibitives the pilot could very well avoid to try the landing (being diverted the airplane on others airport), than for miracle it is not only ended in a disaster. Also I have happened myself in similar situations where - mainly for economic reasons - some pilots irresponsibles try however to land, heedless of the which had real risks for very bad the meterological conditions and of the terror of the passengers.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it always Airbus!
What is it about this plane that makes it so susceptible to........web postings! 
It seems like when there's a wind blowing and an Airbus is starting an approach, all the cameras start rolling! 
Disclaimer - I made probably the worst landing of my life in a X wind at SFO in the A 320
I'm glad I got off it before too many of my landings got filmed!
It seems like when there's a wind blowing and an Airbus is starting an approach, all the cameras start rolling! Disclaimer - I made probably the worst landing of my life in a X wind at SFO in the A 320
I'm glad I got off it before too many of my landings got filmed!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Handling in Final Approach
Originally Posted by OATNetjets
Boofhead I do not see your point:
1 - On the FBW airbus fleet the sidesticks DO move,
1 - On the FBW airbus fleet the sidesticks DO move,
and near the ground you will get direct control law on the lateral axis.
This means that you get roll control surfaces displacement proportional to the stick inputs, as in any other airliner.
In addition to FCOM quotes in recent posts by Right Way Up and me, showing that normal law remains active until touchdown, here are some more interesting tidbits from FCOM Bulletin 54/2, of June 2002:
Originally Posted by A320 FCOM Bulletin No. 54/2
Subject: Aircraft Handling in Final Approach
General
The purpose of this FCOM bulletin is to highlight certain aspects of aircraft handling during final approach, and to illustrate that the feedback received from in service experience merits further attention.
[...]
Aircraft Handling on the Lateral Axis
Generally speaking, lateral handling of fly-by-wire aircraft is conventional. But, in very gusty conditions, it is necessary to recall the principle of the flight control law in roll. With the sidestick, the pilot can order a roll rate up to a maximum of 15°/second. However, the aerodynamic capacity of the roll surfaces, when fully deflected, is much higher: that is, up to about 40°/second. This means that, if the aircraft is flying through turbulence that produces a roll rate of 25°/second to the right, the aircraft still has the capacity to roll to the left at a rate of 15°/second, with full sidestick command. This is more than what is necessary in the worst conditions.
The sidestick's ergonomical design is such that the stop at full deflection is easily reached. This may give the pilot the impression that the aircraft is limited in roll authority, because there is a time delay before the pilot feels the result of his/her action. In conventional aircraft, due to the control wheel inertia, the pilot needs considerably more time to reach the flight control stop.
The fly-by-wire system counteracts the effects of gust, even with the sidestick in the neutral position ; the pilot's task is to give overall corrective orders. In other words, the pilot should smoothen and filter inputs and should resist moving the sidestick from one stop to the other.
Every sidestick input is a roll rate demand, superimposed on the roll corrections already initiated by the fly-by-wire system. The pilot should only apply "longer-term" corrections as needed.
Before flare height, heading corrections should only be made with roll. As small bank angles are possible and acceptable close to the ground, only small heading changes can be envisaged. Otherwise, a go-around should be initiated.
Use of rudder, combined with roll inputs, should be avoided, since this may significantly increase the pilot's lateral handling tasks. Rudder use should be limited to the "de-crab" maneuver in case of crosswind, while maintaining the wings level, with the sidestick in the roll axis.
[...]
Bernd
Last edited by bsieker; 4th Mar 2008 at 20:11. Reason: Incorrect quoting
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New information in "Spiegel Online" news magazine
The German news magazine "Spiegel Online" now has more info about this as well:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,539336,00.html
Some (translated) extracts:
Ttitle: 24-year-old controls Airbus during landing
"During the spectacular high wind landing attempt of an Airbus in Hamburg, the plane was controlled by the young (female) co-pilot. The dramatic go-around manoeuvre, which prevented a disaster, was then executed by the captain."
"Why pilot Oliver A. allowed his inexperienced colleague to do the approach during the storm 'Emma' is not clear."
"Lufthansa reaffirmed on Tuesday that the crew has acted correctly."
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,539336,00.html
Some (translated) extracts:
Ttitle: 24-year-old controls Airbus during landing
"During the spectacular high wind landing attempt of an Airbus in Hamburg, the plane was controlled by the young (female) co-pilot. The dramatic go-around manoeuvre, which prevented a disaster, was then executed by the captain."
"Why pilot Oliver A. allowed his inexperienced colleague to do the approach during the storm 'Emma' is not clear."
"Lufthansa reaffirmed on Tuesday that the crew has acted correctly."
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EDDK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
who was the pilot flying the plane druing approach and landing? (aka PF or handling pilot depending what part of the world you live in)
Who was the pilot flying the go around?
Who was the pilot flying the second landing?
I will further ask, if the copilot was the PF/handling pilot during the landing, did the captain takeover at any point?
Who was the pilot flying the go around?
Who was the pilot flying the second landing?
I will further ask, if the copilot was the PF/handling pilot during the landing, did the captain takeover at any point?
HTH,
Markus
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Journalistic rubbish...
This from that bastion of the truth, the ManchesterEvening News...
HEAVY wind forced an Airbus A380 to abort a landing attempt when the plane was almost flipped over as it touched down.
The Lufthansa jet was carrying 131 passengers and crew when it tried to land at Hamburg airport during heavy crosswinds.
Suzeman
HEAVY wind forced an Airbus A380 to abort a landing attempt when the plane was almost flipped over as it touched down.
The Lufthansa jet was carrying 131 passengers and crew when it tried to land at Hamburg airport during heavy crosswinds.
Suzeman
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with RIGHT Engine's post.
There was a post that I didn't quite understand indicating that the copilot made the landing.
I would like to know:
who made the landing/approach? Copilot
who made the go around? Captain
who made the later, happier, landing? Captain
Does anyone have the real information?
There was a post that I didn't quite understand indicating that the copilot made the landing.
I would like to know:
who made the landing/approach? Copilot
who made the go around? Captain
who made the later, happier, landing? Captain
Does anyone have the real information?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess they will pull the wind and gusts from the data recorder and we will get to experience them in future sim rides.
But that would not settle the many arguments about the advantages (or not) of Airbus like flight controls.
What would be interesting would be an series of experiments using, say, both 320 and and 737ng sims. Take many pilots with a spread of experience on type; with the wind event expected and unexpected. What type would be more controllable? I know what I think but the facts would be interesting.
Good topic for your PhD thesis?
Anyway good luck to the folks involved
But that would not settle the many arguments about the advantages (or not) of Airbus like flight controls.
What would be interesting would be an series of experiments using, say, both 320 and and 737ng sims. Take many pilots with a spread of experience on type; with the wind event expected and unexpected. What type would be more controllable? I know what I think but the facts would be interesting.
Good topic for your PhD thesis?
Anyway good luck to the folks involved
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
calimoucho
thank you.
I had a feeling that was the case.
Many companies, my own included, indicate the captain should make the critical takeoffs or landings...wx, special airports, judgement, etc.
I would wonder if Lufthansa has a similiar provision.
Lufthansa seems to hire pilots through an ab initio program with cadets learning to fly in arizona, usa.
perhaps after this incident, a segment of tail wheel crosswind landings will become standard.
thank you.
I had a feeling that was the case.
Many companies, my own included, indicate the captain should make the critical takeoffs or landings...wx, special airports, judgement, etc.
I would wonder if Lufthansa has a similiar provision.
Lufthansa seems to hire pilots through an ab initio program with cadets learning to fly in arizona, usa.
perhaps after this incident, a segment of tail wheel crosswind landings will become standard.