Narrative:

Normal operations on flight ZZZ1 to ZZZ. I flew an ILS approach and took over visually at 1000 ft AGL. The autoplt was disengaged at 600 ft AGL and hand flown through the landing. The aircraft was stable; on airspeed; normal descent parameters throughout the approach. At 30 ft AGL the throttles were slowly pulled to idle and I put in aft control stick to start the flare. At 20 ft AGL; I noticed the pitch not increasing and input more back pressure to the control stick. The pitch did not increase and I immediately pulled on the control stick to about 80-90% of its travel; I did not hit the aft limit. Aircraft did respond; increasing the pitch right at touchdown to about 6 degrees. Touchdown was very firm with no bounce. The rollout was normal and we taxied to gate. I was surprised by the lack of response to the inputs in pitch. The aircraft reacted as if the computed speed being flown was low or inadequate; sluggish response to normal inputs. The slow pitch response by the aircraft caused the slow and late flare resulting in the firm touchdown. The sluggish response of the aircraft in pitch surprised me. The large input at the end of the flare could have been induced sooner. Maybe flying in flaps 3 degrees would have increased the speed to help the pitch; but the wet and shorter runway; I opted for full flaps. The aircraft responded as if it was flying too slow; was the computed speed correct? Should we be checking the computed weights and speeds for approach and landing. I have noted this slowness in pitch before; in the A320 model; but the results were never over a limit -- just a firmer than expected touchdown.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 FLT CREW EXPERIENCES FIRM TOUCHDOWN WHEN ACFT FAILS TO RESPOND TO SIDE STICK CTLR INPUTS IN THE FLARE. PF SUGGESTS ACFT MAY HAVE BEEN HEAVIER THAN PROGRAMMED.

Narrative: NORMAL OPS ON FLT ZZZ1 TO ZZZ. I FLEW AN ILS APCH AND TOOK OVER VISUALLY AT 1000 FT AGL. THE AUTOPLT WAS DISENGAGED AT 600 FT AGL AND HAND FLOWN THROUGH THE LNDG. THE ACFT WAS STABLE; ON AIRSPD; NORMAL DSCNT PARAMETERS THROUGHOUT THE APCH. AT 30 FT AGL THE THROTTLES WERE SLOWLY PULLED TO IDLE AND I PUT IN AFT CTL STICK TO START THE FLARE. AT 20 FT AGL; I NOTICED THE PITCH NOT INCREASING AND INPUT MORE BACK PRESSURE TO THE CTL STICK. THE PITCH DID NOT INCREASE AND I IMMEDIATELY PULLED ON THE CTL STICK TO ABOUT 80-90% OF ITS TRAVEL; I DID NOT HIT THE AFT LIMIT. ACFT DID RESPOND; INCREASING THE PITCH RIGHT AT TOUCHDOWN TO ABOUT 6 DEGS. TOUCHDOWN WAS VERY FIRM WITH NO BOUNCE. THE ROLLOUT WAS NORMAL AND WE TAXIED TO GATE. I WAS SURPRISED BY THE LACK OF RESPONSE TO THE INPUTS IN PITCH. THE ACFT REACTED AS IF THE COMPUTED SPD BEING FLOWN WAS LOW OR INADEQUATE; SLUGGISH RESPONSE TO NORMAL INPUTS. THE SLOW PITCH RESPONSE BY THE ACFT CAUSED THE SLOW AND LATE FLARE RESULTING IN THE FIRM TOUCHDOWN. THE SLUGGISH RESPONSE OF THE ACFT IN PITCH SURPRISED ME. THE LARGE INPUT AT THE END OF THE FLARE COULD HAVE BEEN INDUCED SOONER. MAYBE FLYING IN FLAPS 3 DEGS WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE SPD TO HELP THE PITCH; BUT THE WET AND SHORTER RWY; I OPTED FOR FULL FLAPS. THE ACFT RESPONDED AS IF IT WAS FLYING TOO SLOW; WAS THE COMPUTED SPD CORRECT? SHOULD WE BE CHKING THE COMPUTED WTS AND SPDS FOR APCH AND LNDG. I HAVE NOTED THIS SLOWNESS IN PITCH BEFORE; IN THE A320 MODEL; BUT THE RESULTS WERE NEVER OVER A LIMIT -- JUST A FIRMER THAN EXPECTED TOUCHDOWN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.