Airbus Amber

Export Control Classification : EU_EC_Not_Listed.

Flight Operations Webinar This item is not listed against the

EC regulations in the EU/EU

A321neo at landing - In
service experience

Capt. Gilbert SAVARY - Head of Flight Operations & Training Policies

Gabriel MESSAUT - Flight Operations Analyst April 2024
Fabien ROZEN - Senior Flight Operations Engineer
 Airbus Amber

1. Introduction and focus on A321neo

2. Pitch in approach Vs 3 points landing
Agenda
3. Vertical acceleration at touchdown
4. Tailstrike at landing
5. Conclusion
 Airbus Amber

Introduction Pitch in Vertical g at Tailstrike at Conclusions

approach T/D LDG
 Airbus Amber

Introduction

❖ Objective of the webinar

➢ Focus on A321neo operations

➢ Provide in service experience figures

➢ Provide events overall assessment and contributing factors

➢ Remind Operational recommendations, techniques and mitigations

 Airbus Amber

Pitch Flare Laws - Design Description

- Pitch attitude demand control law with proportional and integrated terms with some damping
provided by load factor and pitch-rate feedback.
- Active when the A/C passes 50 ft RA and THS is frozen.
- 𝛳c (pitch attitude commanded at zero side stick) is optimised in order to restore "conventional"
A/C behaviour at entry into ground effect :
- Between 50 ft and 30 ft radio-altitude : 𝛳c = pitch attitude measured when A/C at 50 ft
- Below 30 ft, 𝛳c reduced to - 2° in 8 seconds

- Proportional control law with a behaviour similar to a DIRECT law, with some damping
provided by load factor and pitch-rate feedback (without integrator).
- Active when the A/C passes 100 ft RA and THS is frozen.

5
 Airbus Amber

Introduction Pitch in Vertical g at Tailstrike at Conclusions

approach T/D LDG
 Airbus Amber

A321neo pitch in approach - Effect of Approach speed

A321N dataset : 7 airlines 85k flights

> Some operators have tendency to add

few knots to the FMS approach speed
 Airbus Amber

A321neo pitch in approach - Effect of Approach speed

A321C dataset : 3 airlines 40k flights
A321N dataset : 7 airlines 82k flights

CONF 3 CONF FULL

A321C

> In conf FULL, the A321N approach pitch angle is lower than others.
> Higher speeds result in lower pitch in approach,
Rate of decrease: -1° for every 5kt added.

A321N
 Airbus Amber

A321neo pitch in approach - Effect of Gross weight

A321C dataset : 7 airlines 75k flights
A321N dataset : 8 airlines 85k flights

CONF 3 CONF FULL

A321C

> Lower gross weight results in lower pitch in approach,

Rate of decrease: -0.5° for every reduction of 10T. > Potentially limited by VMCL.

A321N
 Airbus Amber
EC_Not Technical

Operational Considerations - A321neo design specificities Key points

- Conf Full: Flaps deflection increased to 34° on NEO vs 25° on CEO, subsequently:
- Pitch attitude reduced on NEO vs CEO (order of magnitude: 1°)
- VAPP significantly reduced on NEO vs CEO (order of magnitude: 5 to 7kt)
• Flaps Full
- Conf 3: Same Flaps deflection on NEO & CEO, and VAPP slightly reduced on NEO (order of magnitude: 1 deflection
to 3kt). Pitch in approach are quite similar on NEO & CEO. increased

- On A321 NEO, VLS displayed on PFD is limited by VMCL (VMCL being the minimum speed to ensure • VMCL effect
controllability in case of engine failure). This VMCL limitation applies only in Conf Full at Low Weight.
CAS (kt)

VLS - VLS -
1.23*Vs1g 1.23*Vs1g
Conf FULL Conf FULL
(CEO) (NEO)

VMCL

VMCL
Not operational effect

~50 ~57 A/C gross weight

(tons)
 Airbus Amber
EC_Not Technical

Operational Considerations - Vapp computation Key points

- VAPP = VLS + corrections (APPR COR).
- approach speed corrections driven by :
- Use of ATHR (+5kt)
• VAPP as computed
- Headwind / crosswind
- Ice accretion through EFB is
reliable
- The FMS computes a default VAPP value (Basic Vapp computation or reduced Vapp option)
VAPP = VLS + headwind correction. Refer to FCOM DSC 22_10-50-50 Other Speeds. • Avoid Unnecessary
VAPP corrections
- In the case of strong or gusty crosswind above 20 kt, the VAPP should be at least VLS + 5kt. The 5 kt
increment above VLS may be increased up to 15 kt at the flight crew’s discretion

- In the case of ice accretion, Refer to FCOM PRO-NOR-SUP-ADVWXR Adverse Weather - Minimum
Speed with Ice Accretion.

- The flight crew modifies the FMS default value as required after computing the VAPP with the
appropriate corrections above. Unnecessary VAPP increase must be avoided.
 Airbus Amber
EC_Not Technical

Operational Considerations - CONF 3 Key points

• VLS is not limited by VMCL effect in CONF 3
• More energy and less drag is CONF 3
• Consider CONF 3
advantages
 Airbus Amber

Operational Considerations - References

• The operational documentation provides some guidelines for approach:

▪ FCTM PR-NP-SOP-160 - Landing Performance

▪ FCTM PR-NP-SOP-250 - Approach and Landing techniques
▪ FCTM PR-NP-SP-10-10 - Adverse Weather/Weather Turbulence/Landing
▪ FCOM DSC 22_10-50-50 Other Speeds.
▪ FCOM PRO-NOR-SUP-ADVWXR Adverse Weather - Minimum Speed with Ice Accretion.

• Several Safety First magazine articles related to approach phase can be found on the
dedicated website https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/
• Speed & Energy management:
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/control-your-speed-during-descent-approach-and-landing/
• Prevention of Unstable Approaches:
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/prevention-of-unstable-approaches/
 Airbus Amber

Introduction Pitch in Vertical g at Tailstrike at Conclusions

approach T/D LDG
 Airbus Amber

A321C dataset : 6 airlines 115k flights

A321neo Vertical acceleration at T/D - Split by aircraft type A321N dataset : 8 airlines 88k flights
A320C dataset : 6 airlines 1400k flights
A320N dataset : 3 airlines 355k flights

CONF 3 CONF FULL

MEDIAN VALUE MEDIAN VALUE
A320C
+1.23G +1.26G

+1.22G +1.27G A320N

> All aircraft types are identical in CONF3

> A321N conf FULL is +0.08G vs A321C

+1.23G +1.24G
A321C

+1.24G +1.32G
A321N
 Airbus Amber

A321neo Vertical acceleration at T/D - Reported events - Split by aircraft type

> A321NEO: The rate of reported hard landings is constant

and not converging with the other aircraft type values.

Rate of reported events

 Airbus Amber

Pitch Flare Laws - Statistical Analysis

A321C dataset : 4 airlines 67k flights

A321N dataset : 8 airlines 73k flights
A320C dataset : 6 airlines 1400k flights
A320N dataset : 4 airlines 355k flights

1. The median side stick starts to deviate from neutral

position close to:
=> 60ft RA for both A321 CEO & NEO 1
=> 50ft RA for both A320 CEO & NEO

2. For A320C/A320N/A321C which have a pitch rate law

=> progressive input trend.

For A321N which have a proportional control law

=> additional input needed below 20ft RA

Full back Full forward

 Airbus Amber
EC_Not Technical

Operational Considerations - Flare and touchdown Key points

• Ensure Approach stabilization
• Initiate the flare at the right height
• Stabilize the
• Set the thrust levers to idle at the right time to manage aircraft energy
approach down to
• Stay in the loop and fly the flare flare initiation
• Be ready to compensate any nose down movement (Ground effect or thrust
reduction) • Flare at the right
• Same flare technique as for other Airbus family aircraft height

• Manage the aircraft

energy

• Fly the flare

 Airbus Amber

Operational Considerations - References

• The operational documentation provides some guidelines for flare and touchdown:
▪ FCTM PR-NP-SOP- Landing - Flare and Touchdown
▪ FCTM PR-NP-SP-10-10 - Adverse Weather/Weather Turbulence/Landing
▪ FCOM PRO-NOR-SOP-18-A Stabilization Criteria
▪ FCOM PRO-NOR-SOP-19-A Manual Landing
• Several Safety First magazine articles related to flare and landing can be found on the
dedicated website https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/
▪ A focus on Landing Flare:
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/a-focus-on-the-landing-flare/
▪ Speed & Energy management:
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/control-your-speed-during-descent-approach-and-landing/
▪ Prevention of Unstable Approaches:
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/prevention-of-unstable-approaches/

• Several WIN Videos can be found on the dedicated website https://airbus-win.com/ or the App
• Dealing with Hard Landing on A300 A310 - LINK
• Approach and Landing - Procedures and training recommendations - LINK
 Airbus Amber

Introduction Pitch in Vertical g at Tailstrike at Conclusions

approach T/D LDG
 Airbus Amber
Tailstrike events at landing - Pitch and roll angle at touchdown A321C dataset : 4 airlines 67k flights
A321N dataset : 8 airlines 87k flights

LG compressed * *see Ground Clearance

Domain in FCOM
LG extended *

> A321N has lower pitch angle at touchdown => more tailstrike margin / less 3 point landing margin
> A321N has more heterogeneity of pitch angles (from 0° to + 8.5°) vs A321C (from +1° to 7.5°)
 Airbus Amber
EC_Not Technical
Tailstrike at landing - Retex from reported events
(A320 vs A321) Key points

Yearly rate per • Decreasing trend

million cycles for A321 on yearly
(non-cumulative) rate from 2005 to
2020.

• Increasing trend for

A320 A321 on yearly
A321 rate from 2021

Cumulated rate per • Decreasing trend

million cycles since for A321 on
entry into service cumulated rate
since 2005

22
 Airbus Amber
EC_Not Technical

Tailstrike at landing - Retex from reported events

(A321 CEO vs NEO) Key points

Yearly rate per million cycles

(non-cumulative)

A321 CEO
A321 NEO

• Close monitoring
Cumulated rate per million and analysis of rate
cycles since entry into service evolution to detect
any trends that
would require
further action

23
 Airbus Amber
EC_Not Technical

Tailstrike events at landing - Retex from reported events Key points

Categorisation
● A total of 87 reported tailstrike events occuring at landing have been analysed in
the last 14 years (from 2010 to end 2023). • 87 events in the
last 14 years
- 47 events on A320
- 40 events on A321
• Half of A321NEO
events during go
● For A321NEO around or
rejected landing
○ 50% of tailstrike events occurred at landing.

○ 50% of tailstrike events occurred during a go around or a rejected landing.

 Airbus Amber
EC_Not Technical

Analysis of tailstrike events at landing - Contributors Key points

• Pilot technique was identified as a contributor in majority of the events:

▪ Main observed contributors: • Nose up inputs
- Nose up inputs maintained after touchdown (~55%) after touchdown
- High pitch angle at touchdown (~40% on A320, ~55% on A321)
- Low speed at touchdown (~32%) • High pitch at
▪ When a tailstrike occurred further to a bounce landing, main contributors are: touchdown or
- Ground spoiler deployed during bounce (~71% of bounce events) during bounce
- High pitch angle during bounce (~75% of bounce events)
• Low speed at
• Significant wind gradient, crosswind or tailwind were observed in 39% touchdown
of the events.
• Ground spoiler
deployed during
• Aircraft system failures (radio-altimeter failures, loss of normal law) were a
bounce
contributor in 8% of the events (7 events).

Note: Several contributors may be observed on a same event

 Airbus Amber
EC_Not Technical

Operational Considerations - Tailstrike avoidance Key points

• Do not Allow the speed to decrease well below VAPP before flare
• Avoid high sink rate, just prior reaching the flare height
• Do not Prolong hold off targeting a kiss landing • Stabilize the
• Perform the flare initiation at the right height approach down to
flare initiation
• Do not increase the pitch if bouncing at touch down
• Consider the threats of a Go-Around near the ground • Do not target kiss
landing
Design features available on all A321neo to help the PF:
- Pitch limit indicator on the Primary Flight Display at landing below 400ft AGL
• Flare at the right
- “Pitch Pitch” call out at landing when the pitch is greater than a threshold
height

• Bounce
management
 Airbus Amber

Operational Considerations - References

• The operational documentation provides some guidelines for tailstrike avoidance:
▪ FCTM PR-NP-SOP- Landing - Tail strike avoidance
▪ FCTM PR-NP-SOP- Landing - Flare and Touchdown
▪ FCTM PR-NP-SOP- Go-around
▪ FCTM PR-NP-SOP- Go-Around near the ground
▪ QRH ABN-MISC - Tail strike

• Several Safety First magazine articles related to tailstrike prevention can be found on the
dedicated website https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/
▪ “A320 - Prevention of tailstrikes”:
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/themes/mh_newsdesk/documents/archives/a320-prevention-of-tailstrikes.pdf

• A WIN Video can be found on the dedicated website https://airbus-win.com/ or the App
• Go-Around : Some threats and Mitigations LINK
 Airbus Amber

Introduction Pitch in Vertical g at Tailstrike at Conclusions

approach T/D LDG
 Airbus Amber

Conclusion

➢ A321neo is a member of the A320 family

➢ Be aware of the A321neo specificities

➢ Apply SOPs and recommended techniques

➢ FLY
 Airbus Amber

Please log your questions

into the Q & A section of the
Airbus live event.

Introduction Pitch in Vertical g at Tailstrike at Conclusions

approach T/D LDG
 Airbus Amber

Export Control Classification : EU_EC_Not_Listed.

This item is not listed against the
EC regulations in the EU/EU

Thank you
© Copyright Airbus (2023) / GNSS Interference on Airbus A/C

This document and all information contained herein is the sole property of Airbus. No intellectual property
rights are granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of its content. This document shall not
be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without the expressed written consent of Airbus. This document
and its content shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied.
Airbus, its logo and product names are registered trademarks.