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

A320 can you do auto-land overweight?

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

A320 can you do auto-land overweight?

Old 13th Dec 2016, 22:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 790
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
A320 can you do auto-land overweight?

I know Im not the only one confused by this so was wondering if anyone here can help? I've been looking in the Airbus FCOM and can see in the overweight QRH checklist for a A319 it mentions auto lands have been demonstrated upto 69tons and certified up to MLW. In the A320 overweight landing check it mentions nothing about weight restrictions in relation to autolands.

My question is can you do an autoland in an A320 over MLW or are you essentially a CAT 1 aircraft? I've gone through FCOM and can't find anything definitive.

Many thanks.
Mooneyboy is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2016, 00:49
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tropics
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Under the Limitations section (in my FCOM at least), the autoland is only allowed at or below the MLW.
dream747 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2016, 07:32
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 790
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Thanks dream747.

Had a look again and yes it's there in black and white. Can't believe I missed. So it's FCOM LIM 22-20 automatic approach, landing and roll out.

Still think it would be nice for them to mention it in the overweight landing QRH. Can't understand why they mention it in the QRH for 319 but not the 320.
Mooneyboy is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2016, 08:00
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Singapore
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The FCOM limitations says that it has been demonstrated at or below maximum landing weight.
Doesn't prohibit.
My company permits overweight autoland in case of an emergency requiring an immediate landing.
paradisefound is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2016, 08:29
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 790
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Yes I agree it says demonstrated so yes in case of uncontrollable fire/smoke and no other options yes you would go for autoland.

But eng fail(land Asap Amber)/sick pax you would be looking at other cat 1 altn.
Mooneyboy is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 06:33
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Autoland tends to give a "firm" arrival so wouldn't be compatible with the low V/S required on a overweight landing.
Metro man is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 18:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 996
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
If you take the Fcom again and select a A319 registration, you see a note saying: The flight crew can decide to perform an autoland up to 69T.
Does not say this on a 320 reg
johndo is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2016, 07:13
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 790
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Yes it mentions it in the overweight landing checklist.

I've also tried putting in overweight and autoland in our landing performance module and it says 'check FCOM the possible combination Autoland+Overweight'. Interestingly it still says this when you select say 67T autoland with the A319.
Mooneyboy is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2016, 12:11
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 776
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Since the A319 model is a lot newer than the A320/A321 models perhaps Airbus included the overweight autolanding scenario during their certification flying testing?
Meikleour is online now  
Old 18th Dec 2016, 03:27
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
when you couple an overweight landing with a potential hard landing, the airframe inspections get rather unpleasant.
Golden Rivet is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2016, 17:39
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do you want to use the aircraft again?

It's an interesting question.

Autoland will not and is not designed to to flare and govern a RoD at touchdown of 360' pm, from the QRH.

In the final approach stages:

TARGET SPEED VLS
Reduce the selected speed on the FCU to reach VLS at runway threshold.
Touch down as smoothly as possible (Maximum V/S at touchdown 360 ft/min).

However you might get consider using Autoland in certain circumstances such as pilot incapacitation.
Maxfli is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2016, 05:45
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If Airbus has not demonstrated then line pilot shouldn't become a test pilot. Rather than doing something non standard by an opinion poll on PP why not your company seeks clarification from the manufacturer?
vilas is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2016, 06:49
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What would you consider a normal "good" every day acceptable V/S in ft/min touchdown compared with a Autoland V/S in ft/min in the A320. I imagine the autoland by design is not for comfort but to get the aircraft to be firmly connected with the runway with doing no damage to the aircraft.
downunder35 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2016, 00:46
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@vilas
"why not your company seeks clarification from the manufacturer?"
They don't want to do some request they didn't discovered themselves!
I had such a very bad experience after I discovered a wrong N2 (MD83) in our FCOM, to use in case of UAS : missing 13% , Landing configuration, MLW, 3000ft... After two months of correction procedure question, using the appropriate form, without feedback from my company, our engineer sent a fax from his own, and quickly the manufacturer answered with thanks and congratulations. It was a storm for me, accused (!) to contact the manufacturer myself... At that time more than 60 airlines "used" the wrong figure since 13 years. Happily no plane had such an UAS!
The company is afraid too to explain to the DGAC why they didn't see the mistake
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2016, 02:20
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That may be an exception but I have personally got many clarifications from them and as a customer they cannot deny their advice. On the present topic what a pilot can do in emergency? Well! virtually anything that he thinks will save his life.
vilas is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2016, 09:50
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Europe
Age: 54
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
QRH 80.07A
StrIA is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2016, 10:24
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I recently asked a senior trainer about this, in the scenario of having very low fuel. I was told that the autoland over mlw was the way to go if the weather was marginal. At the end of the day, a slightly bent aeroplane is better than a hole in the ground.
Slightly unrelated, but I also had a demo of autoland at max demonstrated (manual) cross wind limits in the sim. Worked well.
macdo is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2016, 15:39
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi macdo,

Can't really see how you would end up above MLW with very low fuel on an A320. You would only attempt an auto land above MLW if you have weather below CAT II and a very time limiting situation (aka undetermined fire, smoke). Typical example could be takeoff close to MRTOW in LVTO and you're lucky enough on that day to have heavy smoke shortly after takeoff.
sonicbum is online now  
Old 31st Dec 2016, 22:41
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well yes, it would be very odd being low fuel and still above MLW.
Except if you were planning on ditching some passengers before landing.
KayPam is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2017, 01:03
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The serious fuel leak immediately after t/o (punctured tank from tyre burst and losing fuel rapidly) was the scenario discussed. Admittedly a freak occurrence but it lead to the thought of doing an autoland if the weather at the departure airfield was marginal and the a/c was still above mlw. I should think serious smoke on the flight deck would be another good reason.
The point was really that the a/c was capable of doing more than just what the FCOM indicates in an extreme situation.
macdo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.