Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

LH A320 Rough Landing @ Hamburg

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

LH A320 Rough Landing @ Hamburg

Old 2nd Mar 2008, 06:41
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
I think you can read too much in about the Airbus here...

He seemed fairly nicely setup until, say 50R when he got a gust from the RHS. Blew aircraft downwind and needed a large right AoB input to not only correct drift, but also to regain CL. With 20:20 hindsight that is when someone might have been better to throw it away... (on any type).

However, they continued, and from my time on the bus, any large/abrubt input (e.g. that massive left kick straight) stores up secondary effects. I now try to use smaller inputs over a longer period (as in fact is taught), and if they prove insufficient, then the weather is outside my and/or the aircraft's capability. As others have said, it might not be pretty, but it lands quite happily with large drift angles on, and as TPs various demonstrate in uTube videos etc., it works well if required

A good brief to your colleague to not hesitate to call G/A and discuss later... Also a brief that if you need/use full stick seriously consider a G/A... and for NHP watch the HP's hand, and if they are using using full stick consider calling G/A... (which I have done to a NHP encountering wake ~30R)

If all they've damaged is a winglet, great Ours (BA) get knocked off regularly by catering trucks etc....

NoD
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 06:49
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
PS Once the G/A does start, it seems impressive steady control in roll (RH wingtip kept just clear of ground) and yaw (just kept on runway), and pitch (not yanking nose up until power bites)... with maybe a nice brief touchdown on the RH mainwheel
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 07:12
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: ATLANTIS
Posts: 105
If the demonstrated X-wind comp. is 38, would it be wise then to go beyond it? Wonder what the BFU would say after an incident like this.... What is the maximum wind velocity in which doors can be opened and slides can be deployed safely, without flying away on the A 320 series?
Is there already an offical LH statement on this approach?

Greetz, QTA
quickturnaround is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 07:23
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 537
I have experienced this sort of thing on the bus before (but to a much lesser degree, thank god!) and while I am fairly new to FBW it seems to me that a little bit of crosscontrols on the flare might help things. This is however not recomended by Airbus. The computers just don't react fast enough to the wing drop when the drift is removed and the aircraft just behaves as a boeing would if you don't apply into wind aleron. What is the harm of anticipating this by applying into-wind sidestick as you decrab (ie crosscontrols)? On adition while it is prefered to touch down with both main wheels at the same time is it not safer to definetely touch down with the upwind wheel rather than possibly touch down with the downwind wheel?
calypso is online now  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 07:30
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
From the picture it looks like full flap was used and little stick input used in the gust....yikes............it appears they Flared way too early........they are lucky they didnt crash cause if that wing had dug into the grass it could have been curtains.

IMO You got to drive it in esp with flap 3. Flaring that early can expose you to vicious gusts and thats what it looks like they got unfortunetly .

Yes we all hark back to the boeing esp the 737....the 200/600 was a little fighter but the cross wind limits was less than the 320.

From memory landing on 23 can produce vicious shear. Likewise be warned rwy 23R at Dusseldorf can produce vicious shear in the last 500 ft with the winds from the north. Safe flying and throw it away if you dont like what you see and yes pick your legs carefully.

Last edited by Bearcat; 2nd Mar 2008 at 07:51.
Bearcat is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 07:35
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 56
What is the maximum wind velocity in which doors can be opened and slides can be deployed safely, without flying away on the A 320 series?
Out of FCOM:

Wind for passenger / cargo door operation :

Maximum wind for passenger door operation :
65 knots

Maximum wind for cargo door operation : 40 knots (or 50 knots, if the aircraft nose is oriented into the wind, or the cargo door is on the leeward side).

The cargo door must be closed, before the wind speed exceeds 65 knots.
149pax is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 08:06
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In a house
Age: 43
Posts: 136
And the maximum wind for slide deployment???
electricdeathjet is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 08:19
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
And the maximum wind for slide deployment???
I hate to be rude, but that is rather a silly question

Do you really think airlines are permitted to fly fare paying passengers in conditions were slide deployment is prohibited

Furthermore, I don't think anyone is suggesating the wind was out of limits are they? X-wind might have been factor, but not overall W/V...
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 08:51
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,486
I flown thousands of hours on the 733 and 319 and must say the rudder pedal input/travel required when removing max crosswind drift on the 319 is far less than the Boeing. The Bus rudder is extremely powerful. Too much of a "bootful" will result in a roll in the applied rudder direction. Also, unlike the Boeing, the Bus requires little or no into wind aileron input...provided the rudder input wasn't excessive. Crosswind landings on both types are not a problem provided the wind is in limits and the appropriate technique is utilised ie flare, look down the runway, remove drift gently, touchdown, reverse to taste, go to the pub.
Nightstop is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 09:03
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: bangkok
Posts: 85
Exclamation

ads1963 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 09:08
  #51 (permalink)  
F4F
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Nightstop agree on what on are saying... but there is no talk of steady xwind here. We are talking about rapid and effective corrections required due to factors as varied as gusts (evidently the case on this one), wake turbulence or, a problem that is becoming more and more common, building induced wortex.
In these cases the Bus doesn't score well.
Give us real control and we'll do real landings in real weather

live 2 fly 2 live
F4F is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 09:49
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: US
Posts: 72
It makes no difference to the flight path as when you are bouncing from one stop to the other all you are doing is exercising the stick, the aircraft can't react that fast!
Thanks for the advice but I was not hitting the stick from side to side. I was at the lateral limits trying to keep the wing from rising. Being one of my first trips out of the box and not a seasoned Airbus veteran it took me by surprise that it did not fly like an airplane in those conditions. (hold stick to keep wing down) The whole rate command issue with the AB in x-winds is a mental contest that is not intuitive unless you have drank from the French cup for quite some time. I spent 36 months on the bus and got off as soon as I could to go back to the Boeing. I miss the tray table and the quite cockpit but other than that it is a compromise airplane. It does a few things OK but nothing great and you have to be half a computer engineer to accomplish CB resets to trick fornicate the airplane into repairing itself. Certainly, don't miss the early morning departures with "1FD1" hidden on the PFD followed by the call to mtc and the goat roping exercise that followed to "fix" this issue.

Flying the 777 now and when the engines don't decide to quit there is hardly an issue. It just seems to work and does most everything very well. Too bad I don't hear the same from fellow pilots about ANY of the Airbus series of airplanes.
lambourne is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 09:51
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,486
OK F4F I agree that in the ideal world we'd like the aircraft to respond instantly to our control inputs when due to gusts the machine's not travelling in the direction we want, but is it really that important until you're actually in the flare? Until then I tend to let the aircraft "ride the waves" a bit and not fight every upset. When the flare and hold off for touchdown is in progress any upset that requires very large control inputs to correct must make one very go-around minded, because the aircraft simply isn't under full control.
Good point too about the increasing problem of building and tree induced low level vortices when the wind is blowing from certain directions, this is something that should be included in Route Manual special briefings eg Funchal runway 23
Nightstop is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 10:54
  #54 (permalink)  
Mistrust in Management
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 959
Lambourne

Thanks for the advice but I was not hitting the stick from side to side. I was at the lateral limits trying to keep the wing from rising. Being one of my first trips out of the box and not a seasoned Airbus veteran it took me by surprise that it did not fly like an airplane in those conditions. (hold stick to keep wing down)
That was exactly the scenario I was referring to in my earlier post. Not only did it not fly like a real aeroplane, but it certainly did not behave like the BA sim.

And like you it would have been nice if somebody had told us about these characteristics during the conversion course.


Regards
Exeng
exeng is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 11:44
  #55 (permalink)  
F4F
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
PKPF68-77 crosswind training in my orange airline is still accomplished using real ships for ab-initio or ex turbo prop pilots. As for experienced (> 2000 hrs) jet pilots converting from another airplane, the training is done entirely in the sim during the ZFFT.

Again stressing here the difference between a nice and steady crosswind, a breeze (pun intended) to train and land in, and gusty conditions in which the bus is a


live 2 fly 2 live
F4F is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 12:22
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,190
Any news on damage to the aircraft- is it back in service?
Did the crew get the rest of the day off to recover?

I dont remember so many scary rides in the days of Tridents & 1-11s, do modern commercial pressures tempt you more into "having a go" compared to the old days when a diversion was more likely-or is it modern aircraft are more robust & able to manage x wind landings better?
Mr A Tis is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 13:28
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Age: 54
Posts: 106
Whilst approaching Amsterdam recently I was offered the normal landing runway (90 degree 30kt wind) or the into wind runway, unlike many - I choose the x-wind runway.

Why ? The simple answer is although I've been flying Jets for nearly 20 years I have only been on my current type for 1 year and I want to know how the A/C reacts in that situation. As I normally do in rough weather the A/P and A/T was disconnected.

I'm not for one minute saying that this particular crew were out of practice but from my own perspective I don't want to experience on the limit x-wind weather without practising something not quite so bad first.

PKPF68-77.............for me the drive home is far more scarier than landing in rough weather.......I'll take the landing any day.
puddle-jumper2 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 14:13
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course
Posts: 2,104
PJ2

I wouldn't argue with you on that. Furthermore, places like AMS and CPH are good choices, imho, as the terrain is benign, and what you tend to get is just the 'pure' wind without the turbulent effects from local features.

The adage of practice makes perfect (or proficient) applies.
TopBunk is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 14:58
  #59 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: SFO
Age: 40
Posts: 63
Pictures of the damage here.

http://www.hamburg-airport-friends-f...hread.php?tid=763&pid=2607#pid2607

Last edited by JuniorMan; 2nd Mar 2008 at 16:40.
JuniorMan is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2008, 15:45
  #60 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,582
Not my idea of a fun day out!

Firstly, hats off to the guys for recovering from a very near disaster

I'm Airbus. Only ever flown the B737 sim. I can honestly say in 10 years and 7000 hours on the narrowbody Bus I have never hit the stops with the sidestick - and I've landed in some pretty strong x-winds (but probably not as strong as the LH guys!) Fly the approach crabbed, squeeze (not kick) the drift off, and a little into wind sidestick works (for me!)

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the roll control laws are different with CONF3 as opposed to FULL - hence the recommendation for F3 in gusty conditions (also less drag). If anyone can find a reference or proof of this I'd be grateful as I sometimes think I've imagined it.

Fly safe,

A4
A4 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.