The difference between F3 or FULL on the landing distance isn't much, depending on the weight is roughly 150-200 meters, yes it can make the difference on short runways, but regarding to distance you should consider mainly the difference between AUTO BRAKE LOW or MED.

''Brake Fans usually end up on for the 320s anyway as we have a SOP that they must be on whenever there is an arc on the temps.''

Well, the cost of doing that will absorb the 5kg of fuel savings immediately! Or is it necessary to achieve fast turnarounds?

Actually the SOP EcamSurprise is mentioning is an SOP for TAXING OUT to prevent hot brakes in the air. It is crew discretion taxiing in:

Disclaimer: I am an easy Swiss pilot so we may be on a different OMB revision.

Dan winterland, EZY don't pay for individual brakes. As such we don't care about brake wear. Until the maintenance contract gets reviewed that is. So althoigh there is a cost, easyJet don't pay for it. At least it doesn't show in the spreadsheets:ok:

Stuck in ATR has made a reference to Airbus presentation on overall cost savings if Flaps 3/Rev Idle is used. The jist of the presentation is - use Flaps 3 and Rev Idle ONLY if you are able to vacate at the suitable or designated exit (with shortest taxi to your bay) with the use of AUTOBRAKES LOW. If you have to use Med or harsher manual braking the break wear offsets the fuel savings of 7 kgs(for 320). All the saving figures quoted earlier are all paper calculations, assuming that they save 6 to 8 kgs per landing with Flaps 3. What they have not calculated is the additional payment the airline has to make for brake wear. In last one year of operations with Flaps 3 in our airline, the management guys in Flt Ops have showed a saving of 2 million US$ due to use of Flaps 3 and in the same period the Engg Dept has shown an additional payment of 6 million US$ due to excessive brake wear. Moreover, the guys calculating the fuel saving do not cater for additional taxi time due to "next exit" vacation. At 11kgs/min any additional taxi would result in net loss to the company.
Lastly the FDM data for 320 fleet has indicated that the number of hard/firm landings have increased with use of Flaps 3 and the number of cases of high pitch at touchdown (>9deg) have also shot up. Vilas you may be a gifted pilot but for an average line pilot the landing 'g' has shown an increasing trend with Flaps 3.

You guys should pick up the FCOM rather than giving distorted opinions.

The brake fans are NOT to be used whenever the arc comes... Where do you guys come up with this rubbish?! :hmm:

In the context of Casper's post above, I did scratch my head over this one. I'm not a Bus driver, but I assume Flap 3 will give a higher descent rate due being faster. So unless ground effect is much greater, one would need to flare more to alight in a nice manner. The "almost landing attitude" must be a furphy for Flap 3. One still has to flare.

I liked the crack by Airbus at pilot costs for extra taxi time. On my jalopy, one minute extra taxi uses far more fuel, cost-wise, than the drivers get paid!

It's nothing to do with the FCOM, but a reaction by the company to some issues of hot brakes warnings in flight which required re-lowering of landing gear. Hence, the company standard SOP is a more restrictive 'Use on taxi-out when an arc appears'.

Cap'n blogs..

The flap 3 approach is at a higher speed, so the elevator is more effective-hence we feel like we flare less in order to achieve the landing attitude. In addition to this, as the power is chopped prior to flare you loose less speed during the flare hence the wing works a little better...

Fans...

Our FCOM PRO after landing procedure states that fans aren't to be used unless temp is going north of 500C or turnaround is short.. Taxy out is as above whenever the arcs are shown.

"Vinayak" "You guys should pick up the FCOM rather than giving distorted opinions.

The brake fans are NOT to be used whenever the arc comes... Where do you guys come up with this rubbish?! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/yeees.gif"

You mean we should read our manuals which state the following:

During taxi out, if an arc indication appears above the brake temperature on the ECAM WHEEL page set the brake fans on.

The maximum certified brake temperature prior totake-off is 300°C. In
circumstances when brake temperatures approach this limitation, the
recommended procedure is to use brake fans to reduce the temperature to 150°C.

Airbus driver ... I think he is coming from the angle of during taxy in...

Hence you don't put them on whenever you see the arc!

I wasn't sure if he was talking about on the way in or out!

Here is the SOP for the way in:

Check brake temperature on the ECAM WHEEL page for discrepancies and high temperature.
Brake fans should be used to manage brake temperatures, ideally brake fan
selection should be delayed for around 5 minutes (to allow thermal stablisation) or done just before stopping on the gate (to prevent blowing carbon brake dust on ground personnel), whichever occurs first.
When turnaround times are short, or brake temperatures are likely to exceed
300°C, use the brake fans, disregarding possible oxidation phenomenon. Refer to FCOM PRO-SUP-32 for the brake temperature limitations requiring maintenance actions.

Does the break even point include the taxi routing or just the additional required runway when landing flaps 3?

easyJet have conducted studies at certain airports (LGW) to calculate the specific breakeven point for F3 v FF and the associated taxi routing to stand.

Capn bloggs and Casper 63
What I suggested is valid for all aircrafts. I have landed A300,310, 320 and 747 with the same technique and with the same results.Flap full has all drag hardly any lift so if you flare same amount with flap3 you tend balloon, actually that is the only way to mess it up, the other problem is with those who habitually flare high then the attitude will become higher at touch down.otherwise it easier, gives better control and has better go around performance. It is for these reasons reccommended in gusty wind conditions. I am really surprised at the apprehension that is being expressed.

Vilas, fair enough, but unless one is regularly doing a good mix of both full flap and partial flap landings, one will probably end up with the results that Casper has pointed out unless of course they have stick and rudder skills like you and I. :}

Vilas, I fully agree with you that after logging more than 20,000 hours on 300, 310, 747 and 320, landing 320 with Flaps 3 is a piece of cake. However, nowadays pilots get to land an Airbus 320 with a total time of 300 hrs with 200 hrs on Cessna 152. That is the reason why even Airbus document also state in RED INK that to maximize safety margin Full flaps landing is preferred.

casper63
With all the automation, doing consistantly smooth landings within correct distance is the only seat of the pants skill left. However executing safe landings should not be a problem. If a pilot cannot do acceptable landing in flap3 he will not be doing good landings in flap full either. I suggested before pilots can be explained the technique and introduced to flap3 in the SIM. Pilot who is apprehensive of normal flap3 landing what will be his mental state landing in direct law with failures and conf3? to get acceptable landing all you have to do is flare and close the thrust. From ROD of 750ft/mt to appx.350ft a mt. which is even acceptable overweight landing. Full is preferred only from landing distance point.

I got you to open your FCOMs, didn't I? :}


http://pilotpitstop.com/docs/Externa...akes%20Use.ppt

Here's another useful something...

Vilas, I wish landing was that easy for a 300 hours wizkids, seat of pants flying comes with practice and experience, which unfortunately these youngsters don't posses, they just do mechanical landings and unfortunately even the latest sims don't give the actual feel. It is well known in training circles that you can't teach "seat of pants" landings in sims or by briefing. If you land with a ROD of 350 ft/min your company would lose customers very fast. In today's proactive world, if one touches down even with 1.5 g, some passenger it going to report it to the regulator as a hard landing. As far as landing in abnormal conditions is concerned, one flaps 3 landing with 1.6 g in your entire career is acceptable. To save notional 8 kgs, why increase the risk factor every day, especially when you are doing six landings a day and not six landings a month as one used to in 300, 310 and 747s. Now we are dealing with the digital generation used to automation with minimal handling skills due to lack of practice/experience, our days of cowboy flying are over. Are you by any chance RETIRED and working as a SFI?
The reason I am asking you is because the technique you have suggested works very well in sims but not on the aircraft.

casper63
The technique I suggested are the ones I used in actual aircraft and i have always done good landings. i had notes of appreciation left for me by passengers during my 747 days and in A320 once passenger insisted on meeting before he got off. yes now i am an SFI in A320 for last 3 years. I am in agreement with what you say about the level of experience of new pilots. many times I am left pulling my hair to teach them acceptable landings. The inexperienced FO can be left alone to do what he does best. But surely person in the left hand seat should have no problem.

Vinayak...Thanks for the ppt link...Ties in with the SOP's as I understand them.

Airbusdriver319...Thats exactly the paragraph that I have in my FCOM EXCEPT 300C is replaced by 500C during taxy in. Guess you operator uses shorter turns than mine so edited the figure (500C is mentioned in Vinayak's airbus powerpoint).

Gaunty

"So nobody has learnt the lessons of QF01 and how to park a B744 on the green of the first hole at the Bangkok Golf Club then."

Exactly what lessons from QF in BKK should we learn that relate to flap selection for landing?

''Exactly what lessons from QF in BKK should we learn that relate to flap selection for landing?''

The QF SOPs were to use F25 instead of F30. It was one of the factors.

"It was one of the factors"

It was one of about 6 factors and probably the least contributory.

Should reduced flap landings be banned as a result of the over run or just when combined with long/fast/brakeless/reverseless approaches?

So would the lesson be . . . be careful with reduced flap?

Got it......

Is it possible to compare Flap 3 or Flap Full on the bus with Flap 30 or Flap 40 landings on the 737, or is it something entirely different?

Hi everybody
So many people have voiced so much of apprehesions and have given some reasons against Flap3 landing. I would like answers to following questions that come to mind.
1. If flap3 landing required more skill and is unsafe in any manner why is it recommended in expected wind shear conditions?
2. In A320 all abnormal situations except few where option is given, Flap3 is mandatory. If Flap Full has better control then why not use flap full in difficult conditions.
3. Reduced safety margin. Yes Landing distance reduced by 80 mtrs. with Auto brake medium. But would anynbody land in Flap3 with critical LDA?
4. Tail strike possibility. In A320 you would require combination of less speed, high flare, long float and not Flap3 alone.This is bad way to land anyway.
5. Flap3 landing Difficult to teach 300 hrs pilot. It won't be easy in Flap full either. In general some pilots need lot more landings to get the control of proper landings. These pilots have same difficulty executing even Flap Full landings.
I would like to have answer to each point.

"It was one of the factors"

''It was one of about 6 factors and probably the least contributory''.


But it meant they went off the end quite a bit faster - and caused more damage. It's a while since I flew the 744, but I remember the difference between flap 25 and 30 was quite significant. The big issue was the mind-set. They were used to landing with F25, so that's what they did - even though the runway was contaminated.

I've only got time for a couple, Vilas;

1. I disagree that flap 3 needs more skill or is unsafe. It just needs a "different" skill.

Flap 3 is used in wind shear conditions to make more energy available for recovery, and in case a go-around is required.


3. No they wouldn't - you have to check the landing distance required using flap 3 with the landing distance available before electing to use it.

Flaps3+10 when the QRH drives us to use Flaps3 due to weather, localized strong winds, LLWAS, Windshear, etc. Otherwise, Flaps Full is our standard. We'll see what happens when the A321s gets delivered in a couple of months.

FWIW - I always add the +10knots when using Flaps3. I've never seen it add much to the landing distance and find the energy doesn't "drop out" in the flare with the extra couple of knots to play with. Like any landing, it's all about managing your energy state and timing the deceleration/decrease in lift.

Your results may vary...:ok:

I have no problem with flap 3 landing in the A320/1, although 155kts ground speed is a little uncomfortable.

I just don't think it saves any money. No matter what Airbus says.

Jonty
GS of 155 means landing with high LW and 10KTs tail wind. It is not necessary to use flap3, use full flap. The problem with flap3 landing is higher GS which changes the visual clues while landing. So there is a bit of getting used to involved. Now an inexperienced FO who was just settling into flap full landing may have again a period of uncertainity on his hands because of this and not because flap3 demands greater skill. About saving Money, it is not Airbus requirement, the Airlines want to save money. Whether any one likes it or not with increasing fuel costs operating procedures will be guided by fuel savings strategies. Offcourse operations department must lay down comprehesive guidelines for every change.

Who said anything about 10kts tail? Those speeds are fairly typical at our normal landing weights. The aircraft landing at those speeds uses up an awful lot of runway.

I stil maintain it doesn't save any money. It may save a very small amount of fuel, but money? No.

Jonty
I am only talking about A320. With nil winds at max landing weight of 66Tons VLS is 141plus 5KTS for ATHR the Vapp is 146 and the GS should be same. If you add anything for HD wind component it increases airspeed but will reduce ground speed. Let's say HD wind componenet is 20KTS so you add 7kts to VLS. It becomes 148 but groun speed will become 128 kts.Can you explain such high ground speed without tail wind? The landing distance for good to medium breaking action and low ABrake is increased by 140 mtrs. That's not awful lot.

Explaining such a high ground speed is easy, A321. Last night, with 40 kids on board, our Vapp was 153kts. Add a few more adults, and still air it's easy to get to 155kts.

I think flap 3 makes more sense for an A320 than a 321. Although the landing geometry is better for a 321. I just think the savings are marginal at best. You would only have flap full out for about 30 seconds to a minute longer than flap 3 anyway. So your going to save a minimal amount of fuel. Add in using MED auto brake or any reverse thrust and those marginal saving are deminished further. Miss the exit that gives you the quickest route to stand and your now starting to cost money.

On the face of it Flap 3 fuel flows will be lower than flap full fuel flows. I think this is what Airbus have confirmed. Add in all the other "real world" factors and flap 3 landings become a marginal cost saving exercise at best, and costly at worst. Throw in just one over run or tail scrape, and all the saving you ever made from flap 3 landings have just evaporated.

If companies were serious about wanting to save fuel then they should be applying pressure to ATM service providers to sort out the airspace, particularly in Europe. There are massive savings to made here, in the region of 500 to 1000kgs per sector. That's how you save fuel, not trying to eek out 10kgs by eroding saftey margins, that don't work in the real world anyway.

Whist Qantas had taken a similar deliberate policy of reduced flap/idle thrust to save money (which they did -$ several million) I think perhaps the greater contributing factors to QF01 were:

1. FO decided to do a bit of practice manual flying and manual thrust (perhaps towards an active TS is not the best time?) and got high and fast on the approach. Over the fence at 80' ish at Ref+15ish (168knots). Touch down was circa 1000m from landing threshold leaving just over 2200m remaining. - for a heavy B744.......

2. The runway was soaked from a very recent monsoon downpour (preceding A/C - another QF - went around but crew weren't informed).

3. Lightning visible (and commented on by crew) at field.

4. The were directed to the shorter, ungrooved runway.

5. The aircraft floated - a lot. The Captain ordered a go-around just as the mains touched. WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING he then retarded the thrust levers but one was not properly retarded which resulted in auto brake deactivation. REVERSE WAS NOT SELECTED. Manual braking didn't commence till about 15 seconds (?) after touchdown.

6. Aircraft left the hard stuff at about 80 knots.


This had nothing to do with reduced flap landing and everything to do with poor SA, poor decision making and very poor cooperation. The reduced config policy had worked fine up until this point. We are paid to make the most appropriate decisions with regard to safety and efficiency. As soon as compromising variables get thrown into the mix......out goes efficiency in my book. FOG/TS/busy TMA - fuel accordingly. ++RA with resulting WET runway - FULL reverse (caution aquaplane/swing) but am I bothered about noise? :=

The above details are from memory - so I apologise if they are not exactly correct, but they're not too far from the truth.

I strongly recommend digging out the report - sobering reading.

So F3 has its place and benefits - but just use common sense (airmanship?) when making your decisions.

As a further cost saver I have to babysit RHS guys and gals with such low experience ( starting at 125 hrs tt ) that the speed brake is unnecessarily in and out like a rabbit's dick during most approaches and the concept of the visual approach is simply an impossibility. The increased risk of F3 landings and for that matter OETD's with all it's associated distractions is just too great so I don't.

Why are guys with 125 hours doing F3 landing? In our outfit it's forbidden until their experience of FF is consolidated and they then have additional training to be shown the differences with F3. If their performance is not satisfactory at F3, they remain restricted to FF - and may even go back to the sim.

Presumably Los, you were a Skygod the first time you flew a jet and never used the Speedbrake? Of course someone with low experience is going to have to work a lot harder - but at least it shows they're thinking and trying to do something about it AND LEARNING IN THE PROCESS. I've seen guys with 1000's of hours make a complete b0ll0x of an approach by trying to be clever - unaware of their, or the aircrafts limits and SA leaving a lot to be desired.

As for OETD - I agree that some airfields or at night it is not appropriate. However, at AMS, BCN, MUC, MAD etc it is a NON EVENT. The PF taxis the aircraft, the PNF starts the engine. If there is a problem STOP and tell ATC. It is not difficult - just use common sense.

I'm not some mouth foaming management stooge - but I really don't see what the issue with OETD is. Presumably it's too distracting to do OETA as well? I get the impression that some people are just bloody minded and will not make any attempt to adapt on the flimsiest of excuses. It's like taking an extra tonne "because I'm the Captain, and I can" :hmm:

Time for a coffee........:rolleyes:

A4
What you have stated is the right approach to the reality that exists. I am in agreement with you. What is OETD OR OETA?