a320 single engine visual circuit - overweight question.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2022
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Colombia
a320 single engine visual circuit - overweight question.
Hi everyone,
I am in my type rating course and encountered a situation with single-engine visual circuits that I can't seem to understand.
We were practicing overweight landings after an engine failure. The QRH overweight procedure says to use CONF FULL unless limited by performance or an ABN procedure, so I planned for a CONF FULL landing. The scenario was an engine failure during a go-around, requiring an immediate visual circuit at 71 tonnes and an 8,000 ft airport elevation.
I started the visual circuit with CONF 1, just as the FCOM states, then selecting CONF 2 abeam the threshold and only continued configuring with the gear down once we were already descending from 1,500 ft on the base turn. This was based on the "ONE ENGINE INOPERATIVE - STRAIGHT IN APPROACH" logic, which says to "Delay CONF FULL until established in the descent," ensuring I wasn't flying level in a high-drag state like CONF 3 + gear down.
However, my instructor told me I should have followed the "ONE ENGINE INOPERATIVE - CIRCLING APPROACH" procedure. He explained that because our weight (71T) was above the 67-tonne limit to fly in CONF 3 + gear down, the circling procedure would mandate using CONF 3 as the final configuration. This is what doesn't make sense to me. On a visual circuit, there is never a case where one would fly CONF 3 + L/G down in level flight. We only lower the gear and complete landing configuration during the final descent.
I'm having trouble connecting the logic of the circling approach procedure to the maneuver we actually flew. Could anyone help clarify why the circling procedure and its weight limits would be the correct reference in this situation? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
I am in my type rating course and encountered a situation with single-engine visual circuits that I can't seem to understand.
We were practicing overweight landings after an engine failure. The QRH overweight procedure says to use CONF FULL unless limited by performance or an ABN procedure, so I planned for a CONF FULL landing. The scenario was an engine failure during a go-around, requiring an immediate visual circuit at 71 tonnes and an 8,000 ft airport elevation.
I started the visual circuit with CONF 1, just as the FCOM states, then selecting CONF 2 abeam the threshold and only continued configuring with the gear down once we were already descending from 1,500 ft on the base turn. This was based on the "ONE ENGINE INOPERATIVE - STRAIGHT IN APPROACH" logic, which says to "Delay CONF FULL until established in the descent," ensuring I wasn't flying level in a high-drag state like CONF 3 + gear down.
However, my instructor told me I should have followed the "ONE ENGINE INOPERATIVE - CIRCLING APPROACH" procedure. He explained that because our weight (71T) was above the 67-tonne limit to fly in CONF 3 + gear down, the circling procedure would mandate using CONF 3 as the final configuration. This is what doesn't make sense to me. On a visual circuit, there is never a case where one would fly CONF 3 + L/G down in level flight. We only lower the gear and complete landing configuration during the final descent.
I'm having trouble connecting the logic of the circling approach procedure to the maneuver we actually flew. Could anyone help clarify why the circling procedure and its weight limits would be the correct reference in this situation? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: LHR
If you're overweight, you must have plenty of fuel so what plausible scenario justifies an "immediate visual circuit at 71t" with an unexpected engine out at a high altitude airport. That sort of stuff requires thinking about and a proper plan not just launching into something unbriefed.
Its the scenario that doesn't make sense.
That said, if you flew and landed safely in that scenario and didn't bust anything doing it, then I don't think it especially matters that you didn't fly exactly what Airbus said. Airbus would have a big issue about why it was rushed into in the first place.
I think the instructor is at fault and probably the type that uses their role purely to stroke their own ego about how clever they are.
Its the scenario that doesn't make sense.
That said, if you flew and landed safely in that scenario and didn't bust anything doing it, then I don't think it especially matters that you didn't fly exactly what Airbus said. Airbus would have a big issue about why it was rushed into in the first place.
I think the instructor is at fault and probably the type that uses their role purely to stroke their own ego about how clever they are.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 601
From: Dark Side of the Moon
I think the instructor is conflating two things here. If you are flying a standard 1500' circuit then I would do it exactly as you stated. However if you are above the max weight for circling in CONF3 with Gear Down there is no way I would conduct a Flap Full landing. There is always a risk that once Flap Full is selected you need to adjust profile which could include near to level flight. I would be conducting that circuit using only Flap 3 and as per the book 'DELAY GEAR EXTENSION TO MAINTAIN LEVEL FLIGHT'. So my plan would be to select Flap 2 with 10 seconds to run to the end of down wind and then once I have commenced the descent and are confident I am in the right spot then Gear Down and Flap 3.
