1. Not necessarily. Depends on the 100ft wind because you won’t get protection from GS mini. If 100ft wind is calm but surface wind is 5 knot tail, then you’ll lose 5 knots during the flare. A321 in particular is vulnerable to this. On the other hand if you have a tailwind at 100 ft but calm on the ground, then you’ll gain energy during the flare. So the real answer is “it depends”.

2. No. The correct speed is that determined by the aircraft weight with an optional and appropriate wind correction depending on conditions. You can tell with experience whether the speed in the FMGC is a bit low because the aircraft will feel a bit “weird” as it sits towards the back of the drag curve. But the correction is only a knot so who cares?

3 (and 4) Well, both best angle and best rate are weight dependent so it doesn’t matter either way. I’d have kept the speed back for the turn.

5. Personal preference. During the descent I’d want to see ground returns just past the destination so I know that there's nothing between me and the airport.

6. This is ridiculous. Wet degrades takeoff margins deliberately.

1.6g landings… everyone does crap landings from time to time, even with 10,000 hours. 1.6g is embarrassing but not going to break anything or anyone. Put it out your mind and expect to float down the runway on your next one.

Sorry if I'm calling you a bit on this one. The OP just got 1.000 hours on type, he is still working on his confidence, and he doesn't need to put feelings into what he is doing in the cockpit, he needs to take them out of it. In his original post, the OP used the word "blame" when he talked about his landing, and now he will add "embarrassing" to the mix, even if you are telling him not to worry about it.

Please understand what I mean: you already know this because you already have plenty of experience and the proper angle, the issue is that the OP still feels that his personal validation goes hand to hand with his performance, and he thinks that because he is flying in a red-white-and-yellow toxic environment. Apart from sound advice regarding procedures, he needs to see how a real professional behaves.

Apologies to you if I'm not being able to explain myself...

As I am fast approaching that age, I do my best to be able to show my fellow crew members what and why I do by referring to the company manual. As a copilot always hated flying with the guys that did things un-standard. Having said that, 10 years in the bus after 15 years and 4 other types does give me the experience to sometimes know better than whatever computer is running the show. Never in a “I always take off F2” nonsense way, but I do intervene during descent a lot.
That guy sounds like a total tool tho.

Proper angle, I'll keep that in mind.

Iggy - I could have chosen a better word. I didn’t mean embarrassing in a professional sense, which a 1.6g landing isn’t. It’s a dent in your personal pride but ultimately it happens to everyone and it will keep happening for the rest of your career. As long as it’s not *every* landing it’s nothing to be concerned about.

The situation won’t be helped by flying with a captain that you’ve got to watch like a hawk because he’s not sticking to SOPs.

This is where accidents start to occur; when pilots start to deviate from established SOPs, in favour of their own idiosyncrasies, which haven't proved to be safer, nor more effective. With this tendency to always calculate takeoff performance figures with 'wet runway' selected, say V1 for a dry runway is 140kts, whilst wet is 125kts. Let's say that runway is in fact dry, but this Captain is electing to use the wet runway calculations. If you have an engine failure/fire at, say 132kts, you are able to stop on the runway if your V1 was 140kts, not so much with 125kts. How is it safer to takeoff with a failure, all because your Captain elected to use wet runway calculations? Expect to takeoff normally but be ready and have the appropriate configuration in an event of an emergency, such as using the correct speeds.

Generally, you should trust the numbers that your landing calculator has spat out, particularly if the runway is short.

Having your engines at takeoff thrust for almost 5,000 feet is an awfully long time to have them at such setting.

I find it unacceptable if he is doing many things without telling you or without discussing it with you. How can you and your crew share the same picture/idea if you don't convey what you are doing?


Unfortunately, like others here have said, just sit down, smile and go along with it, unless it is abundantly clear to you that there is/will be an issue.

Thanks for your input. You are spot on with the V1 on wet vs dry.

Landing VOR he went fully managed, and after FINAL APP engagement I was waiting for him to set GA altitude. So as we had RWY in sight and moments before flying manual, I reminded him politely to set the GA ALT. After landing he scolded me a bit, said I seem like I was flexing my knowledge and thinking that he doesnt know what to do.

There is no CRM. It's either his way or no way. We were landing in a CAVOK RWY with normal winds and he immediately dropped the gear down, flap 3, full without me asking. We were not heavy, high, fast nor asked to slow down. After landing he noticed I was very quiet and annoyed and he said, "Don't be mad I dropped the gear down, it's better we get early stabilized"


Anyway this begs the question, would it be better to just make the other person feel comfortable flying with you with whatever he does and roll with the punches as long as there is no flight safety involved, or be standard but assertive?

Hi,

reading your posts the first thing that comes to my mind is that this guy never went through a proper command upgrade process and probably sold himself as a Captain thanks to the many flaws that unfortunately are possible in today’s globalized aviation. This type of attitude is typical of someone who is not comfortable in what he’s doing and lacks proper techniques of communication as he was probably a self made left seater. Another option is that he upgraded in a very very dodgy outfit but that basically goes back to the same results as above.
Any instructor/examiner with a little bit of experience is able to spot those kind of behaviors of people that are in the wrong seat and sometimes in the wrong part of the aircraft.

With that being said to answer your question:
It’s all based on proper communication and briefings and this goes both ways regardless of who is actually PF/PM. It is very important to describe briefly or more in depth depending on the complexity of the approach how this will actually be flown, I.e. from a straight forward home base ILS planning to be stable checks done at the latest by 1000 fr to a more complex approach with weather etc.. where we will discuss gates for configurations. Remember it’s all about having 2 pilots fly like 1, sharing the same picture or mental model at all times during the flight.

Really? The safety department is linked to the AIDS menu, MAN REQ REPORTS 15? Are they also linked when a pilot or mtx pulls a report 14 or 13? I'd love to see a reference for that.

Welcome to the forum, you deserve a break from that ape. Goodspeed.

Much worse than you assume, even. I.e. using wet numbers on a dry runway is an AFM breach (screen height and TOD calculation).



For your landings, use the FCOM/FCTM diagram. Your visual aiming point is always 297/300 m from the threshold. Runway markers and PAPI could be all over the place, namely the easterly RWY in Ho Chi Minh is 450 mtrs. Learn to use PAPI and the makers as guidance until a wise moment but no longer, then identify the true aiming point, eyeball it and fly the plane there.

That's operator-specific, depending on what the individual airline wanted. Keep in mind that even if the department in question is "linked" to the report in question, that does not necessarily mean that a human actually looks at each report, only means the ability is there.

Thanks for all your replies.

Another question, why does the A321 NEO tend to nose drop after closing the thrust during flare?
Even if the CG is around middle or aft side.

FCOM says on NEOs, flare mode begins at 100FT, what's the reason for this?

Thanks

Flare mode on the A321 NEO is a direct stick to elevator law, not the altered normal law that the older A321s (and all A32x series have, really). So you gain a pitch/power couple which you need to control with additional back pressure.

Normal law resists pitch changes by targeting zero pitch rate, with another loop to maintain 1g flight (the FCOM gives a simplified overview, but at lower speeds it’s actually a pitch rate law because otherwise you end up with PIO due to the lag between input and response). In order to land you “need” the nose down order generated by the flare law otherwise you’ll start climbing again.

You can try this in the simulator by entering abnormal attitude law and then landing (this leaves you in pitch alternate law for landing), or by leaving the gear up. It’s quite interesting to see and worth the time.

Even today there are CRM challenged pilots like your Captain still flying. They might be - or have been - competent with flying generally, on previous types and more basic aircraft; but they might be doing what they do because they don't fully understand the Airbus - (There are many pilots who think the Airbus auto-thrust and GS mini goes wrong with changing approach winds for example, when actually it operates opposite to the Boeing system).

Normally no need to override or modify Airbus GS mini.

I once spent ages trying to find out why my Captain had wanted to continue an ILS approach underneath three enormous CBs, rather than holding off and waiting for them to move away. On the flight home, I showed him diagrams of micro bursts that were in the company manuals, along with the clear instruction to avoid them, and asked why he had disregarded that instruction. I tried to find out what was in his mind, and why he had wanted to take the risk. I never got a convincing answer, and I don't think he was competent. (In the event we had to go around anyway, for other reasons, and the company went into administration soon afterwards, so I could not pursue it).

Avoid if possible but if you can't, go with the flow at your stage - unless the guy is going to kill you, in which case you have to take control.

This guy sounds like me to be an ex Boing analogue dinosaur who (at best) didn't/wouldn't understand the airbus philosophy during his conversion and hasn't been subjected to enough Professional FOs to question his methods on the line.
At worst he is the sort of analogue dinosaur who imagines he actually knows better than Airbus and all their computers - and is thus in dire need of a frank discussion with Flight Standards.
DO NOT 'go with the flow', that is how mavericks like this continue to harrass FOs and lead them into bad habits too. Have a quiet word with someone sympathetic that you can speak to in the Training Office and explain your concerns without sounding accusatory or intent on 'shopping' him.
People like this need to have their attitudes realigned, they are not doing anyone any favours at all and you and your colleagues are doing no-one any favours by letting them carry on.
Remember. You too hold a Professional flying licence and are bound by all that entails. It is your duty to address this matter. Tactfully and sensitively, but address it you must.

You need the courage of your convictions. I once was put in a position where I was forced to report a "captain" who resolutely and continuously refused toeven bother with, let alone adhere to checklists, apply SOPs and behaved as an autocratic one-man multi-fingered switch-flicker without engaging the FO in the process at all. The company was a disgracefully unprofessional one and my observations were made public and despite many FO's privately agreeing with my points I was ostracised as a 'sneak'. That pilot should never have had a flying licence for a Cessna but there he was "in charge' of a 737. He had four rings and I was just dirt. Fortunately the company deservedly went bust at about the same time and I commenced the rest of my career with a responsible outfit.
Moral? Be prepared for this to backfire on you - but if you are a true Professsional it is your duty, that is DUTY to flight safety and your passengers to act and accept any adverse consequences with Professional patience. The world will move on and you with it as a better, wiser and above all a more confidently Professional pilot. If your company is properly run none of the above adverse comments will apply.

Fursty Ferret
I've read somewhere that even on the A320 series, flare mode is a direct stick-to-elevator relationship? Is this correct?
What is the reason that Airbus decided to activate the flare law at 100' for NEOs instead of 50? Some people answered me its due to the aerodynamics of the bigger nacelle/heavier weight.

I'm not yet that experienced but I know that continous descent is preferred with thrust idle if able, this guy keeps switching between VS, DES, and OP DES in a time table of 10s. One time engine spooled up cause we were on OP DES and he selected a V/S of +500, this was on descent. I cant help but shake my head.

meleagertoo
I heard Airbus is against the "autocratic" cockpit and this can be evidenced by whats written on the manuals itself. Is Boeing philosophy the same?

Uplinker
Have you ever had an incident where the programmed GS mini was insufficient and you had to add kts?

Re GS mini- happens all the time. Sometimes we’re a bit heavier than we think we are, and the target speed is sitting right on top of Vls. In that case most (but not all) people increase it to get a 5kt gap.

Crikey. Tell me you don't have a clue about a feature without telling me you don't have a clue about a feature.

​​​​​​​How does one know GS mini is insufficient? Any increase in headwind increases the target Vapp. In tailwind it flies the Vapp. May be rapid change of head wind to tailwind gives an illusion that speed is dropping but it's behaving as designed because the target itself is reducing.

Vilas, he's not implying it ever is, just trying to confirm if perhaps his lunatic instructor was actually correct about some random small piece among all the trash.

Honest work from the student, hope it balances the suffering a bit.

I subscribe to the 'self educated' and self promoted theory here.

​​​​