flaps 3 landing A320 to save fuel
 

Hi , I'd just like to know if there are companies that use flaps 3 landings as a fuel policy and if so , did they have substantial savings in doing so . Thanks

Yes many companies use flap 3, it's the normal landing flap setting at easyJet and they claim significant savings across the fleet from it.

Difference of between 5kg (empty A319) to 15kg (heavy A321), which adds up over a fleet of 250 aircraft.

Offset by 2 minutes taxiing, so if you can make an closer exit nearer the terminal then better to do flap full and then SE Taxi in.

Flap 3 is also good for the community - as was in this months or lasts newsletter for LGW based EZY pilots.... Along with the associated graphs :)

Can anyone explain me how fuel saving is achieved with such a low number ?
5 kg of fuel is below the FQI system accuracy

If you were to land with 3000 kg of fuel with flaps full, with a flap 3 landing , you would land with 3005 kg.
Now let's say that the next flight requires 6000 kg of fuel. The uplift should be 6000-3005 =2995 kg

And finally after refuelling you end up with 6080 kg . Total uplift was 3075 kg so 80 kg more than expected uplift . After refuelling you never get the exact figure requested.

So where was the fuel saving in this example?

Duuuuuude:eek:

The down side is that it puts you very close to tail strike attitude in a 320 (not a problem in 319 or 321) which is enough to put most people off doing it at my place.

flaps 3 landing A320 to save fuel
 

Many thanks for the feedback....

Back to the Citation for you, sonny Jim! :) ;)

Hey Citation2,

As you point out, some things are constant variables - in this case - you (almost) always get a few drops more than expected.

Assuming that is (almost) always the case regardless of whether you do a flap full or flap 3 landing, then a flap 3 landing still saves 5kg-15kg (or whatever) of fuel compared to a config full.

To answer your question, assuming the fueller sets 6.0 in the fuel panel and you end up with 6080kg irrespective of your starting fuel, the fuel saving is where the refueller only uplifts 3075kg instead of 3080kg.

Citation 2 and Max Angle
All the calculation you did happens even in flaps full. You may not be able to uplift 5kgs less but even 3 kgs is saved out of the 5kgs multiplied by 100s of sectors over one year amounts to something. About the pitch attitude is to remember that it is already in landing attitude all you need is controlled thrust reduction without much flare. Airlines wanting this should gradually introduce it in SIM checks.

Ha ha ha ha!

It should be student88 anyway... I think you are an easy driver... Check your VistAir - a new manual was issued today covering this very subject.

If every A319 in easyJet did a flap 3 v flap full landing it would result in a saving of £3.0m, for the A320 its £550k

The biggest saving that we as crew can make, is not carrying fuel above OFP when there is no justification for doing so, I understand that we will soon be having an update to our OFP's showing the percentage of flights that operated on that sector without burning more than OFP fuel. (98-99% of flights)

But yeah, unless unable for operational reasons you should be doing a F3 landing, and it is the normal landing configuration to be used.

It says in the manual in big bold writing that flap 3 or flap full will be used normally for landing, along with requirements for flap 3 like extra care to be stable. I've seen maybe 3 people in 12 months do a flap 3.

I don't think many really care about flap 3.

SC, like I say if you read the new manual as published today.. AGAIN it goes on to stress we should all be doing flap 3 landings unless there is an operational reason why we can't.

Just below the statement you quote in our OM-B it says:

FLAP 3 OR FLAP FULL ARE THE NORMAL LANDING CONFIGURATIONS.

Flap 3 should be used for normal landings provided:

From today's publication:

Flap 3 Landing
The SOPs recommends the use of Flap 3 for landings for fuel savings as well as in the case of turbulence or wind shear. Flap 3 landings are slightly ‘different’ than Flaps Full landings.
Some factors that do require operational considerations are:
• Care must be exercised to achieve a stable approach
• No technical defects affecting landing performance note that some abnormal
conditions may require Flap 3 for landing
• No contamination
• Significant tailwind expected on landing
• The IFLD computed from the LPC or QRH In Flight Landing Distance +15% is less than the available landing distance
Consideration should be given to the increased taxi time that may result from a Flap 3 landing and the associated increase fuel burn. A319 burns 16 Kg more for a Flap Full landing/A320 burns 9Kg more for a flap full landing. In rough numbers, the breakeven point is 900m for A320 and 1700m for A319. This can be applied to any airport when Flap 3 will result in different exit point and longer taxi routing.

ad319, you make me laugh. Your saving is probably correct at LGW where you are instructed to slow down to 160 at 10nm and maintain it to 4. But there is life outside Gatwick...
I am based at RAK and each time 28 (25km vis and clear sky) is in use, almost all the orange guys fly a full IFR procedure, followed by a circle to land with gear down and F3 instead of a, straight forward, visual approach. Did you save 9kg or did you just waste 491 kg?
When I flew the airbus I saw people configuring ealier on a F3 landing, reducing the benefit to almost zero. You only save the fuel if you accept that your approach will be stable 100-200ft lower than on a F full landing.

Of course we configure earlier. Configuring for a Flap 3 takes longer, as you know, because the lower final flap drag means an increase in the time taken to reduce to Vapp... hence the earlier configuration. This all happens at idle thrust.

Assuming you start to configure at a point from a Thrust Idle G/S descent (Conf 1) which enables you to become stable at 1000ft as with Flap Full, the timing of that point will make no difference to fuel consumption. What makes the difference is flying the remainder of the approach below 1000ft at 45% N1 instead of 55%.

Just saying...

Sarah, you may laugh at the savings on a per flight basis - however in an airline the size of ours it results in a saving of over £3m a year. I don't think that is a figured to be scoffed at.

A snippet from our May newsletter, affirming the position re flap 3 landings.

"In recent issues of the newsletter we have highlighted the Ops Manual B requirements of using Flap 3 as standard for landings (as seen to the left).

It has come to light that some crew are under the impression that there has been a change in stance or SOP regarding the use of Flap 3 – due to a perceived requirement to slow down earlier to achieve a stable approach. This is not the case, and the current SOP to use Flap 3 for normal landings is still active."

Eh which new manual?

Last time I used F3 for fuel saving, we got a "low energy warning", which ended up in a go-around, burning up additional ~400kg... Ooops, there go my savings... :ugh:

P.S. Question for the EZY guys - do you ever use F3 at LTN?

Don't see much F3 at my base, but then we're mainly flying 320s and are all scardy-cats ;)

Which base ES? I notice there is a major difference in F3 usage between bases.

That would give away my dirty secrets.

But in seriousness, it's a nearly all 320 base and we fly to places with inevitable tail winds, so the tail strike risk is perceived as higher and so people don't usually take up the opportunity.

The quoted figures are a statistical saving. The breakeven distances are nonsense and do not take into account the cost of time, only the cost of fuel. Nor do they take into account the cost of exiting the runway at 90deg vs RET (lower speed and NW wear). So they are a very rough guide. Just apply some common-sense!
Speaking about common sense.
Some people will spend more than a minute thinking about their landing flaps but in the meantime will funnily enough:
-fly a CDA with F2 VS-300 and thrust up
-use speedbrakes inefficiently or ask for/fly more trackmiles than necessary
-slow down/configure too early
-follow the managed descent profile religiously despite winds and or speed-profile being incorrect
-decline a visual approach
It surprises me to see the amount of people that are declining visual approaches whilst this is where the real fuelsavings can be made, and they are more fun to do as well. Have to agree with sarah737 here.
I understand that F3 landings save fuel vs Full landings when carefully considered but the saving is insignificant when compared to some of the stuff I´ve described.

I remember seeing a presentation by Airbus on savings by using Idle Rev and F3.

The conclusion was that it made sense to use F3 only in conjunction with LO BRK/IDLE REV. Anything more than that and F3 fuel savings will be offset by REV fuel consumption and/or increased brake wear. Surprisingly, the presentation stated that using FULL REV didn't affect engine wear - only used some extra fuel (~20kg IIRC)

Hi EcamSurprise,
I've never heard of that one.
What's the FCOM reference?

Ecam, further to our PM.

I just looked at the books for WI and WO - there is no mention of this "feature" just that it will generate the callout.

Heard a rumour that you orange guys and gals are doing 250kt descents? If so are you being vectored for extra track miles to allow faster (most) traffic to overtake and thereby negating any fuel savings from your F3 landings or do you just chug along in front of the pack and everyone else has to fall in line with the slower speeds (if true)?

Nope it hasn't changed for a few years. 270 in the decent or greater if required by ATC. Cost index 5 creeping in on a few routes and many times I'm being asked to speed up from .71 to .78 burning more fuel than calculated.

Hi Stuck_in_an_ATR,
This link http://www.cockpitseeker.com/wp-cont...tionIssue2.pdf
Page 27 shows a fuel saving of 8 kgs for a F3 Landing plus 15kgs for Rev idle.

We'll never manage to do a 100% efficient flight every time, but all the simple bits add up.

Not sure you can blame flap 3 for your own ropey flying.

My apologies - I'd been labouring under the impression that the low energy warning was inhibited with the autothrust engaged. :O

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.

gaunty :ok: apparently not.

Any data available on flap use in A31x/32x overrun accidents? Not seeking the bad apple aspects to blame the human, but organisational aspects of accidents which have origins similar to those being debated in this thread.

“People are expected to be both efficient and thorough at the same time – or rather to be thorough, when with hindsight it was wrong to be efficient”.

Why Things That Go Right, Sometimes Go Wrong.

The ETTO Principle.

Stuck in an ATR
I am really flabergasted that so much doubt, apprehension and emotion is created about landing in flap3. You seem to suggest that gusty and turbulent conditions on approach is not a good idea to do flap3 landing. It may not have occurred to you that not only Airbus but all manufactures reccommend one less than full flap landing in these very conditions including windshear. All abnormal landings are in flap3.Manufacturers test pilots surely know a thing or two about this.Flap3 landing is easier than full flap landing if proper technique is used. The aircraft is already almost in landing attitude a minimal of flare and you get a greaser. If conditions are bad for 3 then I can assure you they will be worse for full flap.

Except Bombardier for one ;)

I do. Almost every landing.

Thx... How does it affect brake temps and ability to vacate A, or B on the 320? I've always thought distance to vacate is a bit short-ish for F3...