37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 546130 |
Time | |
Date | 200204 |
Day | Mon |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : phl.airport |
State Reference | PA |
Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 40 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Weather Elements | Turbulence Windshear |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Controlling Facilities | tower : phl.tower |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | A319 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Navigation In Use | other |
Flight Phase | descent other landing other |
Route In Use | approach : visual |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : flight engineer pilot : cfi pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 240 flight time total : 23000 flight time type : 500 |
ASRS Report | 546130 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : less severe cabin event other ground encounters other inflight encounter : turbulence non adherence : company policies other anomaly other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | flight crew : overrode automation none taken : insufficient time |
Consequence | other |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance Weather Environmental Factor Aircraft Company |
Primary Problem | Company |
Narrative:
On apr/mon/02, I was flying an airbus 319 aircraft, from roc to phl. Approaching the phl area, my first officer and I discussed the surface winds, which were gusting to 30 KTS out of the northwest. We elected to utilize the company recommended procedures for landing the airbus 319 in gusty surface wind conditions. So, we utilized a 'flap 3 degree' confign for landing and 'vapp' was 10 KTS above the 'vls' speed. Just after crossing the end of the runway, at approximately 40 ft above the ground, I had just begun to move the thrust levers out of the climb detent back toward the idle detent. Suddenly, the airplane settled rapidly toward the runway. Although there was still a wide range of autothrust authority/authorized still available, the autothrust system failed to respond, so I manually selected 'toga' thrust with the thrust levers and managed to arrest the descent sufficiently to avoid a 'hard' landing, but it was definitely a firm landing with a slight bounce. One of our flight attendant reported some slight back pain, as a result of the aircraft touching down slightly misaligned, as a result of a premature touchdown. It is my belief that airline procedures requiring the use of autothrust for all regimes of flight, including lndgs, resulted in this marginally safe/unsafe situation, resulting in the aircraft being temporarily out of control. Ordinarily, a pilot has complete and immediate thrust control through all regimes of flight, but not here at air carrier X. Previous accidents with the airbus series of aircraft bear out that gusty wind lndgs are a problem with the aircraft, primarily because of the way that it is mandated to be flown. It is my suggestion that the following procedure (the '20/10' rule) to be used: I suggest that when the surface winds are above 20 KTS, either gusting or steady state, and there is a difference between the steady state wind and the gusts of more than 10 KTS, that pilots then be allowed to disconnect the autothrust system by 1000 ft AGL, and control the thrust manually, so as to have more immediate response and control. It is my understanding that other air carrier's allow their airbus crews to manually control the thrust of the aircraft. It is my hope that air carrier X may recognize that the autothrust system may not be able to 'keep up' in some LLWS conditions, and to allow the pilots to 'fly the aircraft.' after all, isn't that why we are there in the first place? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: company policy is the recommended use of autothrust for all approachs regardless of wind conditions. The exit from autothrust, if determined to be necessary by the pilot, is limited to the selection of toga (takeoff/go around) thrust which gives full thrust authority/authorized back to the pilot but begins with maximum thrust making it a very convoluted maneuver with possibly more than the required thrust initially. There is no gust factor added to the reference speed when gusty winds are present. The aircraft autoflt system restricts pitch if airspeed is low. The union training committee has made an effort to convince the company to change the autothrust policy due to many pilot complaints. To date there has been no response from the company.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN ACR PLT QUESTIONS HIS COMPANY'S POLICY OF AUTOTHRUST USE IN THE AIRBUS 319 ACFT DURING GUSTY SURFACE WIND CONDITIONS DURING THE APCH AND LNDG MANEUVER.
Narrative: ON APR/MON/02, I WAS FLYING AN AIRBUS 319 ACFT, FROM ROC TO PHL. APCHING THE PHL AREA, MY FO AND I DISCUSSED THE SURFACE WINDS, WHICH WERE GUSTING TO 30 KTS OUT OF THE NW. WE ELECTED TO UTILIZE THE COMPANY RECOMMENDED PROCS FOR LNDG THE AIRBUS 319 IN GUSTY SURFACE WIND CONDITIONS. SO, WE UTILIZED A 'FLAP 3 DEG' CONFIGN FOR LNDG AND 'VAPP' WAS 10 KTS ABOVE THE 'VLS' SPD. JUST AFTER XING THE END OF THE RWY, AT APPROX 40 FT ABOVE THE GND, I HAD JUST BEGUN TO MOVE THE THRUST LEVERS OUT OF THE CLB DETENT BACK TOWARD THE IDLE DETENT. SUDDENLY, THE AIRPLANE SETTLED RAPIDLY TOWARD THE RWY. ALTHOUGH THERE WAS STILL A WIDE RANGE OF AUTOTHRUST AUTH STILL AVAILABLE, THE AUTOTHRUST SYS FAILED TO RESPOND, SO I MANUALLY SELECTED 'TOGA' THRUST WITH THE THRUST LEVERS AND MANAGED TO ARREST THE DSCNT SUFFICIENTLY TO AVOID A 'HARD' LNDG, BUT IT WAS DEFINITELY A FIRM LNDG WITH A SLIGHT BOUNCE. ONE OF OUR FLT ATTENDANT RPTED SOME SLIGHT BACK PAIN, AS A RESULT OF THE ACFT TOUCHING DOWN SLIGHTLY MISALIGNED, AS A RESULT OF A PREMATURE TOUCHDOWN. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT AIRLINE PROCS REQUIRING THE USE OF AUTOTHRUST FOR ALL REGIMES OF FLT, INCLUDING LNDGS, RESULTED IN THIS MARGINALLY SAFE/UNSAFE SIT, RESULTING IN THE ACFT BEING TEMPORARILY OUT OF CTL. ORDINARILY, A PLT HAS COMPLETE AND IMMEDIATE THRUST CTL THROUGH ALL REGIMES OF FLT, BUT NOT HERE AT ACR X. PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS WITH THE AIRBUS SERIES OF ACFT BEAR OUT THAT GUSTY WIND LNDGS ARE A PROB WITH THE ACFT, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT IS MANDATED TO BE FLOWN. IT IS MY SUGGESTION THAT THE FOLLOWING PROC (THE '20/10' RULE) TO BE USED: I SUGGEST THAT WHEN THE SURFACE WINDS ARE ABOVE 20 KTS, EITHER GUSTING OR STEADY STATE, AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BTWN THE STEADY STATE WIND AND THE GUSTS OF MORE THAN 10 KTS, THAT PLTS THEN BE ALLOWED TO DISCONNECT THE AUTOTHRUST SYS BY 1000 FT AGL, AND CTL THE THRUST MANUALLY, SO AS TO HAVE MORE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE AND CTL. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OTHER ACR'S ALLOW THEIR AIRBUS CREWS TO MANUALLY CTL THE THRUST OF THE ACFT. IT IS MY HOPE THAT ACR X MAY RECOGNIZE THAT THE AUTOTHRUST SYS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO 'KEEP UP' IN SOME LLWS CONDITIONS, AND TO ALLOW THE PLTS TO 'FLY THE ACFT.' AFTER ALL, ISN'T THAT WHY WE ARE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: COMPANY POLICY IS THE RECOMMENDED USE OF AUTOTHRUST FOR ALL APCHS REGARDLESS OF WIND CONDITIONS. THE EXIT FROM AUTOTHRUST, IF DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE PLT, IS LIMITED TO THE SELECTION OF TOGA (TKOF/GAR) THRUST WHICH GIVES FULL THRUST AUTH BACK TO THE PLT BUT BEGINS WITH MAX THRUST MAKING IT A VERY CONVOLUTED MANEUVER WITH POSSIBLY MORE THAN THE REQUIRED THRUST INITIALLY. THERE IS NO GUST FACTOR ADDED TO THE REF SPD WHEN GUSTY WINDS ARE PRESENT. THE ACFT AUTOFLT SYS RESTRICTS PITCH IF AIRSPD IS LOW. THE UNION TRAINING COMMITTEE HAS MADE AN EFFORT TO CONVINCE THE COMPANY TO CHANGE THE AUTOTHRUST POLICY DUE TO MANY PLT COMPLAINTS. TO DATE THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE FROM THE COMPANY.
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.