flaps 3 landing A320 to save fuel
A4, you miss my point entirely with your ready and unnecessary sarcasm. Let me expand for you ; the company is at pains to secure as many commercial savings as possible which include the expedients of which you are familiar. It also chooses to put in it's cockpits, pilots with such ridiculously low experience (very cheap) that any fuel saving initiative is more than neutralized by their inability to fly the plane. At sub 200 total hours I too would have been clueless but equally there would have been no access, with good reason, to a commercial jet cockpit with such lack of experience when I started flying. If you are unable to see the erosion of flight safety and the shifting of risk through these initiatives and are unable to detect the difference in workload between a OETA and a OETD, perhaps you should continue drinking the coffee. As Captain I will continue to operate the aircraft as efficiently and as safely as my experience and ability allow, thank you.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Morning Los - I've had my coffee 
Yes I was being a little sarcastic - but purely on reflection of your "speed brake / rabbits dick" analogy which is dripping with sarcasm. Anyway....
A pilot is trained to the required standard to demonstrate, to a TRE (on behalf of the CAA), that he can operate the aircraft under normal and abnormal scenarios i.e. exercise the privilege of his/her A320 rating. They are then Line Trained to the specific Company procedures - excluding F3.
At the end of all this they are still UNCONSOLIDATED - as was I, you and every other pilot at some point in time. I fully accept that there is an increased level of risk (a decision taken WAY above our pay scale) - but then so are there with 6 sector days, 25 minute turn arounds and circling approaches but we train, adapt and develop. On a problem free day, three tonnes used to be "normal" landing fuel where as now it's typically circa two tonnes. Increased risk or adaptation to the realities of the commercial world we operate in? Aviation has changed and without exception now all major operators have low experience in the RHS - and you only improve experience through exposure.
You state that you don't do F3 or OETD because they are too risky - that's you're prerogative. I don't subscribe to the same attitude and will apply them when appropriate - that's what the company have requested and I see no issue with it. I can understand someone new to the LHS being reticent with F3/OETD which demonstrates good WLM/SA on their part. As they settle into the LHS they'll be more comfortable and have the increased capacity required to incorporate these procedures when appropriate.
No one is FORCED to do any of these APPROVED procedures but there are some who will sit, arms folded, with a "No, no, no" attitude which I find puzzling for a Professional pilot.
You sign off with....
.....which I can only commend you for
Yes I was being a little sarcastic - but purely on reflection of your "speed brake / rabbits dick" analogy which is dripping with sarcasm. Anyway....
A pilot is trained to the required standard to demonstrate, to a TRE (on behalf of the CAA), that he can operate the aircraft under normal and abnormal scenarios i.e. exercise the privilege of his/her A320 rating. They are then Line Trained to the specific Company procedures - excluding F3.
At the end of all this they are still UNCONSOLIDATED - as was I, you and every other pilot at some point in time. I fully accept that there is an increased level of risk (a decision taken WAY above our pay scale) - but then so are there with 6 sector days, 25 minute turn arounds and circling approaches but we train, adapt and develop. On a problem free day, three tonnes used to be "normal" landing fuel where as now it's typically circa two tonnes. Increased risk or adaptation to the realities of the commercial world we operate in? Aviation has changed and without exception now all major operators have low experience in the RHS - and you only improve experience through exposure.
You state that you don't do F3 or OETD because they are too risky - that's you're prerogative. I don't subscribe to the same attitude and will apply them when appropriate - that's what the company have requested and I see no issue with it. I can understand someone new to the LHS being reticent with F3/OETD which demonstrates good WLM/SA on their part. As they settle into the LHS they'll be more comfortable and have the increased capacity required to incorporate these procedures when appropriate.
No one is FORCED to do any of these APPROVED procedures but there are some who will sit, arms folded, with a "No, no, no" attitude which I find puzzling for a Professional pilot.
You sign off with....
As Captain I will continue to operate the aircraft as efficiently and as safely as my experience and ability allow, thank you
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have 3500 recent PIC in the 319-321. There is some stuff I don't like, but after going "back" to the NG737, the scarebus is a dream. The 800 (320) equivalent lands at speeds that are more normal for the 321. The 900 is so tail strike happy they increased the approach speeds massively (above 150 lots of times), to reduce the pitch attitude on landing.
Flaps 3 or full on the bus? Use your best judgement first, and company SOP second. Then thank bejesus you aren't flying a super guppy.
BTW I like all Boeings better than a 320, but the 737. P.O. S.
Flaps 3 or full on the bus? Use your best judgement first, and company SOP second. Then thank bejesus you aren't flying a super guppy.
BTW I like all Boeings better than a 320, but the 737. P.O. S.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel saving on AIRBUS
Ref. AIRBUS document "Landing in CONF 3 – Use of reversers"
www.merrowresidents.org.uk/pprune/Conf3.ppt
The document is not clear about if the data comparing flap 3/full landings, are being done fully stabilized from e.g. 3000`, or are decelerated approaches, with final flap setting being set at 1500`. Any pprune`r that has that information ?
Also, do any of you have information on the increased brake + tire wear from using the higher landing speeds ?
And last, which is not referenced to the above document :
Any of you have data on fuel saving :
using single-pack during taxi
using 1000`/1000` (thrust reduction/acceleration
not having extended landing lights up to/from 10000`
www.merrowresidents.org.uk/pprune/Conf3.ppt
The document is not clear about if the data comparing flap 3/full landings, are being done fully stabilized from e.g. 3000`, or are decelerated approaches, with final flap setting being set at 1500`. Any pprune`r that has that information ?
Also, do any of you have information on the increased brake + tire wear from using the higher landing speeds ?
And last, which is not referenced to the above document :
Any of you have data on fuel saving :
using single-pack during taxi
using 1000`/1000` (thrust reduction/acceleration
not having extended landing lights up to/from 10000`
Last edited by jaja; 24th Jun 2013 at 08:58.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: VXXX
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although line experience has shown me that F3 results in greasers if the right technique is used, Airbus has something else to say regarding "quality of touchdown".
From PRO-SUP-27-20 P 4/6
"fairly flat" - I'm guessing something close to 0° but I'm not really sure.
I am for using F3 whenever conditions permit, but I'd like for this technique to be covered in the simulators to build confidence among pilots to use F3.
Just adding another angle to this (already interesting) discussion.
From PRO-SUP-27-20 P 4/6
"fairly flat" - I'm guessing something close to 0° but I'm not really sure.
I am for using F3 whenever conditions permit, but I'd like for this technique to be covered in the simulators to build confidence among pilots to use F3.
Just adding another angle to this (already interesting) discussion.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: equatorial side of the Polar Jet
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4 and other experienced A320 drivers
Thanks for your insights..and delicious sarcasm on this thread..even the humour platter is a learning note for some of us who have done the type rating on this marvel of an aircraft.
I wish to pose a question that I apologise in advance for if it seems without much substance to some of you...but I just wish to learn more than I did in the box 3 years ago. The issue of FF and F3 with respect to inexperiece...! Please A4, (without perturbing your coffee mug!) Can you kindly elucidate in what respect a recently trained A320 type rated pilot who met all the requisite standards to pass a rigorous simulator training having covered all the different configurations of landing in normal and abnormal conditions will be disadvantaged to carry out a F3 config approach? Surely all that is required is to allow for a slightly longer approach planning ahead to decelerate early and stabilized by the IMC/VMC stabilization decision altitudes of 1000' and 500' respectivelly?Additionally more awareness to prevent a tail strike during the flare is the only other major consideration I know when landing F3 on the bus. I found, personaly,the A320 an easier plane to learn to fly than the previous heavy turboprops and smaller jets I had trained on due to high level of automation assistance...even in hand flying mode.For me the workload between using F3 and FF was not necessarily additional..I just had to anticipate a different technique and apply it as the SOP dictated.Am I missing something gents?
I wish to pose a question that I apologise in advance for if it seems without much substance to some of you...but I just wish to learn more than I did in the box 3 years ago. The issue of FF and F3 with respect to inexperiece...! Please A4, (without perturbing your coffee mug!) Can you kindly elucidate in what respect a recently trained A320 type rated pilot who met all the requisite standards to pass a rigorous simulator training having covered all the different configurations of landing in normal and abnormal conditions will be disadvantaged to carry out a F3 config approach? Surely all that is required is to allow for a slightly longer approach planning ahead to decelerate early and stabilized by the IMC/VMC stabilization decision altitudes of 1000' and 500' respectivelly?Additionally more awareness to prevent a tail strike during the flare is the only other major consideration I know when landing F3 on the bus. I found, personaly,the A320 an easier plane to learn to fly than the previous heavy turboprops and smaller jets I had trained on due to high level of automation assistance...even in hand flying mode.For me the workload between using F3 and FF was not necessarily additional..I just had to anticipate a different technique and apply it as the SOP dictated.Am I missing something gents?
Last edited by Trackdiamond; 21st Oct 2013 at 07:13.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Asia
Age: 49
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello TD ill take a bite here as l'd like to get a consensus as well,
Been flying the bus family for 7 years and this is what i think of each variant.
320 : config 3 in turbulent and gusty landings and high developing sink rates laned me at uncomfortable pitch rates and attitudes with pitch auto-callout
Since then ive become reluctant to use this config.
I can feel there is no response from the auto-thrust to the energy requirement.
I've found these type of landings much more comfortable using manual thrust,
I can control sink rate with thrust and maintain energy below 30 feet when airspeed is no longer in the scan.
321 config 3 landings are nice and smooth and even better in manual thrust.
Id like to hear more opinions or critique. Thank you.
Been flying the bus family for 7 years and this is what i think of each variant.
320 : config 3 in turbulent and gusty landings and high developing sink rates laned me at uncomfortable pitch rates and attitudes with pitch auto-callout
Since then ive become reluctant to use this config.
I can feel there is no response from the auto-thrust to the energy requirement.
I've found these type of landings much more comfortable using manual thrust,
I can control sink rate with thrust and maintain energy below 30 feet when airspeed is no longer in the scan.
321 config 3 landings are nice and smooth and even better in manual thrust.
Id like to hear more opinions or critique. Thank you.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not far from the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Orion Arm.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. If flap3 landing required more skill and is unsafe in any manner why is it recommended in expected wind shear conditions?
2. In A320 all abnormal situations except few where option is given, Flap3 is mandatory. If Flap Full has better control then why not use flap full in difficult conditions.
3. Reduced safety margin. Yes Landing distance reduced by 80 mtrs. with Auto brake medium. But would anynbody land in Flap3 with critical LDA?
4. Tail strike possibility. In A320 you would require combination of less speed, high flare, long float and not Flap3 alone.This is bad way to land anyway.
5. Flap3 landing Difficult to teach 300 hrs pilot. It won't be easy in Flap full either. In general some pilots need lot more landings to get the control of proper landings. These pilots have same difficulty executing even Flap Full landings.
2. In A320 all abnormal situations except few where option is given, Flap3 is mandatory. If Flap Full has better control then why not use flap full in difficult conditions.
3. Reduced safety margin. Yes Landing distance reduced by 80 mtrs. with Auto brake medium. But would anynbody land in Flap3 with critical LDA?
4. Tail strike possibility. In A320 you would require combination of less speed, high flare, long float and not Flap3 alone.This is bad way to land anyway.
5. Flap3 landing Difficult to teach 300 hrs pilot. It won't be easy in Flap full either. In general some pilots need lot more landings to get the control of proper landings. These pilots have same difficulty executing even Flap Full landings.
1/. Would you prefer flaps 3 or full if you suddenly encountered windshear - note your answer answers this question.
2/. In certain conditions of `some` failures then flaps 3 affords a more stable aircraft, and in some cases better attitude in these conditions. Also, if `difficult conditions` equals strong winds / crosswinds combined with low level and surface turb then a lower flap setting rather than a higher flap setting is often preferred in most aircraft. but you know this already.
3/. No.
4/. Especially an A320 - agreed.
5/. Once the `trainee/pilot` is trained to land in a configuration on profile in `normal` conditions, s/he will continue to land in those conditions.
A C150 pilot of thousands of hours on C150s, was given the task of eyeballing an approach `after being briefed` speeds to distance profile - The C150 pilot landed it every time - in the sim. Each time was a flaps full landing.
Vilas, sorry, I got your drift.
I have a question and a point - they are unrelated, with a risk of thread drifting a little bit.
1/. With regard to having to manually trim the A320 family: When this situation arises - how does one "identify the loads" on the stick if there is no feed/feelback - or is there . . .? If there were no feedback then how can one possibly determine how much trim to lash on. [I do it without thinking, but say, after takeoff in other type, I find myself winding forward the trim to keep it in the . . climbing attitude . . as the speed increases, from the feel through the control column. (That was the question)
2/. I have found in other aircraft that if landing with flaps 3 or their equivalent then . . .it is all doa-able of course, but, but, if a flaps full ( or drag flap if you prefer) landing is chosen then the touchdown is a) +ive, less float, more precise [i.e., you can determine more accurately where you are going to plonk the wheels down] - ok, I mean, guys of your calibre can put the tyres on the tarmac where you want in ANY configuration, given the challenge to do so with minor inherent penalities like, faster, slower, harder, shallower, whatev-er . . and my point is . . .? The more one goes for the Flaps Full at x miles from the TH the more "in a stable box" it feels . . ? (Do you see my point?) None of this applies to non-normal ops. . . well, it does, but it shouldn`t.
Quote:
(personally, if there is any tailwind on the approach I simply don't do F3
and yes of course, a tail wind component
Although I prefer this, FFull being a rote flyer, I also realise it has it probs, like: going around, power up and [spending extra seconds] getting rid of the drag to F3 before any climb perf can be expected.
If you select full tooo early then the neighbours complain and the fuel goes down the pan.
If a sudden orbit is/was required (extremely unlikely) then it would be more favourable with a 3 set than a full.
`from little rotes, mighty yokes do grow`
@ John Smith
I'd say Conf3 can safely be classified as a standard operating procdure in our outfit.
That said, my preference is for Conf Full.
That said, my preference is for Conf Full.
Last edited by Natstrackalpha; 28th Oct 2013 at 20:19.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand someone new to the LHS being reticent with F3/OETD which demonstrates good WLM/SA on their part. As they settle into the LHS they'll be more comfortable and have the increased capacity required to incorporate these procedures when appropriate.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nats
I raised those questions to highlight that the objections to flap3 landing were voiced without giving much thought. In any aircraft flap full landing is more difficult because full flap position is almost all drag. It requires higher pressure on control column to change the attitude needs more judgement to arrest the higher sink rate. Flap3 requires less flare and therefore easier to judge and execute. This is the reason most abnormal landings are in flap3.Words used by Airbus are "not to degrade handling quality". To look at it otherway if inexperienced guys were trained for Flap3 landings from the begining they will find it more difficult to do flap full landing.
I raised those questions to highlight that the objections to flap3 landing were voiced without giving much thought. In any aircraft flap full landing is more difficult because full flap position is almost all drag. It requires higher pressure on control column to change the attitude needs more judgement to arrest the higher sink rate. Flap3 requires less flare and therefore easier to judge and execute. This is the reason most abnormal landings are in flap3.Words used by Airbus are "not to degrade handling quality". To look at it otherway if inexperienced guys were trained for Flap3 landings from the begining they will find it more difficult to do flap full landing.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vilas: I disagree with your premise that flaps full landings are more difficult. In any aircraft you should be trimmed for the configuration you are in. On the Airbus that function is done for you by the auto trim system. No extra effort is needed to move the controls, be it stick or yoke.
Flaps three is used for abnormals due more to less drag for single engine go arounds and second segment climb gradient requirements. In Direct Law it is necessary to manually trim. Flaps three allows for less trimming and a better chance at a stabilized approach.
Flaps full provides greater tail strike protection clearance on the 319 and 320 and only .5 degree less than config 3. I use flaps full on the 321. I want the extra drag and lower speeds on touchdown. The difference is 21 degrees flap angle versus 25 degrees. I'll use that extra few degrees.
Flaps three is used for abnormals due more to less drag for single engine go arounds and second segment climb gradient requirements. In Direct Law it is necessary to manually trim. Flaps three allows for less trimming and a better chance at a stabilized approach.
Flaps full provides greater tail strike protection clearance on the 319 and 320 and only .5 degree less than config 3. I use flaps full on the 321. I want the extra drag and lower speeds on touchdown. The difference is 21 degrees flap angle versus 25 degrees. I'll use that extra few degrees.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cactus
Nobody does an approach without of trimming. Airbus does it automatically so it is easier. You can do landing in any flap setting or without for that matter. Difficult word I used relatively and for less experienced pilots.In Airbus stick forces are light but that is not the case in other aircraft. If you find full flap landing easy then flap3 is easier.That is precisely my point, and What single engine go round are you talking about? A320 you do full flap landing with OEI. It meets all requirements. 321 has tail strike issues but not 320. All these points have been covered before.
Nobody does an approach without of trimming. Airbus does it automatically so it is easier. You can do landing in any flap setting or without for that matter. Difficult word I used relatively and for less experienced pilots.In Airbus stick forces are light but that is not the case in other aircraft. If you find full flap landing easy then flap3 is easier.That is precisely my point, and What single engine go round are you talking about? A320 you do full flap landing with OEI. It meets all requirements. 321 has tail strike issues but not 320. All these points have been covered before.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do our single engine approaches in config 3. For a SE go around we move one notch up, I.e., config2. The only time you use config full single engine is if you are doing an auto land in a 320. 321s and 319s can auto land config 3 or full.
Airbus SOPs call for Config Full landings preferred, but 3 is permissible. The only time I use config 3 in normal ops is if I have a long runway where I don't need to make an early turn off, or I have a possible windshear situation.
I have been flying pic on the 320 family for almost 20 years, with a 6 year break flying the 757.
Airbus SOPs call for Config Full landings preferred, but 3 is permissible. The only time I use config 3 in normal ops is if I have a long runway where I don't need to make an early turn off, or I have a possible windshear situation.
I have been flying pic on the 320 family for almost 20 years, with a 6 year break flying the 757.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Cactus,
Seems like the flaps 3 is the same as flaps 30 and full as flaps 40 on the b737.
When using full flaps,do you feel the extra lateral sensitivity(ie same input higher roll rate) via the sidestick?
Seems like the flaps 3 is the same as flaps 30 and full as flaps 40 on the b737.
When using full flaps,do you feel the extra lateral sensitivity(ie same input higher roll rate) via the sidestick?
Last edited by de facto; 23rd Oct 2013 at 05:30.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Now at Home
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRBUS says in one of it's books (will post the source once I find it again)
NORMAL LANDING CONFIG IS CONFIG FULL
So nothing more to add. This flaps 3 stuff for just a "normal ldg" IMHO is "Kindergarten-technique", not even worth to name it "procedure", but maybe flaps 3 for normal ldg is a so called
Stupid-Operating-Procedure
NORMAL LANDING CONFIG IS CONFIG FULL
So nothing more to add. This flaps 3 stuff for just a "normal ldg" IMHO is "Kindergarten-technique", not even worth to name it "procedure", but maybe flaps 3 for normal ldg is a so called
Stupid-Operating-Procedure
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Defacto: No, there is no difference in roll rate. Because of the flight control laws roll feels the same in either configuration. Flap angle for config 3 is 20 degrees for all 3 models in the 320 series. Flaps full is 40 on the 319, 35 on the 320 and 25(!) on the 321. Landing config 3 is like landing flaps 20 in the 757 or 737.
We have had issues with our East based flight crews tail striking the 321 over the last few years. We have had a lot of read file items and handouts placed in our mailboxes because of improper flare technique and poor energy management. Somehow the east pilots have gotten the idea that landing with power on and not flaring is the way to land a 321. The subsequent bounce proves that theory wrong. The opposite is also happening, they pull power too soon and pitch up past 7.5 degrees where they get the "Pitch" warning callout. We have had zero tail strikes for PHX based crews (there are 1200 airbus plots based here), not sure why our technique has evolved differently from theirs. We mostly use flaps full landings and only do config 3 for abnormals or proficiency.
We have had issues with our East based flight crews tail striking the 321 over the last few years. We have had a lot of read file items and handouts placed in our mailboxes because of improper flare technique and poor energy management. Somehow the east pilots have gotten the idea that landing with power on and not flaring is the way to land a 321. The subsequent bounce proves that theory wrong. The opposite is also happening, they pull power too soon and pitch up past 7.5 degrees where they get the "Pitch" warning callout. We have had zero tail strikes for PHX based crews (there are 1200 airbus plots based here), not sure why our technique has evolved differently from theirs. We mostly use flaps full landings and only do config 3 for abnormals or proficiency.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nowhere near Shinbone Waterhole
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mob's OM says flap full is normal - but flap 3 is
available at command discretion.
Economy is last on my priority list but during normal
ops and if the more important boxes are ticked, then
yes I'll consider the lower landing flap setting taking
into account any tailwinds, preferred runway exit etc
etc etc.
Airports with NA app - (eg BKK) - require flap 3 in
normal ops (lowest selectable landing flap).
(Why Bangkok I dunno, given the city and suburbs
combined is one big bloody noise factory anyway).
available at command discretion.
Economy is last on my priority list but during normal
ops and if the more important boxes are ticked, then
yes I'll consider the lower landing flap setting taking
into account any tailwinds, preferred runway exit etc
etc etc.
Airports with NA app - (eg BKK) - require flap 3 in
normal ops (lowest selectable landing flap).
(Why Bangkok I dunno, given the city and suburbs
combined is one big bloody noise factory anyway).
Ut Sementem Feeceris
@TrackDiamond.
The points you mention are all valid.
The main considerations regarding F3/FF with a newly qualified 'Bus driver is essentially not running before you can walk. It is better to consolidate a "standard" technique, get comfortable with it and be familiar with the attitudes/perspectives/power settings etc before moving on. The transition to F3 is not a massive step - but why rush? Get comfortable with FF first.
For those not familiar......there are three main areas to deal with.
Firstly the visual perspective out the window is subtly different. The A319/320 reduces pitch attitude by about 2 degrees as Flap Full runs. A newly qualified pilot needs to get familiar with a "standard" picture out of the window to allow them to concentrate on flying a stable profile, towards the aiming point and then flaring, with a consistent technique, from a known attitude. FF with more drag and associated higher N1 also provides a much more stable platform to achieve this. With F3, the runway sits a lot "lower" (less fields between the nose and the runway) in the visual picture due to the higher pitch attitude - so flare technique needs to be adjusted accordingly.
As someone has already mentioned the 'bus is a lot more slippery in F3 compared to FF which obviously results in less thrust requirement (circa 43% N1). The different "picture", coupled with the lower power gives a much more "unstable" feeling to the approach. If there is minimal headwind component this exacerbates the issues (personally, if there is any tailwind on the approach I simply don't do F3).
Finally the flare is modified because the aircraft pitch attitude is higher - same technique of looking to the end if the runway - but remember the aircraft is "half flared" so a standard flare input on the sidestick will result in a float.......and yes, there is a greater risk of tailstrike.
The points you mention are all valid.
The main considerations regarding F3/FF with a newly qualified 'Bus driver is essentially not running before you can walk. It is better to consolidate a "standard" technique, get comfortable with it and be familiar with the attitudes/perspectives/power settings etc before moving on. The transition to F3 is not a massive step - but why rush? Get comfortable with FF first.
For those not familiar......there are three main areas to deal with.
Firstly the visual perspective out the window is subtly different. The A319/320 reduces pitch attitude by about 2 degrees as Flap Full runs. A newly qualified pilot needs to get familiar with a "standard" picture out of the window to allow them to concentrate on flying a stable profile, towards the aiming point and then flaring, with a consistent technique, from a known attitude. FF with more drag and associated higher N1 also provides a much more stable platform to achieve this. With F3, the runway sits a lot "lower" (less fields between the nose and the runway) in the visual picture due to the higher pitch attitude - so flare technique needs to be adjusted accordingly.
As someone has already mentioned the 'bus is a lot more slippery in F3 compared to FF which obviously results in less thrust requirement (circa 43% N1). The different "picture", coupled with the lower power gives a much more "unstable" feeling to the approach. If there is minimal headwind component this exacerbates the issues (personally, if there is any tailwind on the approach I simply don't do F3).
Finally the flare is modified because the aircraft pitch attitude is higher - same technique of looking to the end if the runway - but remember the aircraft is "half flared" so a standard flare input on the sidestick will result in a float.......and yes, there is a greater risk of tailstrike.