flaps 3 landing A320 to save fuel
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Not At Home
Posts: 2,448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would give away my dirty secrets.
But in seriousness, it's a nearly all 320 base and we fly to places with inevitable tail winds, so the tail strike risk is perceived as higher and so people don't usually take up the opportunity.
But in seriousness, it's a nearly all 320 base and we fly to places with inevitable tail winds, so the tail strike risk is perceived as higher and so people don't usually take up the opportunity.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United States of Europe
Age: 40
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quoted figures are a statistical saving. The breakeven distances are nonsense and do not take into account the cost of time, only the cost of fuel. Nor do they take into account the cost of exiting the runway at 90deg vs RET (lower speed and NW wear). So they are a very rough guide. Just apply some common-sense!
Speaking about common sense.
Some people will spend more than a minute thinking about their landing flaps but in the meantime will funnily enough:
-fly a CDA with F2 VS-300 and thrust up
-use speedbrakes inefficiently or ask for/fly more trackmiles than necessary
-slow down/configure too early
-follow the managed descent profile religiously despite winds and or speed-profile being incorrect
-decline a visual approach
It surprises me to see the amount of people that are declining visual approaches whilst this is where the real fuelsavings can be made, and they are more fun to do as well. Have to agree with sarah737 here.
I understand that F3 landings save fuel vs Full landings when carefully considered but the saving is insignificant when compared to some of the stuff I´ve described.
Speaking about common sense.
Some people will spend more than a minute thinking about their landing flaps but in the meantime will funnily enough:
-fly a CDA with F2 VS-300 and thrust up
-use speedbrakes inefficiently or ask for/fly more trackmiles than necessary
-slow down/configure too early
-follow the managed descent profile religiously despite winds and or speed-profile being incorrect
-decline a visual approach
It surprises me to see the amount of people that are declining visual approaches whilst this is where the real fuelsavings can be made, and they are more fun to do as well. Have to agree with sarah737 here.
I understand that F3 landings save fuel vs Full landings when carefully considered but the saving is insignificant when compared to some of the stuff I´ve described.
Last edited by OPEN DES; 4th Jun 2013 at 02:22.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember seeing a presentation by Airbus on savings by using Idle Rev and F3.
The conclusion was that it made sense to use F3 only in conjunction with LO BRK/IDLE REV. Anything more than that and F3 fuel savings will be offset by REV fuel consumption and/or increased brake wear. Surprisingly, the presentation stated that using FULL REV didn't affect engine wear - only used some extra fuel (~20kg IIRC)
The conclusion was that it made sense to use F3 only in conjunction with LO BRK/IDLE REV. Anything more than that and F3 fuel savings will be offset by REV fuel consumption and/or increased brake wear. Surprisingly, the presentation stated that using FULL REV didn't affect engine wear - only used some extra fuel (~20kg IIRC)
Last edited by Stuck_in_an_ATR; 4th Jun 2013 at 06:35.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi EcamSurprise,
I've never heard of that one.
What's the FCOM reference?
Some of our A320s have the new logic which will "protect" the aircraft, and forces the nose down when on the ground and a pitch pitch has been received
What's the FCOM reference?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard a rumour that you orange guys and gals are doing 250kt descents? If so are you being vectored for extra track miles to allow faster (most) traffic to overtake and thereby negating any fuel savings from your F3 landings or do you just chug along in front of the pack and everyone else has to fall in line with the slower speeds (if true)?
Nope it hasn't changed for a few years. 270 in the decent or greater if required by ATC. Cost index 5 creeping in on a few routes and many times I'm being asked to speed up from .71 to .78 burning more fuel than calculated.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Stuck_in_an_ATR,
This link http://www.cockpitseeker.com/wp-cont...tionIssue2.pdf
Page 27 shows a fuel saving of 8 kgs for a F3 Landing plus 15kgs for Rev idle.
We'll never manage to do a 100% efficient flight every time, but all the simple bits add up.
I remember seeing a presentation by Airbus on savings by using Idle Rev and F3.
Page 27 shows a fuel saving of 8 kgs for a F3 Landing plus 15kgs for Rev idle.
We'll never manage to do a 100% efficient flight every time, but all the simple bits add up.
Last edited by rudderrudderrat; 4th Jun 2013 at 11:42. Reason: addition of quotes
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I used F3 for fuel saving, we got a "low energy warning", which ended up in a go-around, burning up additional ~400kg... Ooops, there go my savings...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My ropey flying had nothing to do with it (this time, at least! 
). However, speed control by Autothrust was poorer than expected under conditions prevailing (slightly thermal/gusty, but nothing exceptional) and I attribute it partially to F3 (slower engine response at lower thrust setting).
The bottom line is - we went around, burning 50x more fuel than we expected to save...
I am not saying that F3 should never be used (in fact, my operator has just mandated them as standard/preferred setting). I am just not sure whether actual fuel savings will look as good as they do on paper...
). However, speed control by Autothrust was poorer than expected under conditions prevailing (slightly thermal/gusty, but nothing exceptional) and I attribute it partially to F3 (slower engine response at lower thrust setting).The bottom line is - we went around, burning 50x more fuel than we expected to save...
I am not saying that F3 should never be used (in fact, my operator has just mandated them as standard/preferred setting). I am just not sure whether actual fuel savings will look as good as they do on paper...
gaunty 
apparently not.
Any data available on flap use in A31x/32x overrun accidents? Not seeking the bad apple aspects to blame the human, but organisational aspects of accidents which have origins similar to those being debated in this thread.
“People are expected to be both efficient and thorough at the same time – or rather to be thorough, when with hindsight it was wrong to be efficient”.
Why Things That Go Right, Sometimes Go Wrong.
The ETTO Principle.
apparently not.Any data available on flap use in A31x/32x overrun accidents? Not seeking the bad apple aspects to blame the human, but organisational aspects of accidents which have origins similar to those being debated in this thread.
“People are expected to be both efficient and thorough at the same time – or rather to be thorough, when with hindsight it was wrong to be efficient”.
Why Things That Go Right, Sometimes Go Wrong.
The ETTO Principle.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuck in an ATR
I am really flabergasted that so much doubt, apprehension and emotion is created about landing in flap3. You seem to suggest that gusty and turbulent conditions on approach is not a good idea to do flap3 landing. It may not have occurred to you that not only Airbus but all manufactures reccommend one less than full flap landing in these very conditions including windshear. All abnormal landings are in flap3.Manufacturers test pilots surely know a thing or two about this.Flap3 landing is easier than full flap landing if proper technique is used. The aircraft is already almost in landing attitude a minimal of flare and you get a greaser. If conditions are bad for 3 then I can assure you they will be worse for full flap.
I am really flabergasted that so much doubt, apprehension and emotion is created about landing in flap3. You seem to suggest that gusty and turbulent conditions on approach is not a good idea to do flap3 landing. It may not have occurred to you that not only Airbus but all manufactures reccommend one less than full flap landing in these very conditions including windshear. All abnormal landings are in flap3.Manufacturers test pilots surely know a thing or two about this.Flap3 landing is easier than full flap landing if proper technique is used. The aircraft is already almost in landing attitude a minimal of flare and you get a greaser. If conditions are bad for 3 then I can assure you they will be worse for full flap.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may not have occurred to you that not only Airbus but all manufactures reccommend one less than full flap landing in these very conditions including windshear.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oporto
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thx... How does it affect brake temps and ability to vacate A, or B on the 320? I've always thought distance to vacate is a bit short-ish for F3...