320 Overweight landing query

[zeus_737]

I'm jus curious... according to the Overweight landing procedure it clearly states that incase of any config other than full if used for landing... incase of go around... flaps for go around will be 1+f... as oppose to one step up
I've got a couple of explanation... not covinced with the same...

Any one got something???

[Cityliner]

This is only necessary on the A321 to gain a better go around performance.
In order to offer a standard procedure for the A320 Familiy this applies also for A319/320 Aircrafts.

[DC9gti]

The reason could be there is not a big difference between the V2 for configs 3, 2 & 1+F and flying at Vref we are very close to them, if not above. In the other hand the slat position for configs 2 & 3 is the same. Going around in config 1+F would give us better climb performance due to the loss of drag.

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by Cityliner

This is only necessary on the A321 to gain a better go around performance. In order to offer a standard procedure for the A320 Familiy this applies also for A319/320 Aircrafts.

Is there a reference to this somwhere, pls?

FD (the un-real)

[Cityliner]

Let me search in my books. But I am 100% sure about that because we corrected our QRH less than 12 month ago and the change of the overweight list was a briefing topic for our sim refresher.
I'll post it when I find it.

[FlightDetent]

Originally Posted by Cityliner

we corrected our QRH less than 12 month ago and the change of the overweight list was a briefing topic for our sim refresher

Strange, my OW C/L (fcom 3) is Airbus REV38 and the list of revisions indicates it had been issued SEP 2004 and no revisions to 1+F procedure had been made at that time. Our's are CFM, ?

[FlightDetent]

For the record: FCTM (my bolding):

TThe crew will elect the landing configuration according to the "maximum weight for go-around in CONF 3" table provided both in QRH and in FCOM:

. If aircraft weight is below the maximum weight for go-around in CONF 3, landing will be performed CONF full (and go-around CONF 3) as it is the preferred configuration for optimized landing performance
. If aircraft weight is above the maximum weight for go-around in CONF 3, landing will be performed CONF 3 (and go-around CONF 1+F). The CONF 1+F meets the approach climb gradient requirement in all cases (high weights, high altitude and temperature).

If a go-around CONF 1+F is carried out following an approach CONF3, VLS CONF 1+F may be higher than VLS CONF3+5 kt. The recommendation in such a case is to follow SRS orders which will accelerate the aircraft up to the displayed VLS. It should be noted, however, that VLS CONF 1+F equates to 1.23 VS1g whereas the minimum go-around speed required by regulations is 1.13 VS1g. This requirement is always satisfied.

Perhaps there is no such thing as reason to it. Maybe all G-As can be flown in 1+F and it also gives a better climb gradient. As the performance may be limiting in certain case when overwight, the procedure designer decided to keep it simple and mandate 1+F for all grossly overweight CF3(2,1,0) go-arounds, maybe even to spread it across different 32S family members.

[Cityliner]

As we are only flying A320s we were probably a bit late reviding our QRH!
I will call our Trainings Departement tommorrow, I bet the A321 Climb Performance was the limiting factor and the reason for this change.
Someone has a Document older than 2004?

[OutOfRunWay]

I shall dig in my cellar. With a bit of luck I may have stuff dating as far back as the early 90s