37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 835849 |
Time | |
Date | 200905 |
Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
State Reference | US |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | A320 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Final Approach Initial Approach |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Component | |
Aircraft Component | Autothrottle/Speed Control |
Person 1 | |
Function | Captain Pilot Not Flying |
Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 182 Flight Crew Total 17000 Flight Crew Type 5300 |
Person 2 | |
Function | First Officer Pilot Flying |
Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 147 Flight Crew Total 10060 Flight Crew Type 3200 |
Events | |
Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach |
Narrative:
During approach on short final; the approach was not stabilized; and we initiated a go-around. While executing the go-around maneuver; the aircraft touched down on the runway; and we continued the go-around maneuver. We executed the missed approach as per ATC instructions; and returned to our destination and accomplished a normal approach and landing. Several factors contributed to the unstabilized condition. The first being the ATIS reporting that an ILS approach was being conducted to our intended runway; but then being told by approach control that the glideslope was out of service. Contributing to that distraction was trying to determine a step down fix that had no direct DME and that was not in the database. (We had originally briefed a managed selected approach; as dispatch had notified us that the glideslope was out of service; but then after obtaining the ATIS; now thought we had the full ILS; only to then be told the glideslope was again out.) additionally; we were being vectored to final; while trying to maintain safe distances from cells (thunderstorms) in the area. This distracted us enough that we found ourselves high on the profile; and simultaneously being instructed by the tower to slow back to final approach speed. We attempted to maintain the maximum allowable descent rate for a non-precision approach; but found that we were momentarily exceeding those limits (we were VMC at that point). On short final we elected to abandon the approach and execute a go around. We were over runway with a decaying airspeed; and did touch down during the go around. We feel that a contributing factor to the decaying airspeed was the fact that the autopilot and autothrottles were disconnected; once we had visual contact with the runway. If we had kept the autothrottles engaged; our airspeed would have been more stabilized; and more than likely the touch down would not have occurred. In retrospect; we both know that the go-around was the correct course of action; compared to trying to salvage a landing out of an unstabilized approach. That said; we also recognize that it would have been smarter to have done it sooner than we did.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Confused and distracted by a late discovery that the glideslope was out of service; the flight crew of an A320 touchdown on the runway momentarily while performing a last second go-around out of an unstabilized approach.
Narrative: During approach on short final; the approach was not stabilized; and we initiated a go-around. While executing the go-around maneuver; the aircraft touched down on the runway; and we continued the go-around maneuver. We executed the missed approach as per ATC instructions; and returned to our destination and accomplished a normal approach and landing. Several factors contributed to the unstabilized condition. The first being the ATIS reporting that an ILS approach was being conducted to our intended runway; but then being told by approach control that the glideslope was out of service. Contributing to that distraction was trying to determine a step down fix that had no direct DME and that was not in the database. (We had originally briefed a managed selected approach; as dispatch had notified us that the glideslope was out of service; but then after obtaining the ATIS; now thought we had the full ILS; only to then be told the glideslope was again out.) Additionally; we were being vectored to final; while trying to maintain safe distances from cells (thunderstorms) in the area. This distracted us enough that we found ourselves high on the profile; and simultaneously being instructed by the tower to slow back to final approach speed. We attempted to maintain the maximum allowable descent rate for a non-precision approach; but found that we were momentarily exceeding those limits (we were VMC at that point). On short final we elected to abandon the approach and execute a go around. We were over runway with a decaying airspeed; and did touch down during the go around. We feel that a contributing factor to the decaying airspeed was the fact that the autopilot and autothrottles were disconnected; once we had visual contact with the runway. If we had kept the autothrottles engaged; our airspeed would have been more stabilized; and more than likely the touch down would not have occurred. In retrospect; we both know that the go-around was the correct course of action; compared to trying to salvage a landing out of an unstabilized approach. That said; we also recognize that it would have been smarter to have done it sooner than we did.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.