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?