A320 USE OF FLAPS 3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oz
Age: 55
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 USE OF FLAPS 3
Hi
Please don’t judge but I have a question re: “USE FLAP 3”
Why is Flap 3 used when ALTN/DIRECT LAW?
Why is Flap 3 suggested in gusty/windshear approaches?
Is it solely due to Go Arounds because of less drag?
One instructor said “it just cuts thru the air better..” wtf!
Please don’t judge but I have a question re: “USE FLAP 3”
Why is Flap 3 used when ALTN/DIRECT LAW?
Why is Flap 3 suggested in gusty/windshear approaches?
Is it solely due to Go Arounds because of less drag?
One instructor said “it just cuts thru the air better..” wtf!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For windshear, I’d guess it’s for better GA performance. No clue on why we do it for direct law. I’d be way more comfortable with full in that scenario. Haven’t done F3 in months.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mordor
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There may be many reasons to use reduced flaps when control is degraded. Might be performance, or pitch authority during landing, or G/A, system considerations, or something else altogether.
Only Airbus test pilots and engineers know actual reasons, which may be very obscure, and/or affect only a tiny part of the flight envelope covered during flight testing and certification. However, if the manual says F3, I would strongly advocate to follow this advice.
Also, this is not unique to A320. A330 procedures dictate using F2 a lot when in degraded modes. On the 787 most (if not all) F/CTL, or hydraulic failures call for F20 instead of the usual F30.
Only Airbus test pilots and engineers know actual reasons, which may be very obscure, and/or affect only a tiny part of the flight envelope covered during flight testing and certification. However, if the manual says F3, I would strongly advocate to follow this advice.
Also, this is not unique to A320. A330 procedures dictate using F2 a lot when in degraded modes. On the 787 most (if not all) F/CTL, or hydraulic failures call for F20 instead of the usual F30.
There may be many reasons to use reduced flaps when control is degraded. Might be performance, or pitch authority during landing, or G/A, system considerations, or something else altogether.
Only Airbus test pilots and engineers know actual reasons, which may be very obscure, and/or affect only a tiny part of the flight envelope covered during flight testing and certification. However, if the manual says F3, I would strongly advocate to follow this advice.
Also, this is not unique to A320. A330 procedures dictate using F2 a lot when in degraded modes. On the 787 most (if not all) F/CTL, or hydraulic failures call for F20 instead of the usual F30.
Only Airbus test pilots and engineers know actual reasons, which may be very obscure, and/or affect only a tiny part of the flight envelope covered during flight testing and certification. However, if the manual says F3, I would strongly advocate to follow this advice.
Also, this is not unique to A320. A330 procedures dictate using F2 a lot when in degraded modes. On the 787 most (if not all) F/CTL, or hydraulic failures call for F20 instead of the usual F30.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Ghetto
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flap csu provides direct input to the flight control system and adjusts the gains according to lever position. Is also why the csu has a breakout function if jammed. Ref the report from vr-hyu in hkg many years ago.
The Kinematics figure shows that a 5°/sec side-stick demand in Config Full results in aileron and spoiler deflection of approximately 11.5° and 3° respectively. The same side-stick demand in Config 3 results in deflections of 18° and 8° respectively. Clearly the aircraft is more sensitive to control inputs in Config 3 than in Config FULL
The Kinematics figure shows that a 5°/sec side-stick demand in Config Full results in aileron and spoiler deflection of approximately 11.5° and 3° respectively. The same side-stick demand in Config 3 results in deflections of 18° and 8° respectively. Clearly the aircraft is more sensitive to control inputs in Config 3 than in Config FULL
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
320 busboy....
If the demand is 5 deg/sec, does it not follow the the greater aileron and spoiler deflections in Config. 3 indicate less response as more surface deflection is required to produce the same roll rate? I know that when the 321 first had PIO problems on approach in ice, the fix was to land in Config.3 as the aircraft was less sensitive.
cropduster
If the demand is 5 deg/sec, does it not follow the the greater aileron and spoiler deflections in Config. 3 indicate less response as more surface deflection is required to produce the same roll rate? I know that when the 321 first had PIO problems on approach in ice, the fix was to land in Config.3 as the aircraft was less sensitive.
cropduster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
320 busboy....
If the demand is 5 deg/sec, does it not follow the the greater aileron and spoiler deflections in Config. 3 indicate less response as more surface deflection is required to produce the same roll rate? I know that when the 321 first had PIO problems on approach in ice, the fix was to land in Config.3 as the aircraft was less sensitive.
cropduster
If the demand is 5 deg/sec, does it not follow the the greater aileron and spoiler deflections in Config. 3 indicate less response as more surface deflection is required to produce the same roll rate? I know that when the 321 first had PIO problems on approach in ice, the fix was to land in Config.3 as the aircraft was less sensitive.
cropduster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flap csu provides direct input to the flight control system and adjusts the gains according to lever position. Is also why the csu has a breakout function if jammed. Ref the report from vr-hyu in hkg many years ago.
The Kinematics figure shows that a 5°/sec side-stick demand in Config Full results in aileron and spoiler deflection of approximately 11.5° and 3° respectively. The same side-stick demand in Config 3 results in deflections of 18° and 8° respectively. Clearly the aircraft is more sensitive to control inputs in Config 3 than in Config FULL
The Kinematics figure shows that a 5°/sec side-stick demand in Config Full results in aileron and spoiler deflection of approximately 11.5° and 3° respectively. The same side-stick demand in Config 3 results in deflections of 18° and 8° respectively. Clearly the aircraft is more sensitive to control inputs in Config 3 than in Config FULL
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only Airbus test pilots and engineers know actual reasons, which may be very obscure, and/or affect only a tiny part of the flight envelope covered during flight testing and certification. However, if the manual says F3, I would strongly advocate to follow this advice.
Only half a speed-brake
On top of that, the poster has a technical description that explains different surface deflections needed to achieve 5°/sec (clearly NORMAL law) for the different approach flap settings. Now, if Normal Law for F4 needed to provide almost double the deflection compared to F3, guess it must be the same the pilot under ALTN or DCT. To achieve the same response with F4, more deflection of the stick, this time? And for the same stick command, the A/C would feel half-responsive compared to F3.
Speculation.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tropics
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On newer MSNs (or I think at least the units fitted with Sharklets), dual FAC failure does not result in Direct Law after the landing gear is extended (ref FCOM). Can I assume that the roll characterics for the same failure on different aircraft is very different in this case, one being in alternate law roll rate, the other being in direct law. How confusing considering that we are dealing with the exact same problem.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Ghetto
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On newer MSNs (or I think at least the units fitted with Sharklets), dual FAC failure does not result in Direct Law after the landing gear is extended (ref FCOM). Can I assume that the roll characterics for the same failure on different aircraft is very different in this case, one being in alternate law roll rate, the other being in direct law. How confusing considering that we are dealing with the exact same problem.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Airbus reply actually Sharket aircraft with double FAC failure remains in normal law. As stated by Airbus:-
The reason behind comes from handling qualities: the Normal Law is more adequate in terms of manoeuvrability and controllability of the A320/A321 Sharklet aircraft when flying with Yaw Damper failure. Nevertheless, we did not want the flight crew to consider that there was no impact of the loss of the Yaw Damper (principally on the protections), and therefore decided the PFD to display Alternate Law.
Please note that this behaviour is true only for A32/A321 Sharklet aircraft, and for the following failures:
1. FAC1 + FAC2
2. FAC1 + Y hydraulic
3. FAC2 + G hydraulic
4. Detected loss of yaw damper
The reason behind comes from handling qualities: the Normal Law is more adequate in terms of manoeuvrability and controllability of the A320/A321 Sharklet aircraft when flying with Yaw Damper failure. Nevertheless, we did not want the flight crew to consider that there was no impact of the loss of the Yaw Damper (principally on the protections), and therefore decided the PFD to display Alternate Law.
Please note that this behaviour is true only for A32/A321 Sharklet aircraft, and for the following failures:
1. FAC1 + FAC2
2. FAC1 + Y hydraulic
3. FAC2 + G hydraulic
4. Detected loss of yaw damper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
could have something to do with the envelope E function being also in the FMGC. The earlier models had the E part solely in the FACs. Unlike the 330 which have it only in the FMGEC. I was told by airbus it was too big a design change to remove the FAC’s so it’s in both on later models.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320/A321
FLIGHT CREW
TECHNIQUES MANUAL
PROCEDURES
NORMAL PROCEDURES
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES - ADVERSE WEATHER
A320/A321 FLEET PR-NP-SP-10-10-2 P 3/4
FCTM ← D 22 MAR 17
CONF FULL provides better handling capability in turbulent conditions, however, CONF 3 provides
more energy and less drag.
FLIGHT CREW
TECHNIQUES MANUAL
PROCEDURES
NORMAL PROCEDURES
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEDURES - ADVERSE WEATHER
A320/A321 FLEET PR-NP-SP-10-10-2 P 3/4
FCTM ← D 22 MAR 17
CONF FULL provides better handling capability in turbulent conditions, however, CONF 3 provides
more energy and less drag.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
320busboy....
I can see this for Alt.Law 2 ( roll degredation) but not for all other cases of Alt. Law.
Much as Vilas posted, we found that that in very gusty conditions, pilots were often feeling they didn't have enough roll control authority in Config.3, sometimes momentarily reaching full sidestick deflection. The airplane appeared to be be much more stable in Config. Full, with less sidestick inputs needed and the engines spooled up more appearing to make speed control more precise in gusts. Of course this was in normal law, and also several decades ago. I am sure updates are continually changing the airplane. Interesting discussion to try and connect subtle technical features with day to day line flying.
I can see this for Alt.Law 2 ( roll degredation) but not for all other cases of Alt. Law.
Much as Vilas posted, we found that that in very gusty conditions, pilots were often feeling they didn't have enough roll control authority in Config.3, sometimes momentarily reaching full sidestick deflection. The airplane appeared to be be much more stable in Config. Full, with less sidestick inputs needed and the engines spooled up more appearing to make speed control more precise in gusts. Of course this was in normal law, and also several decades ago. I am sure updates are continually changing the airplane. Interesting discussion to try and connect subtle technical features with day to day line flying.
