g/a flaps in event of overweight landing on the a319/320
 

I need some help on this.On a normal g/a [at weights below max landing weights ],we put the flap up one notch once g/a thrust is set.The fcom abnormal procedures overweight landing procedure states that in all cases if ldg configuration is different from flaps full[most cases it will be config 3],use 1+f for g/a.So do we move the flap lever two notches up from config 3 to config 1+f after setting g/a thrust in case of overweight landing. .Just need a confirmation as i have rarely done this sort of exercise on the simulators.thks

short answer - yes

Hi ssflying,

You can find more info on that in your FCTM under "Abnormal Operations" then "Miscellaneous" and "Overweight Landing". The answer to your question is yes if the approach climb limiting weight is not satisfied with CONF3.

LikeABoss,

As per FCOM Procedures Go around, PNF retracts one step the flaps, ending up in CONF2.

Cheers.

LAB
Instead of "believing" and posting rubbish :=, people should refer to the correct sources, like the FCOM and/or FCTM, which every REAL pilot should have.

Again/ Is not F2 Slats and flaps? Is not F1 when retracting from Ffull = to F+1?
Therefoe F2 in this case is the same as F+1 so it would not make a difference or would it?

If not, I want my money back.

ciao, i`ll return.

hey, look at it logically - why have a system that gives you F+! on T/O but not F+1 on G/A or at least with the option of having that - because you are faster? - pippiy coook!

y`all know the answer here - you are just trying to wind me up.

If you leave a low alt near the deck at F3 and you are climbing for height passing through F2 then what logic says you want F1 pure, with the blinkin nose in the air and the speed clammering for recognition?! huh? Logically, and safer to design the thing so that, when near the ground and going around the F1 will just give you that titsy bitsy more chance of living by providing the whole show with F+1 - in, the G/A.
And if this were not the case to argue against F2 is really interesting. this suggests that we go from fat F3 forgoing F2 (just in case) and bang it straight to F1 which you all believe to be slats only. F----- great aircraft! Or great thread!


See !??!!!!!

Not at all dear girl... F2 is slats and flaps at position 2, Flaps 1+F is slats and flaps at position 1+F...

Quite a difference I assure you. (Assuming 320 is like my 330 and 340 of course:cool:)

Caveat - I've not flown Airbus so my comments are generic.

Background info -

(a) the basic certification requirement is that the miss addresses both

(i) the landing miss - gear down, landing flap, AEO, and

(ii) the approach miss - gear up, approach flap, OEI.

Hence the usual protocol for the miss is

(b) pitch up/power up

(c) select approach flap

(d) select gear up

with the precise sequence being defined in the AFM.

I thought the airbus way was to make this kind of **** easier to deal with.......:(

"In the man machine interface, man is still in charge"

Cathay Pacific.

Guess my admittedly lame attempt at sarcasm went over your head........:rolleyes:

F+1 flaps and LE - the continuing story. epilogue.
 

Takeoff or go-around in configuration 2 or 3: If the pilot selects configuration 1, he gets 1+F (18°/10°) if airspeed
is under 210 knots. If the pilot does not select configuration 0 after takeoff, the flaps retract automatically at 210
knots.


See - I told you so - nobody believed me. When you bring the flaps in, in G/A from landing flap to G/A flap then if, if you got to Flap 1 you will get ---------------F + 1.

""Not at all dear girl... F2 is slats and flaps at position 2, Flaps 1+F is slats and flaps at position 1+F...

Quite a difference I assure you. (Assuming 320 is like my 330 and 340 of course""


Yes, I know, my point though poorly written was that when you are in G/A and you get to the stage of retracting to F1 you will in fact get F+1 and not just F1 - that is all this argument . . ., . . . discussion was about. (Note; after FO config 1+F is no longer available until the airspeed is 100kts or less)

.I don`t mind a discussion or argument - it hacks me off though when it is one of an obvious critical time in the duration of the flight, but there you go - I always was overseriousflyme..

We all got fixated anyway - the question was of an overweight G/A.
Overweight landing in an A320 is no big deal - and you are within your MTOW for your recent T/O so a G/A. overweight. is not going to present any significant problem.

Unless, of course you T/O at a cold and sea level field and you fly to a warm hi field in short time - unlikely - but not impossible. The Andes come to mind or Ulaambutar, whereby you would simply re-access the WAT, but you knew that already - right? Is all in the books/QRH, etc.

(J.T. Had it in a nutshell and was spot on).

Nats,

Before you get too heated I suggset you accept that WK was talking 330/340 and, in that case at least, he is absolutely correct according to 1.27.50 p5... and I hope you are joking about the rest of your post or limit yourself to flightsim...

[QUOTE][Nats,

Before you get too heated I suggset you accept that WK was talking 330/340 and, in that case at least, he is absolutely correct according to 1.27.50 p5... /QUOTE]

Ok, for going to F1 (after go around flap) in the A330 - my point, again was that when WK selects F1 in the G/A in his A330 - he will in fact get . . .F+1

WAS GOING TO EDIT - BUT I`LL DO IT HERE - SHOULD HAVE READ: WHEN `PILOT` SELECTS F1 IN HIS/HER A320 - DURING THE G/A FROM G/A FLAP THEN S/HE HAS IN FACT GOT F+1.

because, prior to - (somewhere - it was so long ago) somebody mentioned that this was not the case and the the F1 would be just that - F1. however, obviously all A330 TRIs are quite capable of training there trainees, just as all A330 pilots are more than capable of flying their aircraft.

(Despite the fact that the original question was on the A319 and A320)

Oh dear

You said
[quoteTherefoe F2 in this case is the same as F+1 so it would not make a difference or would it?][/quote]

Wrong.....

Yeh ! Based on the comments by the previous guy (not WK/A330) I was arguing that F1 was in fact F+1 at this stage when the person in question was insisting that F1 be just LE and foregoing F2. which, from a lift point of view would be just silly.
Hence, they don`t manufacture the aeroplane like that - in the A319/320.

This is becoming like the film "The Duellists" based on a pointless argument between two people.

1/. Mother. If you T/O with MTOW and decide to land back at the Dep airport almost immediately due to a very sick passenger, with a heart attack say, thne you would be a tad under MTOW and over MLW . . ne est pas?

2/. The clever design of the A320 allows for this - hence my statement - if, if, in this situation you decide to land then the weight you have is the weight you will land with

3/ there being no "dump" facility on the A320 - as you know..

the above scenario - which gave the basis of the question in the first place relating, to, an overweight g/a.

LOL, what a mess here ... :E

first, i never had an airbus in the hands, just had the oppurtunity to jump into a full motion a320 sim just for fun during a crm refresher course.

but this was experience enough to learn that the bus has the following configurations on the flap lever :

1
2
3
full

selecting 1 on ground results in 1+F .( maybe also in the air at some conditions, dont ask me) otherwise 1 is slats only, 1+F is slats and flaps first notch with automatic flap retraction inflight. all other positions are flaps and slats every time.

so when one gentlemen writes this

and messes it all the time up since there never was a config "F" or "F+1" on the airbus ( i quess he means 1 or 1+F)

the other catches up the discussion writing such

where its common knowlege that airbus designed the layout the same for quick conversion between types

you should clarify if you are talking about the same simulation since there maybe differences and beyond that just enjoy the ( at least in germany ) sunny weekend - just relax ;)

best regards !

Nats,

If you realy believe that you can take off from an airport, have an engine failure and in all cases return with no thought to performance requirements then you are in the wrong job.

runway Perf ( the never ending story)
 

The original queston was - if you would be bothered to look - about an overweight landing it did not imply, or suggest or even infer that this was an EO situation - which you have brought into the . . . conversation - as you are probably bored or something.

Obviously _ (sigh)_ the runway perf and all the rest of it would have been decided - yey, before departure, as this was, the Dep Alternate.a 8200ft would not pose much of a threat, in these conditions - GENERALLY SPEAKING FOR THE SAKE OF THIS POST. - assuming runway perf - runway sfc conditions/wv/WAT/MSA and a lot more besides to determine LDR, (or in fact whether the approach is safe and do-able bearing in mind, the resultant condition of the aircraft there will not be much of a problem in the A320. We took of with a perfect aircraft - this was not a tech failure, nor 1 eng out situation and SD would have been reviewed and taken into account - had that been the case. The decision or the option to return (or not to return) to the departure runway all with any EO / SID and or emergency turn would have all been taken into consideration. Also, the crew would have been breathing in, then breathing out again - but I did not mention that part, nor other aspects of the (rather short) flight as I naturally assumed you were all au fait with the SOPs. In short - Mr.Yo-Yo.

You are simply now exending an argument for the sake of extending the argument. Had one not have considered the landing in this way then one would not have made it out of flight school, obviously, silly, never mind onto a flightdeck.