Narrative:

We set up for an autoland on runway 16R at sea. WX was good VFR with wind down the runway at approximately 150 degrees and 9 KTS. We advised approach control that we wished to make a coupled approach and autoland. The final was approximately 10 mi long and localizer and GS capture went smoothly. The aircraft was configured early and was on speed and on profile. We had a navigation accuracy downgrade displayed for a moment followed by a navigation accuracy upgrade message at about a 5 mi final. I felt that these messages should not affect the approach since we were using ILS localizer and GS navigation and not FMGS computed navigation. All FMA annunciations were normal. I brought the throttles to idle at the 'retard' callout. The aircraft flared excessively high (maybe 10 ft) and then lowered the nose followed by a hard touchdown, a bounce, and a second hard touchdown. It was the worst landing I have ever experienced as a pilot or passenger on this airline. At the suggestion of the FAA inspector on the jumpseat we requested a hard landing inspection which revealed no damage. The first officer and I discussed the incident and could think of no reason why this should not have been a routine autoland under nearly ideal conditions. I just completed another trip with an experienced first officer who stated that the only autoland that had ever made him uncomfortable was on runway 16R at sea when the airplane flared excessively high. I do not know if this is an aircraft problem or a runway problem, but based on this experience I do not believe that the A320 should autoland on sea runway 16R pending further investigation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MAKING A CAT III AUTOLAND, ACFT LANDED VERY HARD. DURING APCH FLC HAD A 'NAV ACCURACY DOWNGRADE' FOLLOWED SHORTLY BY 'NAV ACCURACY UPGRADE.' RPTR THOUGHT THE MESSAGES SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE APCH.

Narrative: WE SET UP FOR AN AUTOLAND ON RWY 16R AT SEA. WX WAS GOOD VFR WITH WIND DOWN THE RWY AT APPROX 150 DEGS AND 9 KTS. WE ADVISED APCH CTL THAT WE WISHED TO MAKE A COUPLED APCH AND AUTOLAND. THE FINAL WAS APPROX 10 MI LONG AND LOC AND GS CAPTURE WENT SMOOTHLY. THE ACFT WAS CONFIGURED EARLY AND WAS ON SPD AND ON PROFILE. WE HAD A NAV ACCURACY DOWNGRADE DISPLAYED FOR A MOMENT FOLLOWED BY A NAV ACCURACY UPGRADE MESSAGE AT ABOUT A 5 MI FINAL. I FELT THAT THESE MESSAGES SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE APCH SINCE WE WERE USING ILS LOC AND GS NAV AND NOT FMGS COMPUTED NAV. ALL FMA ANNUNCIATIONS WERE NORMAL. I BROUGHT THE THROTTLES TO IDLE AT THE 'RETARD' CALLOUT. THE ACFT FLARED EXCESSIVELY HIGH (MAYBE 10 FT) AND THEN LOWERED THE NOSE FOLLOWED BY A HARD TOUCHDOWN, A BOUNCE, AND A SECOND HARD TOUCHDOWN. IT WAS THE WORST LNDG I HAVE EVER EXPERIENCED AS A PLT OR PAX ON THIS AIRLINE. AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE FAA INSPECTOR ON THE JUMPSEAT WE REQUESTED A HARD LNDG INSPECTION WHICH REVEALED NO DAMAGE. THE FO AND I DISCUSSED THE INCIDENT AND COULD THINK OF NO REASON WHY THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A ROUTINE AUTOLAND UNDER NEARLY IDEAL CONDITIONS. I JUST COMPLETED ANOTHER TRIP WITH AN EXPERIENCED FO WHO STATED THAT THE ONLY AUTOLAND THAT HAD EVER MADE HIM UNCOMFORTABLE WAS ON RWY 16R AT SEA WHEN THE AIRPLANE FLARED EXCESSIVELY HIGH. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS AN ACFT PROB OR A RWY PROB, BUT BASED ON THIS EXPERIENCE I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE A320 SHOULD AUTOLAND ON SEA RWY 16R PENDING FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.