I am pretty sure the Flap 3 approach recomendation in high cross winds is very old (around 7 years) and pre dates a software mod for the ELACS on the A321

 

I don't think it is necessary anymore

I think it is current since I heard it from a current captain/instructor. But I can check with him next time I see him.

Bruno

 

PS (edit). Having said that, I didn't realize Aer Lingus - and Rónán - still flew the A321. So maybe I shouldn't really bother to check... :smile:

Just did a bit of hunting around and found this from 2004

 

http://www7.landings.com/cgi-bin/get_file?pass=193800883&ADS/2005/2005-13-39.html

 

Airbus made the ELAC modifications shortly after, looks like the -200 was also affected

Interesting document, Indeed the -200 was effected.

 

Here's one with the whole story, looks like everything was fixed in 2004...

 

http://www.smartcockpit.com/aircraft-ressources/A321_Lateral_Control_In_Turbulence_and_Icing_Conditions.html

 

Regards,

Ró.

Reduced flaps really helps GA singles because you have an increased amount of airflow because of the higher speeds. and especially with Cessna's it reduces the 'blankout effect' from the rudder. This is part of the reason that they reduced available flaps from 40 to 30 degrees.

 

As for a little transport aircraft, ATR says that all landings with normal systems operations have to be made flaps 30. Flaps 15 is not fun to do and flaps 0 landings we are pretty close to our 165 knot tire blow out speed.

 

With the Dash-8-103's we would usually only land with flaps 15. If we really wanted to stop, then we would use flaps 35 which was like turning the aircraft into a brick.

Interesting document, Indeed the -200 was effected.

 

Here's one with the whole story, looks like everything was fixed in 2004...

 

http://www.smartcock...Conditions.html

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Out of curiosity, I did a bit of research on the net. On p....e (don't know if I am allowed to post the link here) , I found a UK pilot with a "large" company saying that flap 3 landing was SOP for both A320/321 types due to fuel saving considerations. This was confirmed by another pilot further down the thread. From other sources, I understand there are quite a few "large" european carrier doing this. So X-wind is not the only reason.

 

Having said that, the thread I am referring to is from 2010, and reading all the various points of the participants, it looks like this topic can be discussed ad nauseam by pilots many times more qualified than I am (very easy since I am not a commercial pilot).

 

Bruno

I stand by what I said earlier. The only benefits of Flap 3 landings are better GA performance, which in my 23 year career has never been a problem for duel engine ops, and the slight fuel savings figure of "7kg".

 

Even with that 7kg figure, lets run some figures. As a SH pilot, I'd clock up about 830 hours per year average, with typical sector length of about 2hrs, that's 415 landings per year, €4 for 7kg (€2 per gallon), so that's an extra bill of €1660, now we have 550 pilots, about 480 on SH, so that's 240 pairs of crews, if they all do the 830 average, 415 sectors per year, that's a total of 240x€1660 = €398,400 per year the company loses on Flap Full config landings...

 

Now, the cost of a tail strike, you're talking in the region of 700,000 - 1,000,000 for repairs, then the cost of wet leasing in another aircraft to operate the sectors for the 3 or so weeks the aircraft is out of action will cost a fair bit on top of that, I'm not sure of te going rates though. But I think it's clear that it costs a lot more to have a tail strike than deploying full flap....

 

Also bear in mind the A321 already has a much higher approach speed than the A320, so you're talking about added costs for brake maintainence, if you use more reverse on landing due to the higher speed, you've immediately cancelled out those fuel savings.

 

With the A321, there's a much greater chance of balked landings, with a lower flap setting you're coming in with a higher nose attitude and if you bounce you're not going to try and salvage it, you'd strike the tail if you did for sure, (though personally I'd never attempt to recover an A321 from a bouncy, or she'll bite you in the &@($* anyway, flaps full or conf 3...), that GA will cost you a whole lot more.

 

I suppose what I'm saying is is that it isn't as simple as save a bit of fuel on each sector, I've been doing this for years and experimented with all the different options and I've settled on a method that I think works best and that is flap full. The only reason I'd accept for flap 3 landings would be W/S reported on finals, but even then I'd still be inclined towards Flap Full myself...

 

Regards,

Ró.

I wonder if the folks in the A340-600 have the same problems. Looks so loooooong and surely is a thing to watch when landing or taking off. At least after reading your texts on the A321. What about the 757-300? From the docs, the 737-900 may not be easy too.

 

Naming the planes just from their (long-ish) appearance. I haven't compared any ratios so far.

Also, just reading the PPRuNe thread I think you were talking about they make a good point that if you miss an earlier runway turn off and have to go to the next one the increased taxi length will easily negate the fuel savings on the approach.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

I wonder if the folks in the A340-600 have the same problems. Looks so loooooong and surely is a thing to watch when landing or taking off. At least after reading your texts on the A321. What about the 757-300? From the docs, the 737-900 may not be easy too.

Not sure about the 737-900, but I never had a problem with tail strikes and the 737-300/400/500 when I flew them.... Neither am I sure about the 753 or the A346....

 

Regards,

Ró.

I've just clicked into the docs, the 900ER contacts at some 8° pitch whereas the -400 is at some 9.5° degrees. The normal -900 is at 8.2°.

 

The -900ER has the SFP on board, so maybe that's the real challenge then, flying her in with rather low (737) speeds and carrying the long tail. Just guessing though. But the Boeings have a tailskid, right? Means the -800 and -900. Airbus has paint. :lol:

 

Edited. I read something about a tailstrike protection on at least the A340 -500 and -600. Is that true? Anyone with details? Just out of interest. I recall some marker on the PFD, but I can't tell if that was an active (blocking) thing or just a HU on the max pitch angle.

 

I've found this. http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2003/Feb2003_FlyingLongestRange.htm

Tailstrike protection

As you might expect from a very long airplane (the A340-600, at 246 feet 11 inches long, is 7 feet longer than the A380 currently in development), designers must take into consideration the possibility of a tailstrike on both takeoff and landing. On the PFD (primary flight display), a pitch limit chevron, shown in red, provides the pilots with a visual pitch reference for the tailstrike pitch attitude. For the A340-500, this limit is shown at 10 degrees for takeoff and 8.7 degrees for landing. More importantly, the flight control laws now contain a "soft protection" to make the pilot’s pulling to the tailstrike pitch attitude more difficult. The soft protection is a function of pitch rate, pitch attitude, and stick position, but will still allow the pilot to pull through the protection, if necessary.

 

 

I must admit that I 'only' had tail strikes at takeoff so far, never at landing. Well, that's a sim perspective of course, but I do feel ashamed when I see a certain bump (could be EZCA) after rotating. I knew what happened then, but I won't tell anybody. :blush:

Also, just reading the PPRuNe thread I think you were talking about they make a good point that if you miss an earlier runway turn off and have to go to the next one the increased taxi length will easily negate the fuel savings on the approach.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Thanks Rónán,

 

BTW, in the same thread I think someone mentioned that the risk of tail strike was actually lower on the 321 than on a 320 (due to differences in the flaps system if I remember well). Any comment on that?

 

Also, someone was mentionning differences in control laws at flap 3 that made the plane more responsive (aileron) in cross wind situations.

 

Otherwise, I think I understand perfectly your point. Thanks for taking the time.

 

 

Rgds,

Bruno

 

PS (edit) : I think this thread is an(other) education on what manufacturers, airlines and of course pilots need to take into account - and keep up to date about - during the lifetime of digitally-controlled aircraft.

That's not true regarding the 320 & 321 Bruno, same goes for roll control in config 3. The aircraft is still in normal law till 50ft so handles the same no matter what config it's in.

 

 

@CoolP

 

But it must be fun to do it. Skip to 2:04.

 

That's one beast of a plane.....................I don't know why it makes me feel nervous!!!!!!!

I must admit that I 'only' had tail strikes at takeoff so far, never at landing. Well, that's a sim perspective of course, but I do feel ashamed when I see a certain bump (could be EZCA) after rotating. I knew what happened then, but I won't tell anybody. :blush:

Tailstrikes on landing happen typically when a pilot tries to salvage a bounced landing, typically on takeoff you'd not tailstrike unless you miscomputed your V speeds, which is a much less common occurence.

 

BTW, in the same thread I think someone mentioned that the risk of tail strike was actually lower on the 321 than on a 320 (due to differences in the flaps system if I remember well). Any comment on that?

 

Also, someone was mentionning differences in control laws at flap 3 that made the plane more responsive (aileron) in cross wind situations.

Indeed the A321 has double slotted flaps, where as the A320 has single slotted flaps. This helps to reduce the pitch required, but it's still greater than the A320, typical pitch on approach for an A321 is about 4 degrees ANU, where as it's usually around 2.5 degrees ANU on the A320 from memory.

 

Also, on an A320, Tailstike will occur 13.5 degrees, gear extended, and 11.7 degrees gear compressed.

On the A321, Tailstrike will occure at 11.2 degrees gear extended, and 9.7 degrees gear compressed.

 

So, on a whole you can see that the A321 is Waaaaaaaay more likely to tail strike. AFAIK, we had a bad tailstrike in LHR back in '99 or '00, and ever since then the training department is very cautious about Flap 3 landings....

 

With regards to the control law in Conf 3, that is the item we were referring to earlier which was fixed with a software update back in 2004.

 

This is really starting to feel like a sim check... :wacko: :mellow: :rolleyes:

 

Regards,

Rónán O Cadhain.

For those interested, here's the report. Aircraft was St. Enda, aka EI-CPE, Papa Echo, an A321-211, year was 2000.....

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_501656.pdf

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

This is really starting to feel like a sim check... :wacko: :mellow: :rolleyes:

 

Regards,

Rónán O Cadhain.

 

You're getting free recurrent training. You're not going to start complaining, aren't you ? :smile:

 

Kind regards (and thanks)

 

Bruno