Trent900

There have been four at LHR this week. Just coincidence?

mikeyfly

Yeah.

Happened to my A320 BA1495 on Sunday too

trolleymusic

And my A320 BA489 on Sunday too!

Mekko

Happened on my BA 435 yesterday. Approach was noticeably choppy so we discontinued at around 2,000m out, captain mentioned a sizeable tailwind component.

Jumbodriver

In short. A319s are like crisp packets in thermals, there's been little wind recently at 1500' when when we slow down and what there has has been variable, and there's been a recent SOP change to improve our 160kts to 4 mile ATC speed compliance has added an upper limit to speed deviations at 1000ft.

South London Bon Viveur

Does that mean that 319 might be a bit more susceptible to an unstable approach and therefore go around? I think I have heard something from a pilot about them being harder to handle than the 320 and 321 but cannot remember exactly what the issue was.

Waterhorse

Lack of skill😂

Okay I’ll be a little more even handed. All types have their foibles and you have to adapt to them. The A319 is lighter and therefore has a lower VRef. If you are at 160 at 4 it can be a large speed reduction to VRef. There is a standard green procedure on the minibus to be good neighbours and burn less gas. However, it is not the SOP which is gear down at 2000agl then configure for landing. If you use the green procedure it’s F2 gear up till 4 then gear down and take landing flap. With a light aircraft or tailwind component this can be a challenge. As 50% of approaches are done at LHR the standard becomes the green procedure, but this is not always apt or sensible. Green procedures are “nice to do” not an SOP but a pilot who is tired and maybe a little lazy and has not thought about it can stick to what they know rather than adapt to the day - hence go-arounds in light tailwind conditions in light A319s. Besides which they all need a bit of banter so - lack of skill😂

Oxon Flyer

Seems that “informed knowledge” has trumped “instant opinion” here and that the answer to the OPs question here appears to be “no, this is not a coincidence”.

Sigwx

Not enough balls 😉 Geneva Lever anyone? 😂

BertieBadger

Seems a little fancy for an aircraft!

https://www.wickes.co.uk/Geneva-Chro...-Pair/p/275793

Okay, once I added "pilot" onto the query, Google decoded it for me

TomMM

Let the aircraft land itself.

Waterhorse

Only one minor problem with this concept - we weren’t talking about landing. Keep up Bloggs

Pilot37

While most comments refer to the A319 with light loads, I’ve also heard the A321 can be tricky in windy conditions given the extra length behind the main wheels which limit the amount of flare which can be applied to avoid a tail strike.
Any comments from the BA crew on those planes? (I’m sure all aircraft have their own unique issues!)

Pilot37

Waterhorse

The A321 is a long body and needs to be handled accurately in the flare but it’s not a big deal. The real problem is caused by the technique used with the shorter bodied A320 and A319. The Airbus technique for landing both these is to flare at 30 feet and close the thrust levers. However, the 319 particularly and a light 320 will allow a later, more rapid or snatched flare.

The technique for the 321 is identical but has no leeway for the later flare, indeed landing a 321 in this fashion is likely to lead to a tail scrape as it requires a bigger flare to arrest more inertia and you are closer to limiting pitch. Also as you land a 321(indeed any of them) the spoilers automatically deploy, the aircraft is now in ground law too which means that the spoilers create a pitch up, further pushing you toward limiting pitch.

Add a little bit of low speed and Bob’s your uncle a tail scrape magically happens. Given that most of the fleet are the shorter bodied aircraft, muscle memory for most pilots is set for the A320/319 not the 321.

So if your landing technique needs brushing up, then the A321 can be challenging. The NEO also made things more exciting as the rate of speed decay in the flare is greater with the larger frontal area of the engines reducing flare time and changing the feel of the aircraft. They are notoriously difficult to land smoothly if you fly mixed types.

In general, I preferred the 321 as the greater inertia makes for a smoother ride

TheChangingMan

Shout out to Waterhorse Sigwx , Jumbodriver and others in the know - in this thread and others. While I may have to flip tabs between this and google, I find your insight and explanations fascinating.

Thank you!