A320 how to save this landing
Guest
Posts: n/a
Greetings
It is not the first one and not the last hard landing you shall experience.
Next time verify, Wind given by Tower, and compare with wind displayed on your ND if the difference is important then monitor your speed, because if the wind drops by X Kts, so will your speed , have a look at your C of G if it is Forward then Flare a bit higher.
It is not the first one and not the last hard landing you shall experience.
Next time verify, Wind given by Tower, and compare with wind displayed on your ND if the difference is important then monitor your speed, because if the wind drops by X Kts, so will your speed , have a look at your C of G if it is Forward then Flare a bit higher.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: France
Age: 47
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have noticed that the A320 flies very bad in tail wind . A321 flies much better in that condition and is more stable.
As for the 320 with a Tail wind adding few knots to your Vapp will help the aircraft fly better , you would have more lift and better control for the flare .
In Leaving the Vapp "incorrected " and retarding at the Retard call will definitely result in a positive or sometimes a high g landing.
Now If you see that the aircraft starts sinking and that controls are sluggish and not really responsive . The only way to recover is :
Disconnect the Auto thrust in the "wrong way " . I mean Leave the Thrust lever in Climb and Disconnect the Auto-trust using the instinctive red button and then immediately Retard.
By doing so , Thrust would start to increase on its way to Climb thrust and stop the pitch down moment , then immediately followed by retard .
So these 2 actions are almost done in the same time: disconnect Auto thrust and Retard "
Excuse me Captain "fly indigo" but retarding when your aircraft starts sinking is poor airmanship and this could lead to a tail strike and high G landings
What I have just described above , is not an airbus procedure but common sense is not written in the FCOM.
A 737 pilot would simply increase the thrust when his aircraft starts sinking during the flare so airbus pilots should not forget basic jet flying skills.
As for the 320 with a Tail wind adding few knots to your Vapp will help the aircraft fly better , you would have more lift and better control for the flare .
In Leaving the Vapp "incorrected " and retarding at the Retard call will definitely result in a positive or sometimes a high g landing.
Now If you see that the aircraft starts sinking and that controls are sluggish and not really responsive . The only way to recover is :
Disconnect the Auto thrust in the "wrong way " . I mean Leave the Thrust lever in Climb and Disconnect the Auto-trust using the instinctive red button and then immediately Retard.
By doing so , Thrust would start to increase on its way to Climb thrust and stop the pitch down moment , then immediately followed by retard .
So these 2 actions are almost done in the same time: disconnect Auto thrust and Retard "
Excuse me Captain "fly indigo" but retarding when your aircraft starts sinking is poor airmanship and this could lead to a tail strike and high G landings
What I have just described above , is not an airbus procedure but common sense is not written in the FCOM.
A 737 pilot would simply increase the thrust when his aircraft starts sinking during the flare so airbus pilots should not forget basic jet flying skills.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: castle in the sky
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G/S mini and A/THR
Hello guys.
I found this thread today so I must be a little bit late to cut in but I can’t resist. Because it is quite interesting subject and As an newbie in airbus operation( I just have been in Beoing for more than decade before moved into airbus) I also feel little bit strange and twisted feeling to adopt in Airbus system.
First of all, I totally agree that manual flight with manual thrust is better choice than lagging A/THR chasing behind IAS which make more turmoil on gusty wind.
But I’m confusing that I found some strange comment in Training manual. I have genuine Airbus Training manual (REF No. U0T25TI ). And it says “Use of A/THR is recommended during the entire flight” in section 01.030, APR 11/07,page 11of 17. It doesn’t make any difference in my company’s TRM.
I also know that each company can establish its own policy for A/P, A/T usage. But why Airbus does say “Use of A/THR is recommended during the entire flight” in thierTRM?
Since I don’t know Capt. Indigo’s situation, I can’t insist use manual thrust. It can be more serious problem if his company wants to blame someone, instead of finding cause for high G landing. You guys know what I mean.
I also got confusing on G/S mini protection. The reason for G/S mini in Airbus defined by “Keeping certain amount of energy during approach” but…what the hell is that mean? Does airplane fly on aerodynamics regardless of G/S?
When I was flying Boeing, I always keep IAS between Vref to Vref + 15kts( depending on report tower wind).
What if…Hmm…A/TRH keep G/S mini in tailwind situation? The power should be keep minimum to maintain Vls (it must be same around G/S mini). On reverse, in head wind situation the power should increase to keep G/S mini (because headwind will slow A/C G/S without increasing power and IAS .)
What about Capt. Indigo’s case?
He told us that He got steady tailwind ( Can I assume that he just got tailwind not gusty wind?) until 50ft then sudden loss of tailwind. If we apply theoretically…..power should be increase until he cut the thrust lever to idle( nose goes up for flare and G/S decrease against head wind)
I’m not sure but can it be better? ..in… a little bit late retraction to idle power can help high G ROD?
Anyway Theory is not always a perfect answer for real life.
Please give me some light if anybody can explain G/S mini and A/THR power management on landing.
I like to try manual thrust with manual landing. But I’m afraid because Airbus A/THR reaction is much behind of Beoing A/Throttle, and the length of A/THR movement is much shorter than Beoing, It must be not easy maintain precise target speed in gusty wind.
So here is my expression of respect to airbus expert on manual thrust. Please share the secret.
Happy flight and happy landings to you guys.
I found this thread today so I must be a little bit late to cut in but I can’t resist. Because it is quite interesting subject and As an newbie in airbus operation( I just have been in Beoing for more than decade before moved into airbus) I also feel little bit strange and twisted feeling to adopt in Airbus system.
First of all, I totally agree that manual flight with manual thrust is better choice than lagging A/THR chasing behind IAS which make more turmoil on gusty wind.
But I’m confusing that I found some strange comment in Training manual. I have genuine Airbus Training manual (REF No. U0T25TI ). And it says “Use of A/THR is recommended during the entire flight” in section 01.030, APR 11/07,page 11of 17. It doesn’t make any difference in my company’s TRM.
I also know that each company can establish its own policy for A/P, A/T usage. But why Airbus does say “Use of A/THR is recommended during the entire flight” in thierTRM?
Since I don’t know Capt. Indigo’s situation, I can’t insist use manual thrust. It can be more serious problem if his company wants to blame someone, instead of finding cause for high G landing. You guys know what I mean.
I also got confusing on G/S mini protection. The reason for G/S mini in Airbus defined by “Keeping certain amount of energy during approach” but…what the hell is that mean? Does airplane fly on aerodynamics regardless of G/S?
When I was flying Boeing, I always keep IAS between Vref to Vref + 15kts( depending on report tower wind).
What if…Hmm…A/TRH keep G/S mini in tailwind situation? The power should be keep minimum to maintain Vls (it must be same around G/S mini). On reverse, in head wind situation the power should increase to keep G/S mini (because headwind will slow A/C G/S without increasing power and IAS .)
What about Capt. Indigo’s case?
He told us that He got steady tailwind ( Can I assume that he just got tailwind not gusty wind?) until 50ft then sudden loss of tailwind. If we apply theoretically…..power should be increase until he cut the thrust lever to idle( nose goes up for flare and G/S decrease against head wind)
I’m not sure but can it be better? ..in… a little bit late retraction to idle power can help high G ROD?
Anyway Theory is not always a perfect answer for real life.
Please give me some light if anybody can explain G/S mini and A/THR power management on landing.
I like to try manual thrust with manual landing. But I’m afraid because Airbus A/THR reaction is much behind of Beoing A/Throttle, and the length of A/THR movement is much shorter than Beoing, It must be not easy maintain precise target speed in gusty wind.
So here is my expression of respect to airbus expert on manual thrust. Please share the secret.
Happy flight and happy landings to you guys.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever caused this problem, I doubt it's down to differential ROD. IFLY INDIGO says he was 700 ft/min with a tailwind of 8kt on a 3° GS. That equates to a ground speed of 135 kts, if I am doing my arithmetic right (3° is about 1 in 19, and 1kt is about 100ft/min), which means AS of 127 kts, so Vapp was 127 kts for him. Still wind, GS 3°, Vapp 127 kts yields ROD of 660 ft/min.
The difference, 40 ft/min, is not by itself enough to have a crunch almost to inspection levels. And lift when the tailwind went would have been increased, so some of this 40 ft/min difference would have been compensated.
PBL
The difference, 40 ft/min, is not by itself enough to have a crunch almost to inspection levels. And lift when the tailwind went would have been increased, so some of this 40 ft/min difference would have been compensated.
PBL
