All She Wrote

I know what Aerobraking is, I'm simply stating that it isn't an approved technique on the A320 family. You can avoid planting the nose gear by putting in a small amount of backstick just prior to the nose touching down but after spoiler deployment perfectly safely. Avoiding a firm nose gear touchdown isn't aerobraking, they're two different things.

In the instance of this post, you can happily vacate at RG on Runway 28 with idle reverse and Lo autobrake, or at F with a manual override or Medium. Or at least the last several times I've flown a 320 to Faro that's how it worked out for me. The Autobrake in the Airbus 320 targets a specific deceleration rate, 1.7m/s2 after 4 seconds for Lo and 3m/s2 after 2 seconds for medium. If anything when Medium auto brake kicks in you want the nose gear to be on the deck otherwise your hopes for it not slamming down are pretty slim.

Ancient Observer

Pilots are expected to Land the plane, not kiss the tarmac.

Boeing77W

Nor the 737, 777 or 787...

Waterhorse

Whilst aerobraking isn't an "approved technique" for most modern airliners, I can understand what fredc84 is getting at. Slamming the nosewheel onto the ground is not an"approved technique" either and we should control or fly the nosewheel onto the ground. Do we always manage it? No. A bounced landing is not an approved technique but do they happen? Yes. Pilots are not perfect and we can all make errors of technique or just plain get it wrong sometimes, it doesn't mean we are not trying.

T8191

Popular technique with the Vulcan. As noted upthread, avoids parachute deployment, recovery and repacking.

IAN-UK

flatlander

If you have a hard landing (not just firm, but "hard" as defined by the aircraft manufacturer) don't you need to do an engineering inspection before takeoff? So if the aircraft left on time after the typical short-haul turnaround there can't have been a lot of engineering attention and so it wasn't considered a "hard" landing, merely firm.

Waterhorse

rapidex

Air Europe managed a hard landing at Funchal in the old days. The crew knew it was a hard landing when the nose leg was forced up through the fuselage.

PJSMITH0

T8191

I had the luxury of being SATCO Waddington when we had the 4-squadron Bomber Wing.

Yeah, current in all positions, including Local!

Pascoe

Anyone know if Airbus are making BTV standard going forward? Or is it only on the Big Bus? And can it be retrofit to other types?

Just curious. Not really on-topic I know. Btw thanks to those who have contributed with superb technical insights on this enjoyable thread ;-)

tinkicker

It's standard on the A350.

Retrofits of the full system onto old busses are not possible as it has lots of data connections to weird and wonderful bits of aeroplane but there was, for a while, talk of a much more modest system for the 320 / 330 CEO but still called BTV. That seems to have died off now and with NEO I doubt it will be implemented. The 320 certainly can be fitted with aspects of it as part of a Runway Overrun Protection System (ROPS) which about 1 in 4 A320s is fitted with. It's not the same but uses some of the same logic.

I know a feasibility study for full BTV on the 320NEO was carried out around 2012 but there are very limited changes to the flight deck (effectively none) and I am fairly sure BTV is not an option. (Hmm just dug around and there was some stuff from 2016 saying it WAS going to be fitted so I'm not so sure. I'm a little out of touch on the NEO.

To be honest one of the problems I have with both the 320/330 NEO and the 737MAX and similar projects is how minor the upgrades really are. I understand the economics of it but there are lots of legacy things that users hate but manufacturers keep and there are lots of new technologies that are just too tricky / expensive/ to integrate despite being brilliant and implementing the lessons of the previous generation. They feel like a wasted opportunity to me but then I'm not paying.

Pascoe

Maybe one issue is that all these projects have much longer lead times than one would think, and so by the time it becomes apparent that some new feature would be a really-nice-to-have, it's long past the stage in the project where introducing it is either easy or cheap.

Just a general issue faced in many walks of life and particularly both 'hard' and 'soft' engineering projects (and of course aircraft are a hugely complex marriage of both hardware and software so double the trouble)...

trooper

Passenger perception of a "hard" landing is probably as reliable as pax perception of "Severe" turbulence. In both cases it almost certainly does NOT reach the "Industry definition" of either.... That in no way trivialises their experience.... but I suspect it almost never leads to the inspections etc that would be required if literally true....