A320 vs A321 conf 3 and tail strike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 vs A321 conf 3 and tail strike
Dear all,
In our FOM, it’s recommended to use F3 during approach on A319 & A320 for fuel saving but not on A321 due to the risk of tail strike. According to the FCOM: A tail strike on A320 will occur at 11.5 degrees with gears fully compressed versus 9.5 degrees for the A321. But the pitch on approach with F3 on A320 is around 4 degrees up versus 1 degree up only on A321. Those reference can be seen on the QRH unreliable airspeed. Meaning you actually have 1 degree more margin on the pitch on the A321! So is it a mistake in our FOM or am I missing something? I can’t find any Airbus reference saying the A321 is more prone to tail strike than an A320. From what I undestand and seen during flight, the A320 is more prone to tail strike in conf 3 compare to the A321.
Anyone who has performed flaps 3 approach on A321 would have noticed how low is the nose compare to the A320.
I would be interested to hear from other fellows pilots operating both types.
Thank you.
In our FOM, it’s recommended to use F3 during approach on A319 & A320 for fuel saving but not on A321 due to the risk of tail strike. According to the FCOM: A tail strike on A320 will occur at 11.5 degrees with gears fully compressed versus 9.5 degrees for the A321. But the pitch on approach with F3 on A320 is around 4 degrees up versus 1 degree up only on A321. Those reference can be seen on the QRH unreliable airspeed. Meaning you actually have 1 degree more margin on the pitch on the A321! So is it a mistake in our FOM or am I missing something? I can’t find any Airbus reference saying the A321 is more prone to tail strike than an A320. From what I undestand and seen during flight, the A320 is more prone to tail strike in conf 3 compare to the A321.
Anyone who has performed flaps 3 approach on A321 would have noticed how low is the nose compare to the A320.
I would be interested to hear from other fellows pilots operating both types.
Thank you.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Gran Bretaña
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I'm a fan of Conf 3 in the A321, assuming you've got enough runway and a headwind. It definitely lands pretty flat, with less of a pronounced flare. It does look and feel different, though, and perhaps the risk is related to the way we're used to flying the aircraft rather than simply the geometry. The A320, on the other hand, always feels a bit wrong to me when on approach in Conf 3. I'll still use it when appropriate, but I'm not a huge fan.
I wonder if part of it is down to our reaction to the visual picture. The more 'wrong' it looks out the window, the more likely you are to go around, thereby reducing the likelihood of a tail strike. Getting towards the sort of pitch that's likely to cause a tail strike in an A320 will look far more wrong (compared to what you're used to seeing in most approaches) than the relevant pitch in an A321, certainly for those who are used to flying the A320 most of the time.
If you're used to landing the A320 in Conf Full, which I'd imagine that most folk are, then the Conf 3 visual picture is markedly different. In the A321 there's far less of a difference between Conf 3 and Conf Full. (Partially that's down to the physical flap postion; on A319 and A320 CEO and NEO the difference in flap angle between 3 and Full is 20 degrees, on an A321 CEO it's only 4 degrees, and 9 degrees on an A321 NEO). As a result, there could maybe be a tendency to allow the A321 to get closer to a tail strike scenario as your experience isn't setting off quite so many alarm bells approaching 7 or 8 degrees nose up as it would approaching 9 or 10, by which time you'd almost certainly have thrown it away and safely gone around. In the heat of the moment, you're probably reacting more to the picture out the window. It's a visual manoeuvre, after all.
You're also going to be landing much faster in a typical A321 with Conf 3 than any other configuration across the whole A320 series. Maybe this leads to a higher tendency to experience ground rush, shying away from the runway and overcompensating during the flare, thereby increasing the risk? Then again, flaring late and bouncing after an initial firm touchdown is also going to be harder to recover neatly in an A321.
Anyway, just some ideas. It's obviously going to vary for different operators depending how frequently you're flying each of the different variants. They do all react differently; CEO vs NEO, WTF vs Sharklet, 319 vs 320 vs 321, etc...
I wonder if part of it is down to our reaction to the visual picture. The more 'wrong' it looks out the window, the more likely you are to go around, thereby reducing the likelihood of a tail strike. Getting towards the sort of pitch that's likely to cause a tail strike in an A320 will look far more wrong (compared to what you're used to seeing in most approaches) than the relevant pitch in an A321, certainly for those who are used to flying the A320 most of the time.
If you're used to landing the A320 in Conf Full, which I'd imagine that most folk are, then the Conf 3 visual picture is markedly different. In the A321 there's far less of a difference between Conf 3 and Conf Full. (Partially that's down to the physical flap postion; on A319 and A320 CEO and NEO the difference in flap angle between 3 and Full is 20 degrees, on an A321 CEO it's only 4 degrees, and 9 degrees on an A321 NEO). As a result, there could maybe be a tendency to allow the A321 to get closer to a tail strike scenario as your experience isn't setting off quite so many alarm bells approaching 7 or 8 degrees nose up as it would approaching 9 or 10, by which time you'd almost certainly have thrown it away and safely gone around. In the heat of the moment, you're probably reacting more to the picture out the window. It's a visual manoeuvre, after all.
You're also going to be landing much faster in a typical A321 with Conf 3 than any other configuration across the whole A320 series. Maybe this leads to a higher tendency to experience ground rush, shying away from the runway and overcompensating during the flare, thereby increasing the risk? Then again, flaring late and bouncing after an initial firm touchdown is also going to be harder to recover neatly in an A321.
Anyway, just some ideas. It's obviously going to vary for different operators depending how frequently you're flying each of the different variants. They do all react differently; CEO vs NEO, WTF vs Sharklet, 319 vs 320 vs 321, etc...
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
In our FOM, it’s recommended to use F3 during approach on A319 & A320 for fuel saving but not on A321 due to the risk of tail strike. According to the FCOM: A tail strike on A320 will occur at 11.5 degrees with gears fully compressed versus 9.5 degrees for the A321. But the pitch on approach with F3 on A320 is around 4 degrees up versus 1 degree up only on A321. Those reference can be seen on the QRH unreliable airspeed. Meaning you actually have 1 degree more margin on the pitch on the A321! So is it a mistake in our FOM or am I missing something? I can’t find any Airbus reference saying the A321 is more prone to tail strike than an A320. From what I undestand and seen during flight, the A320 is more prone to tail strike in conf 3 compare to the A321.
Anyone who has performed flaps 3 approach on A321 would have noticed how low is the nose compare to the A320.
I would be interested to hear from other fellows pilots operating both types.
Thank you.
In our FOM, it’s recommended to use F3 during approach on A319 & A320 for fuel saving but not on A321 due to the risk of tail strike. According to the FCOM: A tail strike on A320 will occur at 11.5 degrees with gears fully compressed versus 9.5 degrees for the A321. But the pitch on approach with F3 on A320 is around 4 degrees up versus 1 degree up only on A321. Those reference can be seen on the QRH unreliable airspeed. Meaning you actually have 1 degree more margin on the pitch on the A321! So is it a mistake in our FOM or am I missing something? I can’t find any Airbus reference saying the A321 is more prone to tail strike than an A320. From what I undestand and seen during flight, the A320 is more prone to tail strike in conf 3 compare to the A321.
Anyone who has performed flaps 3 approach on A321 would have noticed how low is the nose compare to the A320.
I would be interested to hear from other fellows pilots operating both types.
Thank you.
due to the double slotted flaps, the pitch attitude difference landing flaps 3 vs full on the 321 is almost non existent (.5 degrees or so). From a tailstrike margin point of view there is actually a small benefit in landing CONF 3 due to the higher Vapp.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: u.k.
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with "Mayday mayday mayday" on this. Thanks to the marginal difference in pitch attitude between full and 3 on the 321 flap 3 is my preferred setting, economical and better handling.
The pitch attitude before flare is just about the same – more depending on your actual speed in relation to Vls, than the flap setting.
However speed loss during flare is less with flaps 3, as drag is less, hence less increase in pitch is required to obtain a smooth touchdown.
Hence I'd say the risk of striking the tail is even less landing in conf 3.
However speed loss during flare is less with flaps 3, as drag is less, hence less increase in pitch is required to obtain a smooth touchdown.
Hence I'd say the risk of striking the tail is even less landing in conf 3.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: up in the sky
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitch .. Pitch.. Pitch
many times I heard PITCH PITCH PITCH and the Bitch did not secratched 😄
fly at the edge of the envelope to see how much safe margins for this airplane.
fly at the edge of the envelope to see how much safe margins for this airplane.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I had that “pitch pitch” auto call out couple of times also. And noticed on the A320 it comes around 8 degrees of pitch. FCOM does not mention any specific value when the warning is triggered. Quite conservative considering the call out by PM is at 10 degrees and that the pitch before flare is already around 4/6 degrees up on A320 with conf 3.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: N5109.2W10.5
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pineteam,
See this old explanation from 2009.
"Pitch" auto callout in the 320
Apparently the "Pitch Pitch" warning depends on rate of change of pitch+actual pitch (to give you advanced warning of when you are about to trigger 9.25 / 10 degs pitch).
See this old explanation from 2009.
"Pitch" auto callout in the 320
Apparently the "Pitch Pitch" warning depends on rate of change of pitch+actual pitch (to give you advanced warning of when you are about to trigger 9.25 / 10 degs pitch).
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Gran Bretaña
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just winding up my old buddy Border Riever but strangely he didn’t bite, he’s a bit slow. Sorry for using this thread, I’ve an impressive 300 hrs on the 320 - am I forgiven?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
