Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AF A320 Near To A Stall On Approach?  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11340 times:

I found this ( serious ) incident very intriguing.
From the article linked below :

" On approach to Bordeaux's runway 29 at 3000 feet the aircraft encountered hail causing the first officer's windshield to crack. The aircraft continued the approach, while descending through 2800 feet ( on autopilot ) the aircraft pitched up to 25 degrees nose up and alpha floor protection and TOGA LOCK activated "
http://avherald.com/h?article=466b79cf&opt=0

Questions :

Wasn't a bad idea trying to land there and not divert ?
Why the pitch up attitude ?? Obstructed pitot ?

Thoughts ?

Rgds.
G.

[Edited 2013-08-14 06:48:30]


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11308 times:

Maybe the pitot tubes got clogged with ice and there was a subsequent malfunction is some air data computer?

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12664 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11261 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Why the pitch up attitude ??

If the speed drops, the nose must go up to increase the lift.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10893 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
If the speed drops, the nose must go up to increase the lift.

Well, yes, I know, but I don't see any reference to a "meaningful" or sudden loss of speed in the article... A change from a descent attitude to a 25 degrees nose up attitude needs two things, a really important loss of speed, and a crew not paying attention to that loss of speed in a timely manner ( in other words, before the Alpha Floor protection do something ).

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12664 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10865 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
http://avherald.com/h?article=466b79cf&opt=0

That's another A320, here is the correct link: http://avherald.com/h?article=466d11a4&opt=0



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1723 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9829 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
If the speed drops, the nose must go up to increase the lift.

If the speed drops, the nose goes DOWN to increase speed and increase airflow over the wings providing lift. If it goes up it will stall.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12664 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9785 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 5):
If the speed drops, the nose goes DOWN to increase speed and increase airflow over the wings providing lift. If it goes up it will stall.

Only if you can increase the speed again or when you have enough altitude. On flight 1549 (the A320 in the Hudson river), the FBW was gradually increasing the pitch to maintain lift.

[Edited 2013-08-14 14:20:55]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineearlynff From Germany, joined Sep 2007, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9559 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
encountered hail causing

  

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
The aircraft continued the approach, while descending through 2800 feet ( on autopilot )

so, the pilots disregarded a big red/magenta spot on their radar

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 1):
Maybe the pitot tubes got clogged with ice and there was a subsequent malfunction is some air data computer?

rather unlikely

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
If the speed drops, the nose must go up to increase the lift.

  

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 3):
but I don't see any reference to a "meaningful" or sudden loss of speed in the article...

once you fly through a cell of heavy precipitation (obviously), you´ll have a nice headwind component turning into a tailwind condition within seconds, augmented by additional downdraft in the centre of that cell. In that case you see the speed drop like a stone...

google for "microburst" and related accidents!

[Edited 2013-08-14 15:19:32]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8977 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Why the pitch up attitude ?? Obstructed pitot ?

Could have been other damage such as a radome which prevented the AoA vanes from getting clean airflow.

Quoting earlynff (Reply 7):
so, the pilots disregarded a big red/magenta spot on their radar

Frozen material is not a good reflector of Wx radar.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 640 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8553 times:

Quoting earlynff (Reply 7):
so, the pilots disregarded a big red/magenta spot on their radar

You have radars that see hail?? Wow this is something!  



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlinebarney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 982 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7780 times:

Quoting airproxx (Reply 9):
You have radars that see hail?? Wow this is something!  

While hail is a poor reflector of radar, the associated TRW was directly over the field at the time. The TRW would have certainly been visible on radar.

LFBD 021830Z AUTO 29012KT 2400 +TSRA BR BKN046/// BKN066/// BKN096/// //////CB 23/18 Q1014=

"....TOGA LOCK activated at 20:45L (18:45Z)"

Note the times.



...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9690 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7647 times:

It sounds like a possible micro burst. Glad they had enough altitude to recover safely. Enough haul to crack a windshield is going to be associated with some nasty weather. The 25 degree pitch up could be associated with the rapid drop in airspeed associated with exiting a microburst.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7242 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7512 times:

I am a bit confused. What's with the speed drops nose up theory? If you are closing in on stall speed isn't nose down?? Haven't we had three crashes in recent years with pilots pulling up instead of down in stalls? OZ 214, AF 447 and Colgan 3407.

Someone mind if they can clear this up for me.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7384 times:

Quoting barney captain (Reply 10):

Metars are for conditions within 5nm of the reference point, I often fly into airports with metars like that and never get wet. It means nothing in isolation.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 11):

Could be many reasons, including following the correct windshear recovery technique which can result in even higher pitch attitudes and TOGA lock.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17109 posts, RR: 66
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7374 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 12):
What's with the speed drops nose up theory?

If the speed drops, the angle of attack must increase to maintain altitude. Of course you don't want to go too far to a stall but since the aircraft didn't stall...

Quoting flymia (Reply 12):
If you are closing in on stall speed isn't nose down??

Sure, but this assumes that the aircraft was heading for a stall. We don't know if the aircraft was approaching a stall or not. All we seems to know is that it was heading for hail and pitched up.

If you are trying to get out of windshear you want maximum lift, which is achieved at an angle of attack just short of the stalling AoA.

On windshear warning, the recovery procedure is something like this.
- TOGA power.
- Do NOT change configuration.
- Pitch up to Clmax or thereabouts for maximum lift. Max lift is right before stall. In the case of Boeing, this means pitch to stick shaker and in the case of Airbus FBW hold the stick back and let the system worry about Clmax.

The point is to climb as much as possible since if you go through a microburst you'll go from lots of headwind to downdraft to lots of tailwind in a hurry.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7160 times:

Its a bit early to start debating what happened. Firstly we don't know why the aircraft pitched up 25 degrees, i.e. was it weather related or due to malfunction. The other thing you must remember that Alpha floor is a function of angle of attack not of speed so if there was a large pitch up moment and a significant increase in load factor and AofA then with the speed already very low there's a good chance of A Floor Activation, aircraft may not actually have been in a sustained stall.

User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7242 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7115 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):

If the speed drops, the angle of attack must increase to maintain altitude. Of course you don't want to go too far to a stall but since the aircraft didn't stall...

Got, not getting to stall speed, yea that makes sense.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):
The point is to climb as much as possible since if you go through a microburst you'll go from lots of headwind to downdraft to lots of tailwind in a hurry.

Thanks for the info!



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4223 posts, RR: 37
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6903 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
Metars are for conditions within 5nm of the reference point, I often fly into airports with metars like that and never get wet. It means nothing in isolation.

Considering the aircraft got hail damage, they obviously got a bit wet. Pretty safe to say the metar and what they experienced are related....



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 6867 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 17):

Not obvious at all, I have been in hail before and not in rain.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4223 posts, RR: 37
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6840 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
Not obvious at all, I have been in hail before and not in rain.

You're being obtuse at best. Perhaps some more practice flying 180 to 5 miles is in order?  



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6790 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 19):
You're being obtuse at best.

Not at all, the contents of a metar do not reflect what an aircraft will see on the final approach path (around 0.2 sq nm in area). The metar relates to conditions within 5 nm of the reference point (around 80 square nm), and it is possible not to go into rain or hail while the metar has a TS on it. I have done it twice in the past week, even flew through a typhoon this week without getting wet on final.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 19):
Perhaps some more practice flying 180 to 5 miles is in order?

We dont fly 180/5, we leave that up to those heros in the US who "never" have accidents or incidents with the worlds best ATC, and best RT standards.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17109 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6782 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 20):
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 19):
Perhaps some more practice flying 180 to 5 miles is in order?

We dont fly 180/5, we leave that up to those heros in the US who "never" have accidents or incidents with the worlds best ATC, and best RT standards.

Could someone please explain the 180 to 5 miles expression?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6774 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 21):
Could someone please explain the 180 to 5 miles expression?

Maintain 180 kts indicated to 5 nm from landing, 160 to 4 is more common and a lot safer.

Kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v^2, an extra 20 kts is only an extra 12% in speed (above 160), however around an extra 27% in kinetic energy. 180 kts is above or at the maximum flap speed for most jet aircraft.

[Edited 2013-08-16 01:05:17]


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17109 posts, RR: 66
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6721 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 22):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 21):
Could someone please explain the 180 to 5 miles expression?

Maintain 180 kts indicated to 5 nm from landing, 160 to 4 is more common and a lot safer.

Kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v^2, an extra 20 kts is only an extra 12% in speed (above 160), however around an extra 27% in kinetic energy. 180 kts is above or at the maximum flap speed for most jet aircraft.

Thanks!



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21795 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6569 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 21):
Could someone please explain the 180 to 5 miles expression?

In the US, ATC will often ask pilots to maintain 180kts until a 5 mile final. This requires a technique where you don't extend the flaps for landing until past the 5 mile point (due to flap extension speeds). And that runs up against certain foreign carriers' SOPs which require the aircraft to be fully configured for landing earlier than that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4223 posts, RR: 37
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6643 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 20):

Not at all, the contents of a metar do not reflect what an aircraft will see on the final approach path (around 0.2 sq nm in area). The metar relates to conditions within 5 nm of the reference point (around 80 square nm), and it is possible not to go into rain or hail while the metar has a TS on it. I have done it twice in the past week, even flew through a typhoon this week without getting wet on final.

Still being obtuse. It's quite obvious the two are related in this situation.

Quoting zeke (Reply 20):
We dont fly 180/5, we leave that up to those heros in the US who "never" have accidents or incidents with the worlds best ATC, and best RT standards.

Just giving you crap from all the yelling you did on the Asiana thread.   Widebody airliners can do 210 to 5 miles no problem and meet stabilization requirements for us no problem (given no tailwind)!

In the CRJ 200, that thing was such a brick that you could do 250 until 5 miles!

[Edited 2013-08-16 21:50:40]


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineglen From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 225 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6581 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):
On windshear warning, the recovery procedure is something like this.
- TOGA power.
- Do NOT change configuration.
- Pitch up to Clmax or thereabouts for maximum lift. Max lift is right before stall. In the case of Boeing, this means pitch to stick shaker and in the case of Airbus FBW hold the stick back and let the system worry about Clmax.

Setting TOGA-Thrust and maintaining the configuration is correct. But then - at least on the Airbus - you follow the Flight Director Pitch Commands which should guide you through the windshear. The windshear recovery guidance tries initially to keep the speed with a positive rate of climb. If this is not possible it keeps altitude and lets speed decrease, down to αmax (corresponding to Clmax) if necessary.
So you may end up at αmax with the side stick fully back, but you don't want to go straight there - it is safer to have as much speed as possible as long as possible in a windshear situation.
(Different thing is terrain recovery, where climbing is the most important thing. In this case you would pull and hold the stick fully back from the beginning of the recovery.)



"The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view." - Albert Einstein
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17109 posts, RR: 66
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6652 times:

Quoting glen (Reply 26):
Setting TOGA-Thrust and maintaining the configuration is correct. But then - at least on the Airbus - you follow the Flight Director Pitch Commands which should guide you through the windshear. The windshear recovery guidance tries initially to keep the speed with a positive rate of climb. If this is not possible it keeps altitude and lets speed decrease, down to αmax (corresponding to Clmax) if necessary.

Thanks for clarifying!



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6692 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 25):

Still being obtuse. It's quite obvious the two are related in this situation.

Not at all, how many winshear go-arounds do you do a year ? I would do at lest one, and every time it is due to mechanical turbulence of wind interacting with terrain. We had up to 65 kts of crosswind last week with the passing typhoon, and had numerous windshear go-arounds. The metars had +TSRA on them as well, it was however not TS related, it was the wind coming over the terrain.

Just goes to show your inexperience to suggest it HAS to be related.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 25):
Just giving you crap from all the yelling you did on the Asiana thread. Widebody airliners can do 210 to 5 miles no problem and meet stabilization requirements for us no problem (given no tailwind)!

Hero plots in the US can, for a lot of airlines the stabilisation criteria is 1500', which is 5 nm, 210 is not stable, nor is 180.

Tell me what airlines are flying with 70% more energy at 5nm, and how can they possibly be stable ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4223 posts, RR: 37
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6667 times:

Quoting glen (Reply 26):
Setting TOGA-Thrust and maintaining the configuration is correct. But then - at least on the Airbus - you follow the Flight Director Pitch Commands which should guide you through the windshear. The windshear recovery guidance tries initially to keep the speed with a positive rate of climb. If this is not possible it keeps altitude and lets speed decrease, down to αmax (corresponding to Clmax) if necessary.
So you may end up at αmax with the side stick fully back, but you don't want to go straight there - it is safer to have as much speed as possible as long as possible in a windshear situation.
(Different thing is terrain recovery, where climbing is the most important thing. In this case you would pull and hold the stick fully back from the beginning of the recovery.)

Correct! Our prescribed response is TOGA power, 15 degrees nose up, and then follow the guidance.

I experienced the real deal for the first time (and hopefully only time) back in June at about 800 AGL. It was amazing how similar it was to the simulator. I did end up in alpha floor at the end of the escape, and of course the recovery from the recovery is about as much of a challenge as flying the windshear escape in itself.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4223 posts, RR: 37
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6655 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 28):

Just goes to show your inexperience to suggest it HAS to be related.

Considering hail damage and subsequent windshear, are you really that hard headed to not notice the linking?

Quoting zeke (Reply 28):

Hero plots in the US can, for a lot of airlines the stabilisation criteria is 1500', which is 5 nm, 210 is not stable, nor is 180.

Tell me what airlines are flying with 70% more energy at 5nm, and how can they possibly be stable ?

Your airline's stabilization is 1500... neat. That's 5 miles out and quite early. At lower volume airports that works. I operate out of the busiest airport in the world typically. 180 to 5 is perfectly safe, day in and out. I typically find myself drumming my fingers to throw out the gear and the rest of the flaps after doing 180 to 5 even to be fully configured and spooled at 1000 agl. If you hit the marker at 210, you'll have to use the speedbrake probably, but it's not difficult. If I'm doing 180 to 5 and immediately dial the speed back and configure, I'll be configured and spooled by 1200. Ideally in visual conditions, I prefer to be more efficient and get configured right at 1000 and meet spooling at around 800 (min in visual is 500 for us). Nothing heroic about it...the airplanes are designed to do it, and anyone with a clue on energy management can do it half asleep.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17109 posts, RR: 66
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6651 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 30):
Your airline's stabilization is 1500... neat. That's 5 miles out and quite early. At lower volume airports that works. I operate out of the busiest airport in the world typically.

Zeke's home airport is HKG. It is the 12th busiest in the world for pax and the busiest in the world for cargo. Not really low volume...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6601 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 30):
Considering hail damage and subsequent windshear, are you really that hard headed to not notice the linking?

As I said earlier, it goes to show your inexperience if you say they HAVE rather than COULD be linked.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 30):

Your airline's stabilization is 1500... neat. That's 5 miles out and quite early. At lower volume airports that works. I operate out of the busiest airport in the world typically. 180 to 5 is perfectly safe, day in and out. I typically find myself drumming my fingers to throw out the gear and the rest of the flaps after doing 180 to 5 even to be fully configured and spooled at 1000 agl. If you hit the marker at 210, you'll have to use the speedbrake probably, but it's not difficult. If I'm doing 180 to 5 and immediately dial the speed back and configure, I'll be configured and spooled by 1200. Ideally in visual conditions, I prefer to be more efficient and get configured right at 1000 and meet spooling at around 800 (min in visual is 500 for us). Nothing heroic about it...the airplanes are designed to do it, and anyone with a clue on energy management can do it half asleep.

I have operated into over half of the top 30 busiest international airports in the world in the past year, my home airport HKG is the 3rd busiest international airport behind DXB and LHR. 160 to 4 is normal at these airports. They are the highest volume wide body airports.

Your profile says you are an A320 FO, that is not a wide body (my last landing weight into HKG was 189.8 t, over double the MTOW of the A320), like to know who operates wide bodies 210 to 5 nm and what weights they are doing that at.

How many accidents and incidents have there been in the landing phase in the US this year ? Why is it not happening at the other busy international airports ?

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 31):

HKG is the 3rd busiest for international passengers, and the busiest for international freight.
http://www.aci.aero/Data-Centre/Mont...ational-Passenger-Rankings/Monthly
http://www.aci.aero/Data-Centre/Mont...ernational-Freight-Traffic/Monthly



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4223 posts, RR: 37
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6361 times:

If ~9000 hours is inexperienced, so be it. Most if my time at my current carrier was in the 767 fleet, which of course included flying the 757. I bid to the 320 for better schedule control with a new addition to my family.

I've done 210 to the marker on the 767 to 5 miles at 295,000 lbs (max landing). Get the gear out and configure on speed... no big deal. I wouldn't attempt it with a tailwind. Like I've said before, your understanding of energy management in higher energy situations is a bit concerning.

As far as accidents in the US- One of those was an asian carrier with a tradition of safety issues and automation overdependence, the other was the one that has a wonderful tradition of get-r-done. It's starting to appear that UPS just let the autopilot fly the plane into the ground. They were configured and on speed. We've had a major push at my carrier to guard against automation dependence this year.

The WN LGA hit was the only one that is positively identifiable as a high energy situation where they did not meet stabilization requirements. WN is less familiar with LGA ops, and the runway 4 is one where you have to manage your speed and energy appropriately. Of all the approaches I've done into LGA in everything from the CRJ to the 767 (yes we fly the 767 into there from time to time- one of the pictures of it at LGA taken a few years ago is me flying it!), that approach with a tailwind is by far the greatest threat to meeting stabilization requirements. Asiana had a 17 mile final and still royally messed it up. No excuses there.

[Edited 2013-08-17 18:57:35]


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2296 posts, RR: 9
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5259 times:

Great that I read this thread. I flew on US airways 3 weeks ago from MEX to PHX a morning flight.

The approach was a little bit bumpy with scatered clouds all over the place and an overcast layer at around 7000 feet.... the A320 made a turn to align with the runway and they dropped the slats and flaps just a little ( guess position 1), and then after a few seconds the gear came down making a LOT of noise, we were overflying PHX and getting at 1500 to 2000 feet and I became very alarmed to see the flaps still on position 1, our speed quite high, then no more than 40 seconds till touchdown, I saw them bring the flaps to position 2, and we landed like that....super fast...

I wish I had made a video of the landing.... weird landing...

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4624 posts, RR: 77
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5053 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 34):
the A320 made a turn to align with the runway and they dropped the slats and flaps just a little ( guess position 1)

- On an approach, when you select *FLAPS 1*, only the slats will extend --> the configuration was therefore *FLAPS 2*

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 34):
then no more than 40 seconds till touchdown, I saw them bring the flaps to position 2

- A further extension then was for *FLAPS 3*, which is a possible landing configuration.
...and btw, flaps 3 at 150 kt gives a rate of descent of 750 ft / min, of which 40 seconds before landing equate to a height of 500 ft... which is the almost universally adopted stabilisation height on a visual approach.

[Edited 2013-09-02 04:22:03]


Contrail designer
User currently offlineflylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4984 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 25):

In the CRJ 200, that thing was such a brick that you could do 250 until 5 miles!


Now that is hilarious! I've also heard it called a lawn dart because of the nose down pitch during approach.



...are we there yet?
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2296 posts, RR: 9
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4759 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 35):
- A further extension then was for *FLAPS 3*, which is a possible landing configuration.
...and btw, flaps 3 at 150 kt gives a rate of descent of 750 ft / min, of which 40 seconds before landing equate to a height of 500 ft... which is the almost universally adopted stabilisation height on a visual approach.

Thanks ! I guess we were at that height, I was really alarmed, because I am very acustomed to approaches where you can see the changes in configuration and a low landing speed, this time it was Fast and with a rate of decent to match, maybe USAir like to save fuel retaining some kinetic energy.... but it was weird, BTW the landing was very smooth and the one in SEA was a greaser... !!!

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4462 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 33):
If ~9000 hours is inexperienced, so be it.

Just goes to show hours in a logbook does not equate to experience.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 33):
I've done 210 to the marker on the 767 to 5 miles at 295,000 lbs (max landing).

295klb is a light aircraft for me, I am flying that plus the weight of a full A320 with a much cleaner aircraft than a 767, our descent profiles are 4:1, the 767 is 3:1.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 33):
Get the gear out and configure on speed... no big deal. I wouldn't attempt it with a tailwind. Like I've said before, your understanding of energy management in higher energy situations is a bit concerning.

What you are describing is not even in accordance with the manufacturers procedures (the Boeing low-drag, delayed-flaps procedure). Our SOPs are conservative, what you are describing if it is a company SOP is not conservative in relation to what the manufacturer publishes. If you were to have an accident, you could be personally exposed for negligence and/or criminal charges.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 33):
One of those was an asian carrier with a tradition of safety issues and automation overdependence

That Asian carrier after a recent ICAO audit was found to be safer than most airlines in the US, I am not aware of any airline in the US achieving a higher safety rating.

Quoting flylku (Reply 36):
Now that is hilarious!

I was actually thinking dangerous and stupid.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4223 posts, RR: 37
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4425 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 34):
Great that I read this thread. I flew on US airways 3 weeks ago from MEX to PHX a morning flight.

The approach was a little bit bumpy with scatered clouds all over the place and an overcast layer at around 7000 feet.... the A320 made a turn to align with the runway and they dropped the slats and flaps just a little ( guess position 1), and then after a few seconds the gear came down making a LOT of noise, we were overflying PHX and getting at 1500 to 2000 feet and I became very alarmed to see the flaps still on position 1, our speed quite high, then no more than 40 seconds till touchdown, I saw them bring the flaps to position 2, and we landed like that....super fast...

I wish I had made a video of the landing.... weird landing...

If you saw the flaps come out, then that was flaps going to Flaps 2. The gear is typically deployed and Flaps 3 is selected, which is the second movement of the flaps you saw. Normal USair landing config is Flaps 3, so what you saw was normal!

The gear can be deployed at up to 250 knots for extra drag in high energy situations and comes quite in handy as the airbus is very clean and has relatively low flaps extension speeds.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4223 posts, RR: 37
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4432 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
295klb is a light aircraft for me, I am flying that plus the weight of a full A320 with a much cleaner aircraft than a 767, our descent profiles are 4:1, the 767 is 3:1.

It's still a widebody, very clean and proved your point wrong. Only airports like JFK that do very wide patterns was I ever able to get away without using speedbrakes on every approach. We utilize FMS idle path on descent and don't reference charts. The path is highly variable as we run tactical cost indexes. It can swing from 2.5:1 at a high cost index to 4:1 at 0.

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
What you are describing is not even in accordance with the manufacturers procedures (the Boeing low-drag, delayed-flaps procedure). Our SOPs are conservative, what you are describing if it is a company SOP is not conservative in relation to what the manufacturer publishes. If you were to have an accident, you could be personally exposed for negligence and/or criminal charges.

We are allowed to configure the aircraft as need be to be as efficient as possible while hitting the stabilization criteria. We utilize modified Boeing procedures, so....well.. wrong again.

Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
That Asian carrier after a recent ICAO audit was found to be safer than most airlines in the US, I am not aware of any airline in the US achieving a higher safety rating.

They also were flying two hands on the wheel and completely ignorant to the fact that their engines weren't spooling... Not a carrier I want my family on.

Quoting flylku (Reply 36):
Quoting zeke (Reply 38):
was actually thinking dangerous and stupid.

Your opinion. We used to have high flaps speeds on the CRJ, and the flaps produced a lot of drag. Deploy the landing gear and speed brake, then flaps on speed, you'd make configuration right a 1000 feet and be on speed and spooled by 600. It was a bit abrupt, but was a good tool to have in your back pocket. With the lowered flaps speeds on an AD a few years later, that was no longer possible.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4395 times:

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 40):
It's still a widebody, very clean and proved your point wrong.

767-200 "very clean", I guess that is why they are still selling so well ....

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 40):
The path is highly variable as we run tactical cost indexes. It can swing from 2.5:1 at a high cost index to 4:1 at 0.

Tactical and cost index in the same sentence......OMG.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 40):
We are allowed to configure the aircraft as need be to be as efficient as possible while hitting the stabilization criteria. We utilize modified Boeing procedures, so....well.. wrong again.

Where has the manufacturer has published this ? You are talking about flying the glideslope at 210 kts until 5 nm, that is the MAXIMUM flap extension speed for flap 20. The maximum speed for CAT D aircraft on final approach is 130 - 185 kts (PAN-OPS), hence the reason 180 to 4 is the international "norm", the 767 is either CAT C or CAT D depending on the model. TERPS is around 140 CAT C and 165 CAT D ?

What I have seen published by Boeing for the 767 for the low drag delayed flap approach states to intercept the glide slope with gear down and flaps 20 at flaps 20 (FCTM 5.17).

From the same page in the 767 FCTM it says the aircraft should meet stabilised approach criteria IF on a glideslope EVEN in VMC conditions by 1000' AFE.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 40):
Your opinion.

Did the manufacturer publish this procedure ?

What is the maximum final approach speed for that category of aircraft ?

What protection did you have from the designed procedure at that speed ?

What rate of descent is the procedure based upon ? What rate of descent are you doing at 250 kts ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4223 posts, RR: 37
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4212 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
767-200 "very clean", I guess that is why they are still selling so well ....

Never flew the 767-200. Only the 300 and 300ER. The 200s were parked before my time.

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
Tactical and cost index in the same sentence......OMG.

Go on? We do variable cost index during the flight depending on a number of factors.

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):

From the same page in the 767 FCTM it says the aircraft should meet stabilised approach criteria IF on a glideslope EVEN in VMC conditions by 1000' AFE.

That's nice. We have relief from that to delay being on airspeed and engines spooled until 500. We have a very close relationship with Boeing, FWIW. Works great, lasts long time.

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
Did the manufacturer publish this procedure ?

What is the maximum final approach speed for that category of aircraft ?

What protection did you have from the designed procedure at that speed ?

What rate of descent is the procedure based upon ? What rate of descent are you doing at 250 kts ?

I've never seen the bombardier books, only our Fed approved ones. It was simply pull the power to idle, put the gear out, open the speed brakes, and as you reached the flap limit speeds, deploy the flaps. A slight level off was needed at the marker putting you slightly high for a moment, but you'd be right back on the slope by 1000. The CRJ is THAT draggy.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6953 posts, RR: 76
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 5):
If the speed drops, the nose goes DOWN to increase speed and increase airflow over the wings providing lift. If it goes up it will stall.

Airbus FBW 101 training.... from the very beginning pilots moving to the Bus FBW get told that the aircraft on pitch maintains longitudinal trajectory. So no stick inputs, reduce speed and pitch goes up, increase speed pitch and goes down... as the aircraft maintains 1G longitudinal trajectory...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic AF A320 Near To A Stall On Approach?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A320 Whine On Approach posted Sat Aug 11 2012 11:46:18 by DocLightning
New Infrastructure On Approach To RWY16 At YMML? posted Wed Oct 15 2008 23:49:30 by B727-200
JQ A320's - Engine Noise On Approach posted Sun Aug 3 2008 04:33:25 by TN486
US On Approach To PDX posted Tue Jul 8 2008 09:23:11 by Seb146
Throttle On The A320 Compared To The A330 posted Mon Mar 25 2002 15:37:13 by GunFighter 6
"Air Canada Too Low On Approach" In NYC posted Thu Dec 13 2012 22:20:58 by YYZatcboy
Headwinds On Approach And Landing posted Sun Oct 28 2012 12:59:22 by LU9092
787: Prone To Floating On Touchdown? posted Wed Apr 4 2012 04:29:59 by faro
AA MD80 To ORD On Dec 5 posted Wed Dec 7 2011 17:05:15 by AA7771stClass
What Does It Take To Implement Steep Approach? posted Fri Jul 23 2010 11:36:02 by PPVRA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format