Fenix A320 landing technique and general discussion thread

[El Diablito 328]

Granted this is an A321LR but I thought it fit best in this thread. If you go to 20mins in the vid you'll see the start of the approach. I was shocked at how much sidestick input there was 🥶

 

[F737MAX 5,608]

1 hour ago, El Diablito said:

 If you go to 20mins in the vid you'll see the start of the approach. I was shocked at how much sidestick input there was 🥶

Dunno.

While it was windy, every time I see a specific camera view showing a YouTube pilot's inputs on the controls, I'm reminded of this:

 

[El Diablito 328]

18 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

I'm reminded of this:

A conspiracy theory wrapped in an enigma. I believe the video above is not replicating the wind conditions at Toronto and also not using a sidestick.

Only the real airline pilots on here can bury this mystery for good! 😆

[Cpt_Piett 4,692]

 

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

I'm reminded of this:

Such a brilliant and funny video!

It reminded me of my recent approach into SBRJ. Since I’ve never hand-flown the aircraft for any longer than take-offs and landings, I was surprised how little control input was needed. During the final 110 or so degrees turn to final, I think I could have just left the sidestick alone for a while, and the aircraft would have continued with roughly the same bank angle and attitude. And the winds weren’t calm either, about 10-15 kts IIRC.

Also, the thrust levers doesn’t require that much input either, but I found that I tended to overcorrect a bit too much, leading to a huge surge in power. Luckily the engines are relatively slow to spool up (I was flying CFM).

Edited March 18 by Cpt_Piett

[F737MAX 5,608]

12 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I think I could have just left the sidestick alone for a while, and the aircraft would have continued with roughly the same bank angle and attitude.

Being FBW aircraft, they hold whatever pitch and bank angle is commanded unless atmospheric conditions interrupt.

Was once fortunate to sit next to a deadheading bmi FO who was type rated on both A320 and A330.

He said the skill in flying an Airbus in windy conditions is knowing when to let the aircraft do it's own thing and when to intervene. And that sidestick inputs shouldn't resemble "mixing a cake."

I try to copy that advice when flying so as not to overcontrol / create PIO.

[martinboehme 493]

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

Dunno.

While it was windy, every time I see a specific camera view showing a YouTube pilot's inputs on the controls, I'm reminded of this:

Love it.

The concept of "low-gain" versus "high-gain" pilots also comes to mind.

It does seem to be accepted that both the "low-gain" and "high-gain" modes have their place. Personally, however, I strive to be a low-gain pilot. On my first few glider lessons, I was "waggling" the stick a lot, a habit I had developed in my flight simming. My instructors quickly pointed out to me that this was counter-productive. I was also confused why I couldn't seem to keep the nose pointed in a straight line before I realized that even tiny aileron inputs cause significant adverse yaw and hence need to be coordinated with rudder (which is easier if you make fewer control inputs in the first place).

Preemptive notes: If a gust throws you into a 30-degree bank, then obviously you need to pick the wing up, and promptly (but not "sharply"). And I'm not comparing a glider to an A320 -- they are obviously very different.

[Cpt_Piett 4,692]

Flybywire really brings some luxuries. Occasionally returning to the A300 and a completely different world. Then the aircraft is flying me, and it seems no matter what I do, I’m always behind. Not so with the A320. Hand-flying it and I feel that I’m in control. Well most of the time anyway! Not sure why I’ve been autopilot-on for 99% of the time until now. I probable thought hand-flying would be too strenuous/difficult.

Could anyone explain to me the biggest difference between IAE and CFM? Are IAE engines slower to spool up / respond? I’ve been flying IAE almost exclusively lately and yesterday the CFM. Can’t say I noticed a huge difference.

[G550flyer 1,014]

11 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Thanks for elaborating, inputs like this is gold for a noob simmer. In case of a bounce, would you do a go-around? I guess it would depend on several factors, but it'd be great to hear your professional opinion. 

A bounce will definitely make things interesting lol. For the most part, the procedure is to maintain landing attitude and take what you get after bouncing. As far going around goes, normally you might pick a go around point on the runway. Commonly, some will say "If I'm not down by the first third of the runway, send me around". Some will also look at the FMS for their landing distance and convert it to a point on the runway and use the distance remaining markers as a go around point. First third is easier. If your bounce will put you past that point, It's a good time to go around.

[G550flyer 1,014]

4 hours ago, El Diablito said:

I was shocked at how much sidestick input there was 🥶

FBW is designed to match conventional controls/behaviors with the exception of trim and fighter aircraft. In fighters, it's critical to be able to position the fighter quickly, especially during BFM. By design, FBW wants to mimic conventional controls and it's easy to go back and forth between them. One good example is the landing behavior.

Traditionally, as you fly your high speed bug sucker into the final stages of approach, this will happen. If you were to bleed that 5 knots or more additive crossing the threshold, you are going to require more back pressure. For every 5 knots of speed change, you will require 1 degree of pitch change to maintain trajectory. As the aircraft enters ground effect, you have that gradual decrease in sink, but will also have the tendency of the nose dropping requiring more back pressure. Once you apply the 2 to 3 degree pitch change, guess what, more back pressure to hold that attitude. That's your conventional flow. Now lets look at FBW. You won't need much back pressure bleeding speed additives, speed trim takes care of this. At a set AGL(aircraft specific), the system stops speed trimming and actually starts to trim the nose down. This forces you to add back pressure to flare and maintain touch down attitude. So at landing, it matches the conventional flow. Now lets look at all of that stick movement, which also coincides with the conventional flow.

As most of us have learned, anticipation and small inputs are the way to go when flying precisely. Artificial feel systems and spring cartridges gives the conventional aircraft that rigid yoke and heavy feel/simulated air load allowing you to fly precisely. FBW does the same by actively dampening your inputs. This all works great for precision flying. But, add in gusty conditions and disturbances, and it's all out the window across the board. 

So, with good ole physics, we know that things love to stay as they are until acted upon by an outside force. It resists the change. Once that item starts to move, it wants to stay moving and resists the change again. You will see this in rough air and wake turbulence. When rolling and pitching moments are induced into an aircraft, you have to put in that large input to counter/stop the movement and then relax the input to correct back. If that induced moment is enough to cause the roll or pitch, the aircraft wants to continue so you have to counter/stop the movement with those inputs. This is why you will see the large inputs with conventional and FBW aircraft. This appears to be a little more exaggerated in FBW aircraft since you have that active dampening going on verses the springs and artificial feels systems in conventional aircraft. You can find yourself going from stop to stop depending on the disturbances. Lets look at two items for examples. Let's start with air refueling.

When behind a tanker such as the KC135, you have a small left and right envelope. Same setup with a KC10, but much larger envelope. Now, if I were to get too far right, the right side tanker engines want to push and roll me back left. I have to quickly put in a large right roll input to stop/freeze my position. Once I have the movement stopped, I relax the input some and the jet will naturally be moved back towards center by the tanker's right engine(s). If I had initially put in left roll input, it would get ugly! Now, lets look at some wake turbulence. I was doing a heavy formation departure as number 2 in a two ship. As we were speeding up and rejoining, we were in the clouds. We had lead on TCAS and was painting him with the RADAR. Lead was in a turn and we were cutting him off to expedite the rejoin since we were a non standard formation. As we were closing, the aircraft immediately started rolling right and that thunderous buffeting could be heard. I put in immediate full left aileron and she kept rolling right until hitting 60 degrees bank. Once stopped, I relaxed the input to correct back to 25 degrees bank. 

So in rough air, you could put in that large left input and suddenly have to go to a large right input to counter a new opposite induced moment. This is why you see cardio on the sidestick and yokes in rough air. If you don't, the aircraft will depart the desired track. This is different from PIO from over controlling an aircraft. When I flew C141Bs during 7 ship formations at 250ft AGL, it was like flying a Mack truck. If you were number 3 on back, you were in constant wake along with the rising thermals. It was a serious workout fighting those pitching and rolling moments. You couldn't use the AP either because it would constantly kick off and put you in a bad way. At times you would request fluid trail so that you could climb 500ft and offset just to get a break from the beat down lol.    

[crimplene 634]

For training purposes I would recommend London City Airport, EGLC. Short runway, steep 5.5 degree GS but for the first few approaches you can use ILS and leave A/T on, which reduces workload quite a lot. Most difficult part for me always is the timing of the flare because sink rate is around 1400 fpm on this approach. Lots of fun, though.

[Cpt_Piett 4,692]

22 hours ago, crimplene said:

For training purposes I would recommend London City Airport, EGLC. Short runway, steep 5.5 degree GS but for the first few approaches you can use ILS and leave A/T on, which reduces workload quite a lot. Most difficult part for me always is the timing of the flare because sink rate is around 1400 fpm on this approach. Lots of fun, though.

That’s a tricky one. I always have trouble transitioning from the steep angle to flare… as you mention. And also fun = yes! Perhaps @G550flyer can educate us, as he so generously has done so far 🙂

On 3/18/2024 at 2:08 PM, Cpt_Piett said:

Could anyone explain to me the biggest difference between IAE and CFM? Are IAE engines slower to spool up / respond? I’ve been flying IAE almost exclusively lately and yesterday the CFM. Can’t say I noticed a huge difference.

Too long, didn’t watch:
Not as responsive as CFM, which is what I suspected. Especially important doing a go-around after a botched landing on a very short Rwy, as can be seen in my videos. As I (too late!) realized that I was gonna run out of runway(ENSD) I was over the steep cliffs and the fjord before the engines finally spooled up. Same situation almost in Rio, but at least I didn’t force the nose up to avoid stalling.

23 hours ago, G550flyer said:

When I flew C141Bs during 7 ship formations at 250ft AGL, it was like flying a Mack truck.

😬😲

 

Edited March 19 by Cpt_Piett

[G550flyer 1,014]

12 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

That’s a tricky one. I always have trouble transitioning from the steep angle to flare… as you mention. And also fun = yes! Perhaps @G550flyer has some advice for us?

The key to steep and unusual approaches is to make them usual as early as you can if possible. If you are steep, you definitely want to be fully configured and on approach speed before the descent. This will minimize the speed gain on approach. As we know, those steep approaches are designed to get you down and keep you away from obstructions. Some will get you to a visual point in which you can proceed visually and convert back to a normal 3 degree path or maneuver so that you can have a normal alignment while maintaining visual separation from hazards. Some of these places will also have displaced thresholds as well which will allow you to adjust and pick up a normal glide path. Imagine having a 1400FPM descent to the runway. You would have to flare aggressively above that 2 to 3 degree pitch change which runs the risk of a tail strike. So one, you want to make that approach normal as soon as you can. Two, you may have to do a two step where you adjust initially to break the sink and pick up a normal and finally flare normally prior to touch down. Tricky for sure lol.

[Cpt_Piett 4,692]

@G550flyer thanks! Added to my ever-growing list of great advice. Now off to EGLC to practice, hope there’s a displaced threshold. If the Rwy is long enough there’s the possibility for go-arounds.

[F737MAX 5,608]

On 3/18/2024 at 4:02 PM, crimplene said:

For training purposes I would recommend London City Airport, EGLC. [...] Most difficult part for me always is the timing of the flare because sink rate is around 1400 fpm on this approach.

The A318s with the steep approach certification had the callouts: "Standby" at 117ft AGL, "Standby" at 90ft and "Flare" at 63ft to assist the Captain with the landing.

The A318 also has a lower Vapp, is rated 7 tonnes lighter for MLW, and has a much shorter stopping distance than the A320. Well done for being bold, taking the 737-600 into EGLC is challenging enough for me!

Edited March 19 by F737MAX

[Cpt_Piett 4,692]

I couldn’t tell from the chart if there’s a displaced threshold. But I found something else though, that I’ve never heard of before: EMAS