British Airways A350 Hard Landing at Tel Aviv
The Cooler King
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways A350 Hard Landing at Tel Aviv
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Are you sure it wasn't a ferry? I saw the note on BA Source but I'm not sure how the plane could operate a revenue flight even as a freighter if it wasn't OK to carry pax before maintenance work back at LHR. Were some of the passenger service units unserviceable perhaps when panels fell from the aft cabin ceiling?
Don't the BA cargo flights normally use 3000 series numerics? I realize that this was an ad hoc situation.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...625Z/LLBG/EGLL
Don't the BA cargo flights normally use 3000 series numerics? I realize that this was an ad hoc situation.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...625Z/LLBG/EGLL
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: EDDM
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No major harm done, unexpected tail wind at the wrong time.
On Jan 22nd 2020 The Aviation Herald received information that the approach had been stable until about 70 feet AGL. At 70 feet AGL the sink rate increased to 1000 fpm, the pilot monitoring called "SINK RATE". Corrective inputs were made on the pilot flying's side stick, however insufficient to arrest the sink rate. According to flight data a loss of 5 knots of IAS occurred as result of a gust (increasing tailwind) which prompted a nose down input and high rate of descent. Maintenance travelled to Tel Aviv to assess the aircraft, the damage was assessed minor. The aircraft is estimated to return to service on Jan 22nd 2020 as flight BA-163 to Tel Aviv again
https://avherald.com/h?article=4d23c7df&opt=0
On Jan 22nd 2020 The Aviation Herald received information that the approach had been stable until about 70 feet AGL. At 70 feet AGL the sink rate increased to 1000 fpm, the pilot monitoring called "SINK RATE". Corrective inputs were made on the pilot flying's side stick, however insufficient to arrest the sink rate. According to flight data a loss of 5 knots of IAS occurred as result of a gust (increasing tailwind) which prompted a nose down input and high rate of descent. Maintenance travelled to Tel Aviv to assess the aircraft, the damage was assessed minor. The aircraft is estimated to return to service on Jan 22nd 2020 as flight BA-163 to Tel Aviv again
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I interpreting that wrong, but doesn't it say that the 5 knot gust created an unexpected (by the PF) software input pushing the nose down that couldn't be corrected in time by the PF with side stick input resulting in a hard landing causing enough damage that it needed to be ferried back to the UK for repair? If the pilot had full control at the time of a 5 knot wind change, would he have been able to avert the hard landing? Keep thinking of MAX and software causing a pitch down with more dire results.
Are you sure it wasn't a ferry? I saw the note on BA Source but I'm not sure how the plane could operate a revenue flight even as a freighter if it wasn't OK to carry pax before maintenance work back at LHR. Were some of the passenger service units unserviceable perhaps when panels fell from the aft cabin ceiling?
It's not unusual when a service is severely delayed for BA to re-accommodate pax on other flights, but still to carry any originally-booked cargo, so technically a cargo flight albeit with a regular passenger flight number.
There were a couple of similar instances in October.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scandinavia
Age: 45
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I interpreting that wrong, but doesn't it say that the 5 knot gust created an unexpected (by the PF) software input pushing the nose down that couldn't be corrected in time by the PF with side stick input resulting in a hard landing causing enough damage that it needed to be ferried back to the UK for repair? If the pilot had full control at the time of a 5 knot wind change, would he have been able to avert the hard landing? Keep thinking of MAX and software causing a pitch down with more dire results.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience with Airbus, below a certain RA the autothrottle will not respond to a speed loss below Vref. This can lead to quite a surprise with a gusty tailwind in flare. As the thrust levers are still in the detent there is nothing you can do to spool the engines up except go-around. Difficult to recognise and deal with in a short space of time: note this is not a criticism of the aircrew in this situation.
In my experience with Airbus, below a certain RA the autothrottle will not respond to a speed loss below Vref. This can lead to quite a surprise with a gusty tailwind in flare. As the thrust levers are still in the detent there is nothing you can do to spool the engines up except go-around. Difficult to recognise and deal with in a short space of time: note this is not a criticism of the aircrew in this situation.
Not flown the AB but I find this statement hard to believe, no choice between idle and go around power in the flare ?!
In my experience with Airbus, below a certain RA the autothrottle will not respond to a speed loss below Vref. This can lead to quite a surprise with a gusty tailwind in flare. As the thrust levers are still in the detent there is nothing you can do to spool the engines up except go-around.
In my experience with Airbus, below a certain RA the autothrottle will not respond to a speed loss below Vref. This can lead to quite a surprise with a gusty tailwind in flare. As the thrust levers are still in the detent there is nothing you can do to spool the engines up except go-around. Difficult to recognise and deal with in a short space of time: note this is not a criticism of the aircrew in this situation.
@Clandestino; what do you mean you have never seen auto-thrust installed in an Airbus except A300/310? Every Airbus FBW I have flown has it. Is the A350 different? Oh wait, you mean auto-throttle is the wrong word. I get it now.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is supposed to keep VAPP as a minimum; however I have seen significantly below VAPP below 50 ft RA. There is no alpha floor protection below 100 ft RA, and no windshear warning below 50 ft RA. All this may depend upon Airbus type and modification, of course, so I hesitate to be definite about this for all tails. Nonetheless, below 50 ft RA if my speed decays more than a few knots below VAPP I go-around. I know of no way to simply increase thrust slightly to reduce or ameliorate the speed decay. If you know of a better technique please let us know.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely one is supposed to slow down from VApp over the threshold to touch down at Vref (or Vref-x it's depending on type) - NOT stay at VApp - that would exceed predicated landing distance. That said, younger pilots (non AB) do seem to be paranoid about getting below VApp, and I have even seen them ADDING thrust while they flare to prevent speed going below VApp (and rolling out very very long or with heavy braking) It would seem to me that an Airbus would rightly chastise this dodgy practice, and correct technique of closing the thrust during the flare would work just fine,
Another slightly unusual aspect is that a tailwind normally slightly increases airspeed in ground effect, not decreases.
Another slightly unusual aspect is that a tailwind normally slightly increases airspeed in ground effect, not decreases.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with moving thrust levers to idle too early is that the auto-throttle has got no authority to exceed the thrust lever position, ie any decay in speed has no correction because the thrust levers are already at idle. Please note my careful choice of words "too early". Without AT authority, no alpha floor, no windshear warning and an early thrust lever closure, any gust in TW sets you up for a hard landing. As I said, I have experienced this.
Although the FCOM doesn't mention it, I have seen little to no AT reaction to speed decay at low RA. The FCOM says it will maintain VAPP as a minimum as long as AT has authority, but I believe, and have noticed this in actual flights, that below a certain RA that doesn't happen. It's like the undocumented behaviour of the stall warning not announcing below a certain speed that was only discovered by Airbus pilots after the AF crash. There's a lot going on that's not in the FCOM.
Having said all that, it is very difficult to keep an eye on airspeed while simultaneously flaring and moving thrust levers to idle. I try to do so but it is high workload. If in doubt about gusty conditions I add a few knots; if crosswind exceeds 15 knots I add a few knots there as well. In my operations I am never constrained by runway length so I accept the additional touchdown speed.
For the pedants: a few knots.
For non-pedants: please share your techniques if you think there is a better way.
Although the FCOM doesn't mention it, I have seen little to no AT reaction to speed decay at low RA. The FCOM says it will maintain VAPP as a minimum as long as AT has authority, but I believe, and have noticed this in actual flights, that below a certain RA that doesn't happen. It's like the undocumented behaviour of the stall warning not announcing below a certain speed that was only discovered by Airbus pilots after the AF crash. There's a lot going on that's not in the FCOM.
Having said all that, it is very difficult to keep an eye on airspeed while simultaneously flaring and moving thrust levers to idle. I try to do so but it is high workload. If in doubt about gusty conditions I add a few knots; if crosswind exceeds 15 knots I add a few knots there as well. In my operations I am never constrained by runway length so I accept the additional touchdown speed.
For the pedants: a few knots.
For non-pedants: please share your techniques if you think there is a better way.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There may be position errors as well. (edited, added) Perhaps the ADC correct for position error, but I really don't know
Last edited by FlareArmed2; 23rd Jan 2020 at 09:31.
It is supposed to keep VAPP as a minimum; however I have seen significantly below VAPP below 50 ft RA. There is no alpha floor protection below 100 ft RA, and no windshear warning below 50 ft RA. All this may depend upon Airbus type and modification, of course, so I hesitate to be definite about this for all tails. Nonetheless, below 50 ft RA if my speed decays more than a few knots below VAPP I go-around. I know of no way to simply increase thrust slightly to reduce or ameliorate the speed decay. If you know of a better technique please let us know.
If you are wondering, yes, I'm taking a
at hilarious flight technique advice that is best left to be tried at MSFS only; it's too risky even for X-plane.Seems that Speedbird pilot tried to exchange altitude for airspeed. Might be a good idea but you need some of it available for exchange.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. . I really admire experten who are so multitasking capable they are able to check continuously their speed below 50RA and perform windshear escape outta flare. I hope some day I'll be like them.
Only half a speed-brake
- Idle
- present thrust as commanded by the A/THR
- anything above CL which you need to then reduce using MAN thr (an obscured mode reversion)
The range between the commanded thrust and CL+ is not readily available with a reflex action. Also, it is not possible to prevent the a/thr from reducing unwisely with a handy intervention.