Question for Airbus Pilots (Change of Pace)

[Art at ISP]

Here's a change of pace-- a technical question for Airbus pilots based on an observation during a flight to CLT the other day...
Due to a reroute, I was on the noon flight JFK-CLT on Monday. As we descended into CLT (landing 23 by the way), the landing gear was extended pretty far out, and before the flaps (I had seen this before), but after the flaps started extending (either 2 or 3 I guess based on the position of the leading edge slats), the speedbrakes came out and remained deployed until about a minute or two before touchdown, and just before the flaps went out to full....

Having never seen this before, I was just wondering if this is a new SOP on approach to CLT...and it was interesting because the descent angle did not seem steep, and the speed was not excessive--in fact the engines spooled up pretty high to maintain speed - high enough to make that "buzzing" sound as in climb power...

Just curious--and I respectfully request that those kind enough to answer leave the east/west rhetoric out of this thread.

Thank you and my BEST to you all.....

 

[Flufdriver]

Here's a change of pace-- a technical question for Airbus pilots based on an observation during a flight to CLT the other day...
Due to a reroute, I was on the noon flight JFK-CLT on Monday. As we descended into CLT (landing 23 by the way), the landing gear was extended pretty far out, and before the flaps (I had seen this before), but after the flaps started extending (either 2 or 3 I guess based on the position of the leading edge slats), the speedbrakes came out and remained deployed until about a minute or two before touchdown, and just before the flaps went out to full....

Having never seen this before, I was just wondering if this is a new SOP on approach to CLT...and it was interesting because the descent angle did not seem steep, and the speed was not excessive--in fact the engines spooled up pretty high to maintain speed - high enough to make that "buzzing" sound as in climb power...

Just curious--and I respectfully request that those kind enough to answer leave the east/west rhetoric out of this thread.

Thank you and my BEST to you all.....

Art, after reading your post it sounds like a situation that is happening more and more and has happened to me a few times this last year. You are dispatched with a certain fuel load that accounts for ground delays, enroute delays and a little "extra" fuel for grandma. If none of the programmed delays happen and there ends up being NO departure delays, enroute delays such as for weather and re-routes you end up at your destination with more fuel onboard then what was calculated figuring in those delays. What this means to the flight crew is......you are overweight to land even if it's only by a few hundred pounds. With post flight numbers being logged in after the flight it will and would be reflected that the flight landed overweight....That's a no-no as far as limitations goes and could be an issue. The "fix" to this is we have to plan while enroute seeing we are going to be heavy to land and we may elect to "dirty" up the airplane to increase our fuel burn to plan to be at landing weight right at touchdown. This is a 180 degrees from what we are use to doing as far as fuel conservation but it is what it is and when this does happen you have do things a little different for the situation on hand. This summer I had to fly in a holding pattern outside the final approach fix with gear down, flaps out because I was overweight by almost two thousand pounds due to no delays on our flight that were built into the flight plan and fuel onboard planned accordingly. So from what you described it sounds like a weight issue for landing that had the flight crew configure the airplane differently then what your a use to.

 

[luvn737s]

The use of gear/flaps and speedbrakes indicates that the airplane needed to come down at a high rate of descent, but at a slower speed (flap speed limits determine the speed you can descend at). The use of wing flaps can cause the "attitude" of the airplane to appear shallower than the rate it really is descending (ditto for speed brakes). The goal on approach is to be in the landing configuration (on glideslope, on speed, flaps and gear down, speedbrake stowed, with engines above idle (or as commanded by autothrust)) at 1000 above the ground. It may have taken an early gear and flap deployment to make sure he was in the "slot" at 1000 AGL. Tailwinds on approach don't help.

Of course the goal on landing is for your fellow pilot to be in awe of such amazing and impeccable flying skills.

 

[Keroseneuser]

Here's a change of pace-- a technical question for Airbus pilots based on an observation during a flight to CLT the other day...
Due to a reroute, I was on the noon flight JFK-CLT on Monday. As we descended into CLT (landing 23 by the way), the landing gear was extended pretty far out, and before the flaps (I had seen this before), but after the flaps started extending (either 2 or 3 I guess based on the position of the leading edge slats), the speedbrakes came out and remained deployed until about a minute or two before touchdown, and just before the flaps went out to full....

Having never seen this before, I was just wondering if this is a new SOP on approach to CLT...and it was interesting because the descent angle did not seem steep, and the speed was not excessive--in fact the engines spooled up pretty high to maintain speed - high enough to make that "buzzing" sound as in climb power...

Just curious--and I respectfully request that those kind enough to answer leave the east/west rhetoric out of this thread.

Thank you and my BEST to you all.....

It is happening more now that there is so much traffic out there. ATC hangs you up high till the last min, then tries to dump you to a lower altitude real fast..Or hangs you high on the approach (your case it sounds like).

The Bus does not come down very well compared to other airplanes. I used to think the 737 didnt decend very fast, until I flew the bus. The A321's are especially bad in this area. The 321 has basically the same wing as the 320, but a lot more weight. The side effect is the safe flap extention speeds are so low that with the extra weight many times min speed and max flap speed are very close together. In a situation where you have to come down fast and have to use speed brakes, when the brakes are deployed the minimum speed to maintain flight is actually above safe flap speed. So you have to kinda work it down with the brakes, level off a bit, retract brakes so you can reach max flap speed, then put flaps out, then redeploy the brakes when the extra lift from the flaps reset the min speed tapes. The end result is not a very good decent profile with the way ATC is working these days.

If you don't have room to do all that, the only other option is gear extension, since the landing gear can be dropped at a much higher speed than the flaps can. (a 30 knot difference) So it sounds like in your case that is what happened, ATC hung them high, so they had 2 choices, hang the gear out early and use the drag to slow the plane down, or do a missed approach and reset in line (20 to 30 mins average these days) If you cannot be "stable" at 1000 feet you go around. There is a "stable" call out at 1000 feet that is a decision barrier. If stable you land, if not you go around. Stable is defined as on speed and altitude for the approach and configured to land.

Vegas, and SFO are two of the worst for this in a 321. You will be all set up for a nice decent in vegas then ATC will clear you direct to a fix further down the road eliminating a couple turns on the arrival, and all the sudden you are behind on the decent profile. SFO's arrival from the east when landing west is designed in such a way that a heavy 321 is just about at its max decent rate fromt he get go.

Another thing ATC is bad fro these days is giving you a decent to an altitude with a crossing restriction (given altitude at a fix) then 30 secs later telling you to slow down while doing it. You can normally come down fast...or slow down. It is hard to do both at same time.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

Of course the goal on landing is for your fellow pilot to be in awe of such amazing and impeccable flying skills.

I know there is a smilely there, but, as you mature, you may realize that flying is not about you. I would be far more impressed with a pilot who goes around early, gets a 360 or whatever, than someone who presses the limits, just to comply with, I assume, a controller request/demand. At that point I would have to question who is flying the aircraft, the person at the controls or the controller.

Your implication that the "pilot" was complying with a controller "request" means the controller does not learn, either when you "successfully" get it down. You are telling (encouraging) the controller that it is okay to issue such steep approaches, if that is indeed what happened.

Not an east/west issue. Just more reason to put "experience in aircraft" in the left seat.

 

[Art at ISP]

Thank you all for the thoughtful replies. The answers all make sense, and they explain alot. The fuel burn appears to make the most sense in this case, as the engines were at or near minimum climb power (judging only by the sound) for part of the descent. The LAS and SFO scenarios are also of particular interest...

I have seen the gear come out way before flaps at a great distance before, the only part which stood out here was the use of speed brakes on the way down. With regard to the descent profile, although I am not sure I don't think it was excessively steep, as my judgement was on apparent distance from ground rather than aircraft attitude. Being a pilot of small airplanes for 35 plus years my perception of altitude from the ground is decent, although in no way foolproof.

Again many thanks for the answers, and I wish you each a safe and happy holiday..

 

[Keroseneuser]

A basic rule of thumb is 30 miles per 10000 feet at 250 knots for airliners. If you are a straight in approach and at 10000 feet 20 miles out doing 250 knots there is a good chance you already missed the airport unless you put a couple kinks in that straight line to slow down and configure.

Some planes come down better than others, the DC-9 and the 727 could be made to do all sorts of things that some of the newer stuff can't.

 

[MyJ4JjobSucks]

If you were rerouted, I imagine others were too. The plane was probably a little too heavy for landing. CLT does leave you high bringing you in to 23, but if the engines were spooled up then the crew was burning fuel. Remember the Airbus automatically records and sends that info to MTC. so you can't fudge the landing weight like in the good ole days.

 

[nycbusdriver]

It is happening more now that there is so much traffic out there. ATC hangs you up high till the last min, then tries to dump you to a lower altitude real fast..Or hangs you high on the approach (your case it sounds like).

The Bus does not come down very well compared to other airplanes. I used to think the 737 didnt decend very fast, until I flew the bus. The A321's are especially bad in this area. The 321 has basically the same wing as the 320, but a lot more weight. The side effect is the safe flap extention speeds are so low that with the extra weight many times min speed and max flap speed are very close together. In a situation where you have to come down fast and have to use speed brakes, when the brakes are deployed the minimum speed to maintain flight is actually above safe flap speed. So you have to kinda work it down with the brakes, level off a bit, retract brakes so you can reach max flap speed, then put flaps out, then redeploy the brakes when the extra lift from the flaps reset the min speed tapes. The end result is not a very good decent profile with the way ATC is working these days.

If you don't have room to do all that, the only other option is gear extension, since the landing gear can be dropped at a much higher speed than the flaps can. (a 30 knot difference) So it sounds like in your case that is what happened, ATC hung them high, so they had 2 choices, hang the gear out early and use the drag to slow the plane down, or do a missed approach and reset in line (20 to 30 mins average these days) If you cannot be "stable" at 1000 feet you go around. There is a "stable" call out at 1000 feet that is a decision barrier. If stable you land, if not you go around. Stable is defined as on speed and altitude for the approach and configured to land.

Vegas, and SFO are two of the worst for this in a 321. You will be all set up for a nice decent in vegas then ATC will clear you direct to a fix further down the road eliminating a couple turns on the arrival, and all the sudden you are behind on the decent profile. SFO's arrival from the east when landing west is designed in such a way that a heavy 321 is just about at its max decent rate fromt he get go.

Another thing ATC is bad fro these days is giving you a decent to an altitude with a crossing restriction (given altitude at a fix) then 30 secs later telling you to slow down while doing it. You can normally come down fast...or slow down. It is hard to do both at same time.

"Gee, I love that kind of talk." --- Ensign Chuck Parker (aka Tim Conway)

All kidding aside, I agree that the little buses can be a handful, and the 321 in particular, when the approach controllers think you are flying the space shuttle. Trying to descend quickly when the Vls (lowest selectable speed) is very high due to speed brake deployment, and the flap extension speed is only a few knots apart makes for some very concentrated effort. Not the job for the common man.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I would be far more impressed with a pilot who goes around early, gets a 360 or whatever, than someone who presses the limits, just to comply with, I assume, a controller request/demand.

What? And be in contempt of court?

At that point I would have to question who is flying the aircraft, the person at the controls or the controller.

...or Judge Conrad?

 

[luvn737s]

Not an east/west issue. Just more reason to put "experience in aircraft" in the left seat.

When the speed brake is described as "the little handle that slows the airplane enough for the pilot to catch up ' they must have flown with you.

Don't give up, though, you'll get the hang of it. We're all counting on you!

 

[No Land Green]

When the speed brake is described as "the little handle that slows the airplane enough for the pilot to catch up

Have you flown the airbus or a boeing heavy? Your statement above and your screen name alludes that you have not.

 

[luvn737s]

The screen name is a definite misnomer, by design.

 

[nic4us]

Here's a change of pace-- a technical question for Airbus pilots based on an observation during a flight to CLT the other day...
Due to a reroute, I was on the noon flight JFK-CLT on Monday. As we descended into CLT (landing 23 by the way), the landing gear was extended pretty far out, and before the flaps (I had seen this before), but after the flaps started extending (either 2 or 3 I guess based on the position of the leading edge slats), the speedbrakes came out and remained deployed until about a minute or two before touchdown, and just before the flaps went out to full....

Having never seen this before, I was just wondering if this is a new SOP on approach to CLT...and it was interesting because the descent angle did not seem steep, and the speed was not excessive--in fact the engines spooled up pretty high to maintain speed - high enough to make that "buzzing" sound as in climb power...

Just curious--and I respectfully request that those kind enough to answer leave the east/west rhetoric out of this thread.

Thank you and my BEST to you all.....

I use this technique all the time.....then when I reach the gate, just to mess with the ramp...I back it in!!


Just kidding Art...could have been a lot of different reasons for the abnormal configuring, but I am curious which tyoe you were on, 319,320,321?

 

[nic4us]

I know there is a smilely there, but, as you mature, you may realize that flying is not about you. I would be far more impressed with a pilot who goes around early, gets a 360 or whatever, than someone who presses the limits, just to comply with, I assume, a controller request/demand. At that point I would have to question who is flying the aircraft, the person at the controls or the controller.

Your implication that the "pilot" was complying with a controller "request" means the controller does not learn, either when you "successfully" get it down. You are telling (encouraging) the controller that it is okay to issue such steep approaches, if that is indeed what happened.

Not an east/west issue. Just more reason to put "experience in aircraft" in the left seat.

I would be far more impressed with a pilot who anticipated that the controller was going to put them into a position that would require an adjustment to normal operating procedures, and plans accordingly so that when they do need to configure in an abnormal sequence it is done smoothly.

By "mature", do you mean grow older, or do you mean gain experience in an aircraft type?

The reason I ask, and not to turn this into an east/West issue, but I agree that " "experience in aircraft" in the left seat" is important. The fact that the West pilots have vastly more experience operating the A320 series aircraft than the east pilots, leaves me wondering exactly what it is you are trying to say.