Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > Commercial Vehicles


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 6th November 2014, 23:35   #361
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vizag
Posts: 1,985
Thanked: 1,343 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver View Post
I fly into vizag extensively as a part of our airline ops. As you have currently pointed out, the approach to land in vizag is limited to only one direction due
to terrain on the western side of the airport. So in-order to land on Runway 28 the aircraft proceed outbound over the sea before turning inbound to
intercept the final approach. Now the tricky part about vizag are the tail winds. Most aircraft are limited to about 10 knots (18.5 kmph) of tail wind factor and any higher winds make the landing prohibited. Now in your case with the cyclone approaching, the winds were in tune of 40-50 knots and hence making it absolutely impossible to land into vizag. Hence your aircraft performed a go-around!
Exactly. So, there you know it all. I wonder if this city is the windiest place in India. There is wind blowing all through the year. Come cyclone and things get pretty dicey. You missed one more thing. Haze or fog. That is one more thing which plagues this city. Visibility is always poor. Now haze coupled with wind. Wow! Talk about tricky landings.

On one side there is sea and on the other side there are mountain ranges. Airport is nestled between the two. There are two runways crisscrossing, like X. Older one which is lying disused now was even more tricky. To land, you would have to go closer to the hills, notwithstanding the winds and the haze, and make landing approach. The newer runway is longer and approach is from seaside which I believe is much safer than from hillsides.
pgsagar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2014, 00:03   #362
Distinguished - BHPian
 
audioholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: BengaLuru
Posts: 3,262
Thanked: 4,999 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

Heard the news that a SpiceJet aircraft aborted takeoff due to a stray animal on the runway. Very shocking, and at the same time surprised to know how a runway was accessible to stray animals without grabbing attention of the airport staff.

On the other hand happy to hear that the incident was not catastrophic.
audioholic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2014, 00:26   #363
Distinguished - BHPian
 
phamilyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Gurgaon
Posts: 5,601
Thanked: 3,452 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen View Post
thats remarkable. I have had titanium status with AA, KLM, BA and SAS, star alliance for the last decade. i used to spend a huge amount of my time flying around the globe. I fly here in India an average of 4 flights a week within India and 1-2 international flights per month. in all those years of flying as a passenger Ive experienced only one Go Around. KLM coming into Delhi and had to go around for a thunderstorm that was getting to near.

As a pilot Ive done go arounds countless times as training and practice, but only had to resort to it a few times for real.
So how come your clocking all the GoArounds?

Jeroen
OK - maybe I've been stupid then.
I've been platinum for only two years (but in total about five years of weekly travel). I am assuming that any such case where the flight is close enough to landing (say a min or so to go) and then takes off is a go-around, regardless of how close it is to the ground or whether the landing gear has deployed?

If you are counting those where it almost touches down (landing gear was deployed) and then takes off with a very noticeable force, then I can recall about two such incidents, one with MAS earlier this year, and one with KF about six odd years back.

So help me understand this - is a go-around when landing is aborted at sufficient height, or when it practically touches down, like in this video:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...er_click#video

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgsagar View Post
On one side there is sea and on the other side there are mountain ranges. Airport is nestled between the two. There are two runways crisscrossing, like X. Older one which is lying disused now was even more tricky. To land, you would have to go closer to the hills, notwithstanding the winds and the haze, and make landing approach. The newer runway is longer and approach is from seaside which I believe is much safer than from hillsides.
I thought the safest approach is to land against the wind, not with a tail wind. Unless the hill overlooks the runway, reducing its usable distance - does the direction of approach really matter?

Last edited by phamilyman : 7th November 2014 at 00:30.
phamilyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2014, 08:02   #364
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Delhi
Posts: 3,069
Thanked: 6,246 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioholic View Post
Heard the news that a SpiceJet aircraft aborted takeoff due to a stray animal on the runway. Very shocking, and at the same time surprised to know how a runway was accessible to stray animals without grabbing attention of the airport staff.

On the other hand happy to hear that the incident was not catastrophic.

Apparently they hit it. But animals are a real issue at airports. Birds for all the obvious reason. Especially commercial airports with big runways are huge. Even a fairly large animal might be difficult to spot from the tower due to sheer distance.

During my flying in the USA, especially on the smaller fields I have come across just about any animals on or near the runway, from bunnies, possums, raccoons, deer and coyotes. Usually there are no fences around this little airport, maybe a ditch or so, but that doesn't stop these animals going where they want to go.

Jeroen
Jeroen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2014, 09:58   #365
BHPian
 
Stiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SIN/BOM
Posts: 86
Thanked: 73 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by phamilyman View Post
OK - maybe I've been stupid then.
I've been platinum for only two years (but in total about five years of weekly travel). I am assuming that any such case where the flight is close enough to landing (say a min or so to go) and then takes off is a go-around, regardless of how close it is to the ground or whether the landing gear has deployed?

If you are counting those where it almost touches down (landing gear was deployed) and then takes off with a very noticeable force, then I can recall about two such incidents, one with MAS earlier this year, and one with KF about six odd years back.

So help me understand this - is a go-around when landing is aborted at sufficient height, or when it practically touches down, like in this video:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...er_click#video


I thought the safest approach is to land against the wind, not with a tail wind. Unless the hill overlooks the runway, reducing its usable distance - does the direction of approach really matter?
A Go-Around is when the pilot chooses to discontinue the approach onto the runway at any point in time, so long as the wheels don't touch the ground.

This means that if the pilot is 1500ft off the ground (common altitude for pilots to recognize a "stable" approach), and chooses to discontinue the approach to try again, it's a Go-Around. If the pilot chooses to "abort the landing" 100ft off the ground, it's still a Go-Around. Now keep in mind, every aircraft is different, however, all pilots are made aware of the minimum altitude required to successfully perform a go-around on their type. Remember that these are extremely heavy machines, at extremely high speeds. They carry massive amounts of energy and inertia, and therefore, in event of a Go-Around maneuver, most commercial airlines will still lose about 40-60ft of altitude before actually beginning the climb, from the moment the Go-Around is initiated.

Once the wheels touch the ground, it doesn't become a Go-Around so much as it becomes a Touch-And-Go, however, Touch-And-Gos aren't a valid landing abortion maneuver, as the moment you touch the ground, your Auto-Breaks kick on, and the spoilers automatically deploy, meaning the aircraft is committed to staying on the ground. Touch-And-Gos are more common in training circuits, where the aircraft is configured especially for this maneuver (i.e Auto-brakes are not set, spoilers are not armed to automatically deploy, and the airfield is warned in advance).

And, you are correct, it is preferred to be landing with a headwind, but aircraft can, up until it's certification, land with a tail wind.

One example is Heathrow airport. For noise-abatement, it's preferred to use Runway 27L and 27R, even in the case of a tailwind! Of course, for Heathrow, the minute the tail-wind exceeds a component of 5 knots, they switch over to Runway 9L and 9R (same runway, just the opposite direction, so you're now flying into the wind).
Stiggy is offline   (3) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2014, 13:29   #366
RVD
BHPian
 
RVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BANGALORE
Posts: 154
Thanked: 262 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiggy View Post
A Go-Around is when the pilot chooses to discontinue the approach onto the runway at any point in time, so long as the wheels don't touch the ground.

This means that if the pilot is 1500ft off the ground (common altitude for pilots to recognize a "stable" approach), and chooses to discontinue the approach to try again, it's a Go-Around. If the pilot chooses to "abort the landing" 100ft off the ground, it's still a Go-Around. Now keep in mind, every aircraft is different, however, all pilots are made aware of the minimum altitude required to successfully perform a go-around on their type. Remember that these are extremely heavy machines, at extremely high speeds. They carry massive amounts of energy and inertia, and therefore, in event of a Go-Around maneuver, most commercial airlines will still lose about 40-60ft of altitude before actually beginning the climb, from the moment the Go-Around is initiated.

Once the wheels touch the ground, it doesn't become a Go-Around so much as it becomes a Touch-And-Go, however, Touch-And-Gos aren't a valid landing abortion maneuver, as the moment you touch the ground, your Auto-Breaks kick on, and the spoilers automatically deploy, meaning the aircraft is committed to staying on the ground. Touch-And-Gos are more common in training circuits, where the aircraft is configured especially for this maneuver (i.e Auto-brakes are not set, spoilers are not armed to automatically deploy, and the airfield is warned in advance.
That's not correct. A Go Around can be carried out even after the wheels touch down and it is not refered to as touch and go. Touch and go is a training maneuver. You are right is saying that upon wheel touch down , the spoilers extend but you are not committed to stop as once you advance the thrust levers, the spoilers auto stow. Only time you are Prohibited from performing a Go Around is once the Thrust Reversers are deployed.

Thanks
RVD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2014, 14:20   #367
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Delhi
Posts: 3,069
Thanked: 6,246 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiggy View Post
Remember that these are extremely heavy machines, at extremely high speeds. They carry massive amounts of energy and inertia, and therefore, in event of a Go-Around maneuver, most commercial airlines will still lose about 40-60ft of altitude before actually beginning the climb, from the moment the Go-Around is initiated.
To add, especially on commercial airliners with jet turbine by pass engines it takes time for the engines to spool up and develop thrust. So even if you firewall the throttles it could take 4-6 seconds before you have full thrust.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiggy View Post
And, you are correct, it is preferred to be landing with a headwind, but aircraft can, up until it's certification, land with a tail wind.
Just to add. In theory planes could land with any tailwind. What makes a plane fly is not its speed over the ground, but its speed through the surrounding air. Which means if you land with a tailwind you would still fly the same airspeed but your ground speed would be higher. That leads to considerable longer stopping distances and subsequent brake temperatures. In addition there are also some other things you need to take into account from an aerodynamic point of view when you get close to the ground. For instance, at some point during the landing, with a tailwind your rudder might be working opposite way or certainly give you less rudder authority. So best, is not to or at least not to exceed the limits in the certification or recommendations.

For some amazing short take offs and landing due to heavy head wind check out this video:



Quote:
Originally Posted by RVD View Post
That's not correct. A Go Around can be carried out even after the wheels touch down and it is not refered to as touch and go. Touch and go is a training maneuver. You are right is saying that upon wheel touch down , the spoilers extend but you are not committed to stop as once you advance the thrust levers, the spoilers auto stow. Only time you are Prohibited from performing a Go Around is once the Thrust Reversers are deployed.
I would agree. On the 747-400 you can still hit the TOGA in the flare and even when the main wheels hit the ground. When the spoilers (auto) deploy the TOGA gets inhibited, but if at that point you shove the throttles forward the spoilers will (auto) retract and the Auto Brakes will disarm and you can safely take off again.

Here is another interesting video, just barely got the main wheels on the tarmac.



And here's an Airbus 319 nearly getting its wheels on the ground

I have a procedure/instrument 747-400 simulator. I'll see if i can put a few cockpit video's together that will show what happens during a lets call it late go around

Jeroen
Jeroen is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2014, 17:45   #368
BHPian
 
BoeingDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Dubai
Posts: 76
Thanked: 34 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgsagar View Post
Exactly. So, there you know it all. I wonder if this city is the windiest place in India. There is wind blowing all through the year. Come cyclone and things get pretty dicey. You missed one more thing. Haze or fog. That is one more thing which plagues this city. Visibility is always poor. Now haze coupled with wind. Wow! Talk about tricky landings.

On one side there is sea and on the other side there are mountain ranges. Airport is nestled between the two. There are two runways crisscrossing, like X. Older one which is lying disused now was even more tricky. To land, you would have to go closer to the hills, notwithstanding the winds and the haze, and make landing approach. The newer runway is longer and approach is from seaside which I believe is much safer than from hillsides.
At vizag Commercial Planes use only Runway 28 (from the sea) for landing while you can use both the ends of the same runway for departure. Again, the go around procedure at Vizag is also quiet complicated. You immediately turn left to avoid terrain to climb 3000 feet and then turn inbound to hold over VOR at 4000 feet.
BoeingDriver is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2014, 18:50   #369
Distinguished - BHPian
 
phamilyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Gurgaon
Posts: 5,601
Thanked: 3,452 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeroen View Post
Apparently they hit it. But animals are a real issue at airports. Birds for all the obvious reason. Especially commercial airports with big runways are huge. Even a fairly large animal might be difficult to spot from the tower due to sheer distance.

During my flying in the USA, especially on the smaller fields I have come across just about any animals on or near the runway, from bunnies, possums, raccoons, deer and coyotes. Usually there are no fences around this little airport, maybe a ditch or so, but that doesn't stop these animals going where they want to go.
Oh yes you are right. Its a veritable national park in there because there's no one to hunt these animals and lots of grass!

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JF21Df03.html
Jan 2008 article!

Quote:
Monitor lizards, antelopes, jackals, raptors, monkeys, peacocks, blue bulls ... What is this, an exotic zoo tour? No, these are the creatures often sighted on runways on New Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport!

six jackals, two feral cats and 10 stray dogs were captured from the airport area in December 2006. The jackals were put under quarantine and later returned to the wild. The outfit also helped relocate scores of blue bulls (known as nilgai, and actually the largest Asiatic antelope) from the airport to the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary recently.
phamilyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2015, 10:54   #370
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Delhi
Posts: 3,069
Thanked: 6,246 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

Just came across this very cool video, well cool if you like this sort of thing:



enjoy

Jeroen
Jeroen is offline   (1) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2015, 15:32   #371
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Delhi
Posts: 3,069
Thanked: 6,246 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

We talked about crosswind landing before. Some diehard pilots will tell you it ain't a crosswind landing untill you see the runway from the side window.

Here some recent excellent examples:





Jeroen
Jeroen is offline   (3) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2015, 21:20   #372
BHPian
 
Guite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Noida, NCR
Posts: 470
Thanked: 177 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

The last one seems to have landed 45 degrees to the runway. It's scary the way the aeroplane bounces. On the face of it, it appears the planes would crash. Does any plane ever crash due to high cross wind?
Guite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2015, 22:47   #373
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vizag
Posts: 1,985
Thanked: 1,343 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

I wonder what the landing gear goes through in all the above shown rough landings. It takes heavy pounding, dropping from a height with a thud with all that load. Doesn't it buckle or something like shock-absorber or the arm giving away? I also fear what if it fails to lower on next landing, due to previous rough landing's pounding.
pgsagar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2015, 09:33   #374
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Delhi
Posts: 3,069
Thanked: 6,246 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guite View Post
The last one seems to have landed 45 degrees to the runway. It's scary the way the aeroplane bounces. On the face of it, it appears the planes would crash. Does any plane ever crash due to high cross wind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgsagar View Post
I wonder what the landing gear goes through in all the above shown rough landings. It takes heavy pounding, dropping from a height with a thud with all that load. Doesn't it buckle or something like shock-absorber or the arm giving away? I also fear what if it fails to lower on next landing, due to previous rough landing's pounding.
You do need take into consideration that these video's are shot from a great distance with a tele, so the angles are most likely a bit more severe then they really are, but still.

It looks like these planes are taking quite a pounding, but then again they are designed to do so. So, it might feel pretty rough and scary for the passengers, it is perfectly safe. Planes have been known to crash during any part of the flight, but I'm not aware that cross wind conditions are a particular reason that stands out.

Commercial planes are subject to certified/legal maximum allowable cross winds, pilots are not supposed to exceed those limits. In many cases the autopilot will be able to fly these cross wind landing right onto the runway. But most pilots I know, myself included like to hand fly when there is a crosswind. It's the one time where as a pilot you get to put in some real expertise with your stick and rudder skills. But you do need a lot of practice.

On the little planes I fly, there is no formal maximum crosswind limit. These sort of planes have what is known as a maximum demonstrated crosswind limit. If you think you are a better pilot then the manufacturers test pilot, have a bigger balls or are just stupid there is no legal constraint to land with a higher crosswind.

There are roughly two techniques to cross wind landings.

Just keep the nose of the plane into the wind. Which means you land with a crab, meaning the planes fuselage is not aligned to the runway. Upon touchdown you put a lot of sideway stress on the landing gear and you need to straighten up the plane with the rudder as soon as your main gear is down, whilst keeping the wings level with the yoke/stick. The amount of crab permissible is detailled in the plane certification and manual. so yes, you put sideway stress on the landing gear, but it is designed, manufactured and tested to do so, because it is part of normal operations.

The other technique is kicking out the crab just before touchdown. That means putting in enough rudder so the plane's fuselage is aligned with the runway. When you start feeding in the rudder you need to counter that with the yoke as the plane will also start to turn. You need to lower the wing on the upwind side. At that point you are flying with so called cross control. Rudder and yoke are turned in opposite directions as you would during normal turn. That also means extra drag, so you also need to adjust power. With this technique you aim to land on one gear, the upwind one, first as the upwind wing is down as well. Looks and feels scary, but with an experience pilot that is just the way how it is done.

Whichever way you do it, crosswind landing, will have the pilot adjusting rudder (feet), yoke (one hand) and power (other hand) all the time!

Some pilots are reluctant to execute crosswind landings, especially when you just start flying. As a pilot you are encouraged to develop your own set of personal minimums. In formal terms, personal minimums refers to an individual pilot's set of procedures, rules, criteria, and guidelines for deciding whether, and under what conditions, he or she will operate a plane. That include crosswind landings.

The idea is to slowly push the envelop and push the minimums out gradually. I consider having a high personal crosswind minimum a safety issue. The more severe the conditions you still feel comfortable landing your plane, the more options you give yourself. If you find yourself in a inflight emergency and need to divert to the nearest airport, you better make sure you have the skills to land there even with a strong crosswind. If you can't you will have to divert to a different airport, taking longer.

I really enjoyed my crosswind training and whenever there was as strong crosswind in Kansas City whilst we lived there I would quickly head out to the airport and put in a few touch and go's


Have a look at this:



There is one other technique, but it requires a different aircraft design, such as you will find on the American B52 bomber. This plane will land at a crab but can adjust its landing gear to counter the crab angle, so the landing gear is not aligned with the fuselage so to speak. Have a look at this video. You will see the B52 touching down with a substantial crab and it maintains that crab whilst rolling down to a complete standstill. Looks a bit weird, but that is how it was designed. The B52 has very long wings, that droop down low and flex a lot. So they need to keep the wings absolutely level and this difficult during crosswind unless you can maintain the crab all the way onto the runway

Jeroen

Jeroen is offline   (3) Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2015, 11:53   #375
Distinguished - BHPian
 
audioholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: BengaLuru
Posts: 3,262
Thanked: 4,999 Times
Default Re: Airbus A320 Long-Term, 3 Million KMs Review

I read in a few places about planes being grounded and subject to inspection after they had a hard landing. What's the reference in such cases to conclude it was a hard landing? Is it the number of g encountered on touchdown? Or is there any system to calculate and determine if it was a hard landing? Could anyone please throw some light on it?
audioholic is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Germanwings Airbus A320 with 150 people onboard crashes in the French Alps RSR Shifting gears 119 2nd April 2017 22:11
Skoda Laura - Long-term (14,000 Kms) ownership Review! anandbhat Long-Term Ownership Reviews 20 1st March 2013 09:39
Iceberg at 22000 kms - Long term review of GP MJD 75 kailashnj Long-Term Ownership Reviews 9 22nd February 2012 20:09
Short Term vs Long Term Ownership, New Car vs Used Car Ownership architect The Indian Car Scene 10 9th May 2008 11:39


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 12:49.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks