A320 Flap3 landing to save fuel
Joined: Nov 2022
Posts: 53
Likes: 8
From: Ecuador
Hi all,
in the last FCOM revision it is mentioned that it is not anymore required to wait for 5 minutes after landing to apply brake fans, as it has not proven to be efficient in preventing brake oxidation.
Just curious on how it can take such a long time to realize something like this. I mean, I have been flying the A320 for the past 20 years and this procedure of delaying the brake fan application has always been in place, as far as I can remember. It is quite interesting that it can take such a long time to gather enough data to change a procedure. Maybe this has also to do with different brake manufacturers?
in the last FCOM revision it is mentioned that it is not anymore required to wait for 5 minutes after landing to apply brake fans, as it has not proven to be efficient in preventing brake oxidation.
Just curious on how it can take such a long time to realize something like this. I mean, I have been flying the A320 for the past 20 years and this procedure of delaying the brake fan application has always been in place, as far as I can remember. It is quite interesting that it can take such a long time to gather enough data to change a procedure. Maybe this has also to do with different brake manufacturers?
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
From: Italy
Hi all,
in the last FCOM revision it is mentioned that it is not anymore required to wait for 5 minutes after landing to apply brake fans, as it has not proven to be efficient in preventing brake oxidation.
Just curious on how it can take such a long time to realize something like this. I mean, I have been flying the A320 for the past 20 years and this procedure of delaying the brake fan application has always been in place, as far as I can remember. It is quite interesting that it can take such a long time to gather enough data to change a procedure. Maybe this has also to do with different brake manufacturers?
in the last FCOM revision it is mentioned that it is not anymore required to wait for 5 minutes after landing to apply brake fans, as it has not proven to be efficient in preventing brake oxidation.
Just curious on how it can take such a long time to realize something like this. I mean, I have been flying the A320 for the past 20 years and this procedure of delaying the brake fan application has always been in place, as far as I can remember. It is quite interesting that it can take such a long time to gather enough data to change a procedure. Maybe this has also to do with different brake manufacturers?
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 267
Likes: 21
From: France
Hi all,
in the last FCOM revision it is mentioned that it is not anymore required to wait for 5 minutes after landing to apply brake fans, as it has not proven to be efficient in preventing brake oxidation.
Just curious on how it can take such a long time to realize something like this. I mean, I have been flying the A320 for the past 20 years and this procedure of delaying the brake fan application has always been in place, as far as I can remember. It is quite interesting that it can take such a long time to gather enough data to change a procedure. Maybe this has also to do with different brake manufacturers?
in the last FCOM revision it is mentioned that it is not anymore required to wait for 5 minutes after landing to apply brake fans, as it has not proven to be efficient in preventing brake oxidation.
Just curious on how it can take such a long time to realize something like this. I mean, I have been flying the A320 for the past 20 years and this procedure of delaying the brake fan application has always been in place, as far as I can remember. It is quite interesting that it can take such a long time to gather enough data to change a procedure. Maybe this has also to do with different brake manufacturers?
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Hi all,
in the last FCOM revision it is mentioned that it is not anymore required to wait for 5 minutes after landing to apply brake fans, as it has not proven to be efficient in preventing brake oxidation.
Just curious on how it can take such a long time to realize something like this. I mean, I have been flying the A320 for the past 20 years and this procedure of delaying the brake fan application has always been in place, as far as I can remember. It is quite interesting that it can take such a long time to gather enough data to change a procedure. Maybe this has also to do with different brake manufacturers?
in the last FCOM revision it is mentioned that it is not anymore required to wait for 5 minutes after landing to apply brake fans, as it has not proven to be efficient in preventing brake oxidation.
Just curious on how it can take such a long time to realize something like this. I mean, I have been flying the A320 for the past 20 years and this procedure of delaying the brake fan application has always been in place, as far as I can remember. It is quite interesting that it can take such a long time to gather enough data to change a procedure. Maybe this has also to do with different brake manufacturers?
Joined: Oct 2024
Posts: 43
Likes: 5
From: Terra firma
Like pineteam pointed out, it is only on certain aircraft’s - not all. While the 5 minute SOP is to prevent brake oxidation, the ones without the SOP are to prevent vibration when braking to a halt at low speeds when break temperature is above 200 degrees. Perhaps it is specific to a certain brake manufacturer? My memory does not serve me well at the moment but, I remember noticing it was specific to the Honeywell-ALS braking system?
@pineteam any idea who the brake manufacturer is for your company aircrafts?
@pineteam any idea who the brake manufacturer is for your company aircrafts?
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Hello BuSSpilot,
From the email from Airbus, the A320 neos brakes having vibrations issues at low speed with temperature above 200 degrees celcius are the Safran SLS SeBCarb version 3.
our newest A320/321 Neos are equipped with Safran SLS SebCarb Version 4 and are not affected by the vibration issues.
From the email from Airbus, the A320 neos brakes having vibrations issues at low speed with temperature above 200 degrees celcius are the Safran SLS SeBCarb version 3.
our newest A320/321 Neos are equipped with Safran SLS SebCarb Version 4 and are not affected by the vibration issues.
Joined: Oct 2024
Posts: 43
Likes: 5
From: Terra firma
Hello Pineteam,
Thanks for sharing that info, much appreciated.
Returning back to the topic, while Airbus has mentioned to airlines that a fuel saving of 8 kgs per landing is possible in Flap 3 as opposed to a flap full landing - as pilots we don’t have data on break wear and the type of contracts airlines have with specific break manufacturers against wear and tear servicing.
As mentioned in the earlier posts, a flap 3 landing would only make sense provided there would be LO auto break and reverse idle selected to vacate comfortable onto a RET or a 90 degree turn onto a taxiway. The purpose of landing in flap 3 would be defeated if one would be required to slam their breaks on landing to make it to the aerodrome operators preferred exit as the average line pilot is not privy to information with respect to break manufacturer contracts.
While an argument can be made saying an operator with 1000 flights a day would end up saving 8000 kgs of fuel a day if every flight carried out a Flap 3 approach and landing - we will have to consider the after effects of the landing with regard to increased taxi time in case a later taxiway exit had to taken to manage the deceleration smoothly and break wear & tear.
Thanks for sharing that info, much appreciated.
Returning back to the topic, while Airbus has mentioned to airlines that a fuel saving of 8 kgs per landing is possible in Flap 3 as opposed to a flap full landing - as pilots we don’t have data on break wear and the type of contracts airlines have with specific break manufacturers against wear and tear servicing.
As mentioned in the earlier posts, a flap 3 landing would only make sense provided there would be LO auto break and reverse idle selected to vacate comfortable onto a RET or a 90 degree turn onto a taxiway. The purpose of landing in flap 3 would be defeated if one would be required to slam their breaks on landing to make it to the aerodrome operators preferred exit as the average line pilot is not privy to information with respect to break manufacturer contracts.
While an argument can be made saying an operator with 1000 flights a day would end up saving 8000 kgs of fuel a day if every flight carried out a Flap 3 approach and landing - we will have to consider the after effects of the landing with regard to increased taxi time in case a later taxiway exit had to taken to manage the deceleration smoothly and break wear & tear.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 154
From: Having a margarita on the beach
Hello Pineteam,
Thanks for sharing that info, much appreciated.
Returning back to the topic, while Airbus has mentioned to airlines that a fuel saving of 8 kgs per landing is possible in Flap 3 as opposed to a flap full landing - as pilots we don’t have data on break wear and the type of contracts airlines have with specific break manufacturers against wear and tear servicing.
As mentioned in the earlier posts, a flap 3 landing would only make sense provided there would be LO auto break and reverse idle selected to vacate comfortable onto a RET or a 90 degree turn onto a taxiway. The purpose of landing in flap 3 would be defeated if one would be required to slam their breaks on landing to make it to the aerodrome operators preferred exit as the average line pilot is not privy to information with respect to break manufacturer contracts.
While an argument can be made saying an operator with 1000 flights a day would end up saving 8000 kgs of fuel a day if every flight carried out a Flap 3 approach and landing - we will have to consider the after effects of the landing with regard to increased taxi time in case a later taxiway exit had to taken to manage the deceleration smoothly and break wear & tear.
Thanks for sharing that info, much appreciated.
Returning back to the topic, while Airbus has mentioned to airlines that a fuel saving of 8 kgs per landing is possible in Flap 3 as opposed to a flap full landing - as pilots we don’t have data on break wear and the type of contracts airlines have with specific break manufacturers against wear and tear servicing.
As mentioned in the earlier posts, a flap 3 landing would only make sense provided there would be LO auto break and reverse idle selected to vacate comfortable onto a RET or a 90 degree turn onto a taxiway. The purpose of landing in flap 3 would be defeated if one would be required to slam their breaks on landing to make it to the aerodrome operators preferred exit as the average line pilot is not privy to information with respect to break manufacturer contracts.
While an argument can be made saying an operator with 1000 flights a day would end up saving 8000 kgs of fuel a day if every flight carried out a Flap 3 approach and landing - we will have to consider the after effects of the landing with regard to increased taxi time in case a later taxiway exit had to taken to manage the deceleration smoothly and break wear & tear.
Furthermore if the airplanes are not equipped with brake fans the required cooling time could adversely affect the turn-around on time performance, especially in summer, with all the related consequences.
