FAQ WEBINAR A321 neo In Service experience at landing Thursday

25 April 2024

FLARE LAW:

Why was the A321neo flare law changed?

Following the A321neo certification with ELAC L101, Airbus identified some areas for
improvement regarding the flare law, for instance the robustness to turbulence and aircraft
responsiveness.
As a result, the flare law was updated in ELAC L102 and onwards. The new Flare law is a
proportional control law with a direct relationship between the sidestick input and the elevator
position. The aircraft reacts much more like a conventional aircraft, especially in the cases of
windshear or gusts or crosswind.
The new Flare law is enabled at 100 ft radio altitude. At that point, the THS is « frozen ».

What are the specificities of the “new” flare law ?

With this direct law, the ground effect which induces a nose down effect below 50ft RA is not
automatically compensated by the aircraft flight control system.
In addition to this, thrust changes are not compensated by the flight control system and will
demand pitch adjustments from the flight crew (e.g. the thrust reduction during the flare).
These effects may be perceived by the pilot during the flare with the new law.
However, it is important to remember that, although the design of the law is different, the flare
technique is unchanged and remains a closed loop handling between aircraft pitch and sidestick
input.
A panel of Line Pilots from several A320family operators were exposed to this new flare before
deployment throughout the fleet. Their feedback was positive.

Have you received feedback from other operators ?

We have received feedback and questions on the new flare law from other airlines which led
Airbus to conduct an in-service data analysis from various operators. This has been presented
in the slides provided during the Webinar.

What are the outcomes of Airbus in-service analysis ?

Airbus has conducted an in-service analysis of A321neo operations at landing with a large
dataset including various operators' data and various kinds of operations. Comparison with
other A320 Family aircraft operations have been performed.
Statistical analysis has been used to look for fleet trends and some specific flight analyses have
also been performed in the frame of continuous follow-up of the fleet events.

The main outcomes of the analysis are the following:

- The flare duration (50ft – touchdown) is similar on A321neo and A321ceo.
 - The vertical load factor at touchdown is similar when comparing both flare laws
- Airbus has observed through statistical analysis that the Maximum vertical acceleration
at touchdown is on average slightly increased (+0,08g) on A321neo compared to
A321ceo only when the landings are performed using configuration “FULL”. This effect is
deemed negligible and without consequence on aircraft operations.

Is the available pitch flare rate equal in CONF 3 and CONF FULL? What is the difference in
pitch rate (availability) below 100ft between the A321neo and the other variants?
The In Service analysis confirms the data and flight tests results performed for certification
exercise. The statistics show that there are margins versus the max side stick deflection. The
pitch authority is satisfactory.

Are there any ongoing improvements of the flare law ?

In the frame of continuous improvement of the Airbus aircraft, further improvements are being
considered for A321neo and may be proposed through SB to operators in the coming years.
The feedback from the Airlines is important to us and Airbus has implemented some changes in
the A321XLR flare law. The path to implement these features in all ELAC types is under
consideration in the frame of the product continuous improvement.

Is there any possibility Airbus will offer the previous iteration of the flare law as an option for
future A321neo deliveries?
The answer is NO. Refer to previous question/answer.

What will be the A321XLR flare law? Should we expect similar trends?
The A321XLR has been reworked with some adjustment, the flare law is active starting at 60ft
and the system architecture enabled a much better tuning of ground effects and the
implementation of total thrust compensation.

Is the aircraft protected against tailstrike and what are the protection features ?
While in Flare Law, an anti tailstrike protection is active on ground only, following ground
spoilers extension. Full authority is restored at ground spoilers retraction (e.g. when the flight
crew set TOGA in the case of rejected landing).

What are the training recommendations with regards to the A321neo flare law ?
Although the design of the law is different, the flare technique is similar and remains a closed
loop handling between aircraft pitch and sidestick input. There are no specific training
recommendations except a good knowledge of the specificities of each flare law.

What are the upcoming datapackage that will be proposed by Airbus for Simulators:
Airbus is working to propose an A321neo data package by the end of 2024.
Can airbus produce an optimum simulator profile for A321neo tail strike avoidance training in
the A320 SIM STD 2.1?
No, trying to reproduce the flare law or any specific features by using an A320 simulator with
direct law is not representative to A321neo and will generate negative training.

CONF 3 Vs CONF Full

Is Conf 3 for LDG more recommended than Conf FULL in Low GW case, such as positioning
flight?
Does the recommendation to consider CONF 3 advantages specifically apply to approaches in
gusty conditions or can it be interpreted as a general recommendation, as long as e.g. landing
distance is not a limiting factor?
What are the recommended conditions for using conf 3 during approach?
With starting operation on only new A321neo our crews will be trained on only A320 sim. As we
want to adapt green policies with Flaps 3 landing to save fuel, can you give arguments if it is a
good idea to allow Flaps 3 landing from start of the operation? Or is it better to start with FULL
only?
Landing in CONF 3 is an option that may be considered because it offers some advantages in
some conditions.
- energy management in turbulent weather conditions
- Pitch in approach at low landing weight
- Fuel efficiency
The aim of the webinar was to highlight some of these advantages in the frame of the A321neo
in service analysis.
In the light of the referred advantages/drawbacks, it is up to the operator to determine the best
compromise for choosing the landing configuration. CONF 3 and CONF FULL are considered
as normal landing configurations and Airbus recommends the flight crew to be used to practice
both configurations in operations depending on the conditions.

If FLAP 3 corresponds to a smaller landing load, is it recommended that A321 neo be landed
with FLAP 3 as a priority ?
The answer is NO - It should not be a priority driven by the observed VRTG at touchdown. It
should be considered with regards to the advantages discussed in the previous answer.

Based on the presentation in some conditions there are advantages for conf 3 landing.... What
kind of recommendations do you have for a optimum gross weight for Landing (Base Training)
with an A321neo . As Landing Training/Touch and Go's are performed with Flaps FULL.
For base training, the flight crew should consider all aspects to decide the fuel on board,
including the performance and the duration of the flight. As mentioned above, a very light weight
will induce lower pitch in approach in CONF FULL.

With more energy during landing, how does CONF 3 landing affect brake oxidation and rupture
Landing in CONF 3 has the consequence of increasing the brakes wear. This is one of the
parameters that needs to be taken into consideration when determining the airline policy with
regards to landing CONF. Please refer to ISI article 32.42.00002 Operational Procedures Impact
on Carbon Brake Thermal Oxidation - Fuel saving procedures

DATA and In Service analysis

Is the dataset representative of global operations ?

The answer is YES for trend analysis which is the aim of this webinar. Note that at least 7
A321neo operators have been considered per statistics. The flight repartition is sufficiently
homogeneous between operators to avoid the influence of a single operator.
The answer is NO for outlier detection. The volume of flights is not sufficient.

How significant is the 0,08g VRTG increase on A321neo Vs A321ceo in CONF Full ?
This is a mean value. Overall, the flight crew will hardly notice such a small difference of VRTG
at touchdown. In addition, the variability of results between airlines can be more important than
the variability between aircraft types.

Does Airbus have any feedback for the reasons from the surveyed operators for adding 'extra
knots'. Was it wind/environment related, to obtain a visible PFD margin on VLS, or some
another reason?
Several reasons may be listed:
- Lack of awareness on the way the Vapp is computed through the EFB
- Enforced Airline policy causing detrimental effect
- Add extra knots to retrieve usual VAPP figures when approaching at very low weights
- Habit consisting to add extra knots to have the feeling of a better handling authority.
- …

How many hard landings haye you recorder in A321neo fleet since entry to service, and tail
strike at landing
On the graph, 40 hard landings (Nz only, not Ny) are represented for the A321neo and are the
reported events known by Airbus. For Tailstrike at landing please refer to the presentation.
The comparison shown does not specify which landing detection logic was used. The ceo is
based on VRTG while the neo is based on DNZ. Don't you think the new logic is causing the
high rate of hard landings and not the landing technique?
The analysis presented during the webinar was made taking the same logic for all aircraft types
based on the max VRTG seen in a window around the touchdown.

Will DFDR/QAR data be updated to include the new DNZ and DNY figures for hard landing?
Do we have to update the standard of the QAR in our A321 fleet's since the Gload is larger than
A320s?
It is not planned to include DNZ and DNY on QAR recording. Note that the DNZ and DNY
figures are already available on recent Load Report 15.
The increase of 0,08g is not significant enough to consider resetting the thresholds and
reconfiguring the Flight Data Monitoring.
The analysis provided during the Webinar was performed thanks to data acquired through
legacy tuning.

Pitch in approach :

Please describe more about why "unnecessary VAPP increase must be avoided"
As explained during the presentation, approaching with increased VAPP compared to the one
computed through the performance application tool will decrease the pitch (The faster you fly
the lower is the pitch) as per the flight mechanics law. This will further reduce the margins
versus three points landing and may be detrimental to landing performance.

What about gusting conditions, is adding extra knots to Vapp in FMGC a recommended
practice?
As per guidance provided in the FCOM, 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.

What is the reason for the pitch angle in A321neo be lower than A321ceo?
As explained during the Webinar, in CONF FULL the flaps setting on neo is increased compared
to ceo flaps full deflection. The resulting effect is the decrease of the pitch when flying at the
same gross weight and conditions.

The A321neo has a higher full flap setting than the ceo (34 degrees) which is resulting in a
lower pitch than the ceo, is lowering that difference being considered? or it will cause the Vapp
to increase more than acceptable?
The answer is NO. The slight pitch decrease is a side effect of the increased flaps deflection
and VAPP decrease implemented remains important to offer the expected landing performance
for this aircraft type.
Tailstrike :

Does the FD provide tailstrike avoidance function?

The answer is NO. Tailstrike avoidance and flare must be performed looking outside for ground
references and assess the aircraft position with regards to these references.

Are there any trend changes in tailstrike during takeoff for the A321neo?
Airbus has not been made aware of tailstrike at takeoff on A321neo.

GO AROUND near the ground

“Rejected landings have proved difficult, Airbus Training Support is working on advices and
practices to decrease the risk of tailstrike in that phase.” Please elaborate, what is the problem
on the neo during low go-arounds ?
Airbus provides recommendations in the FCTM Go-around near the ground and Tail Strike
Avoidance chapters. Due to the size and inertia of the neo engine, if the engines are at idle
when the go-around is initiated, the engines can take a few seconds to spool up and the flight
crew may need to maintain the pitch until the aircraft speed increases up to VAPP.

Since 50% of tail strikes occur during a go-around, and since the pitch limit indicator and PITCH
PITCH callout are disabled at this time, is Airbus working on some other mitigation? Perhaps
enabling the pitch auto callout at low RA during the go around phase?
"Pitch Pitch" callout is not available after the thrust lever setting to TOGA during rejected
landing, this might contribute to the tail strike for A320/A321, is there any update plan of "Pitch
Pitch" callout trigger condition?
When the flight crew decides to go-around, the pitch limit indicator and the “Pitch Pitch” callout
are not available to avoid limiting the flight crew manoeuver. Indeed, the purpose is to minimize
the loss of altitude during the go-around. For the time being, there is no plan to change the
trigger conditions at low RA.

What’s the minimum recommended attitude during go around below 50 ft ?

There is no specific recommended attitude. The purpose of the webinar was to highlight that the
pitch should be kept within the critical angle when performing a Go-Around near the ground due
to tailstrike threat. The energy status of the aircraft is also a key parameter to monitor. Please
refer to the Airbus WIN video “Go-Around: Some Threats and Mitigations”.

With AP engaged and performing a late Go Around, is there a possibility of tail strike?
By design, a late go-around with AP does not increase the risk of tail strike. But with some
specific adverse weather conditions, a tail strike is also possible with AP engaged.

FCTM

Will Airbus update the FCTM with recommendations on handling the neo during landing ?
Would you consider highlighting A321neo affecting factors such as Lower GW, final FLAPS
CONFIG considerations in the FCTM?
The FCTM currently addresses the A321neo flare law implemented through ELAC L102. Refer
to FCTM-NP-SOP Flare and touchdown.
However, it is important to remember that, although the design of the law is different, the flare
technique is unchanged and remains a closed loop handling between aircraft pitch and sidestick
input.
Airbus continuously monitors and considers any Operational documentation updates that may
be beneficial.

You mentioned a 'flare height' of 40' to 30' in your presentation. This is different to the guidance
you provide about the flare height in the FCTM. Is this a new Airbus position for the A321neo?
The guidance in the FCTM is generic for the A320 family and the flight crew must adapt this
height to the conditions of the flight. A heavier and faster aircraft at landing as A321neo may
require to start the flare earlier.

Other questions:

What is the timeline for increasing the windlimits for A321neo autolands ?
The current certification date for the so-called Autolland Step 2 modification increasing the max
crosswind limits for A321neo autoland is Q4 2024.

Can you please provide additional information regarding high derotation rate after main gear
touchdown that leads to occasional hard nose gear touchdowns?
What about the pitch momentum given when landing with autobrake med with high gross
weight?
As mentioned in the FCTM, after touchdown, the pilot must "fly" the nosewheel smoothly, but
without delay, onto the runway. Furthermore, if auto brake MED is used, the flight crew must be
prepared to counteract the pitch momentum to avoid a hard nose gear touchdown.