"Landing at Brussels Airport will become more dangerous"

[woutertheboy]

According to "Het Nieuwsblad" a belgian newspaper, landing in Brussels Airport will become much more dangerous in the comming years. This is the result of a plan from the state secretary, mister Melchior Wathelet (CD&V). Normally, when the tailwind at Brussels is more then 5 knots, the pilot's go around above Brussels and try to make a second landing. Mister Wathelet wants to raise this limit from 5 knots to 7 knots because those go-arounds make a lot of noise above Brussels. The Belgian Pilot Association claims that this is going to make landings at Zaventam way more dangerous!

Source: http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail ... 2_00704625 (Dutch)

Source: http://www.7sur7.be/7s7/fr/1536/Economi ... port.dhtml (French)

[Nevihta]

If you have 5 knots tailwind, you should change runway...

[teddybAIR]

Elections coming up in 2014?

If I'm Pilot in Command and I deem an approach unstable or unsafe, I go around regardless of what Wathelet has decided to do!

[cnc]

almost time to vote again...

[AF036]

Politicians make more noise than aircrafts...

[Established02]

state secretary, mister Melchior Wathelet (CD&V)

cdH

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchior_Wathelet_(1949)

[Acid-drop]

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchior_Wathelet_(1949)

Nope !
We are talking about his son here !
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchior_W ... %281977%29

[Flanker2]

I don't see what the big deal is anyway.
In the U.S., runway length permitting, it's routine to maintain an active runway up to 10, even 15 kts tailwinds.
For widebodies maybe this could pose a small problem at BRU, but for narrowbodies, which compose over 95% of movements at BRU, I don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of tailwind restrictions imposed by the airport, you still have to take the most restrictive parameters as presented in the OM of your airline and type. So if your airline changes that, you can only blame your chief pilot for playing along.

Pilots making a lot of noise for nothing me thinks, they still have the choice of the go-around even if the tailwind parameters are less restrictive and it ends up in an unstable approach. As far as I know, the commander always has the final say, regardless of headwind or tailwind.

7 knots of tailwind is a big deal on Cessna 150, but on an A320 with plenty of braking power and a pilot with average skills on 3000 meter runways...

[tolipanebas]

For widebodies maybe this could pose a small problem at BRU, but for narrowbodies, which compose over 95% of movements at BRU, I don't see what the big deal is....7 knots of tailwind is a big deal on Cessna 150, but on an A320 with plenty of braking power and a pilot with average skills on 3000 meter runways...

Surprising as it may be to you, but the A319 has no higher maximum tailwind limit than the much bigger A330: both have the same manufacturer's certified maximum tailwind limit and for both it stands at 10kts.

Tailwind approaches with an average mean tailwind component of 7kts will lead to multiple cases where the instantaneous tailwind at touchdown will be above the certified maximum tailwind limit, so they are not a good idea, regardless the option of last resort to go-around, because a far better practice is to avoid approaches which have a high chance of culminating in a go-around in the first place....

[Flanker2]

There is no surprise to me there mr. Tolipanebas, however 10 kts tailwind will add significantly more to the LDR of an A330 than an A319, and given that the LDR of the A330 is already significantly longer than an A319, I think that it could pose a problem there.

I don't disagree with you about the 10kts being reached in some instances when you work with 7kts.
However, this only becomes a problem when there is an accident and the insurance can prove that the pilots deliberately landed in an unsafe situation.

The 10kts limit set by Airbus is a lawyer-thing. In the U.S., they will land Airbus aircraft at or beyond that limit without any problems, as big airports can't afford to shift active runways from a minute to the other with 20 or 30 aircraft at different stages of the approach.

Let's be honest, the Vref spectrum is 20-30kts wide depending on the parameters of the approach, so it's unlikely that such small tailwind components will affect landing performance at all.

[Passenger]

Surprising as it may be to you, but the A319 has no higher maximum tailwind limit than the much bigger A330: both have the same manufacturer's certified maximum tailwind limit and for both it stands at 10kts.

The whole Belgian Cockpit Association, our flying forum member tolipanebas and the stupid and incapable managers from Airbus are all wrong, as this post from the master proofs:

In the U.S., runway length permitting, it's routine to maintain an active runway up to 10, even 15 kts tailwinds.

[fcw]

Passenger, can you please stop shooting the messenger. Every single post by young Flanker is followed by a personal attack from you.
On topic: I haven't flown into Bru Central for a while, so I don't know if RWY 07 is still non precision only, but if that is the case I think an ILS on RWY25 with 7kts tail is a lot safer than an offset VOR on RWY07 with 7kts headwind, especially for those not being familiar with the airport.
I also think paralell operations on 25 with 7kts tailwind are safer than 02/07R crossing RWY operations.
Tolipanebas, can I ask you how you operate into MXP, where the tailwind is often, if not Always, fluctuating around 10kts?

[tolipanebas]

There is no surprise to me there mr. Tolipanebas, however 10 kts tailwind will add significantly more to the LDR of an A330 than an A319, and given that the LDR of the A330 is already significantly longer than an A319, I think that it could pose a problem there.

I happen to have had a look at the QRH of both planes before I posted:
The A330 adds 10m more to its Landing Distance per 5kts of tailwind, compared to the A320
(taking into account a dry runway, with Autobrakes MED), so the situation doesn't get any worse for an A330 than it is for an A320 in case of tailwind: both suffer just as badly as badly.

The 10kts limit set by Airbus is a lawyer-thing. In the U.S., they will land Airbus aircraft at or beyond that limit without any problems.

American pilots often think they are Buck Danny.
If a pilot thinks he knows the Airbus better than Airbus itself, he shouldn't be flying it, because he's a danger in the sky!

Let's be honest, the Vref spectrum is 20-30kts wide depending on the parameters of the approach, so it's unlikely that such small tailwind components will affect landing performance at all.

The Airbus doesn't fly anything near a constant Vref; in windy conditions it flies at a variable approach speed in the aim to keep its energy level high and the GS as constant as possible when in managed speed control. Tailwinds no not work too well with this 'Ground Speed Mini' mode as it is called, hence the significant hit taken on the max tailwind limit as well as the Landing distance front.

[tolipanebas]

Tolipanebas, can I ask you how you operate into MXP, where the tailwind is often, if not always, fluctuating around 10kts?

Maybe you have different experiences, but I have personally very rarely experienced tailwinds above 5kts on 35L/R at MXP?

I have however landed on RWY17 several times in very strong winds too, the last time being not that long ago (due to CBs around the airport).

[Passenger]

It's one of the main topics in VTM's 19h news.

[woutertheboy]

It's one of the main topics in VTM's 19h news.

Yes, but VTM is like "Het Laatste Nieuws". They even make a go-around at BRU one of their main topics

[Passenger]

It's one of the main topics in VTM's 19h news.

Yes, but VTM is like "Het Laatste Nieuws". They even make a go-around at BRU one of their main topics

Depends on the reporter on duty. This one however tried to make it clear for people who didn't knew before how important tailwind is for landings:
http://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/57769-l ... vaarlijker
(could be viewing is limited to Belgium)

[Flanker2]

I happen to have had a look at the QRH of both planes before I posted:
The A330 adds 10m more to its Landing Distance per 5kts of tailwind, compared to the A320
(taking into account a dry runway, with Autobrakes MED), so the situation doesn't get any worse for an A330 than it is for an A320 in case of tailwind: both suffer just as badly as badly.

I haven't checked any QRH, but I think that you're missing at least one zero there. I won't flame you for that.

If we want to be a purist for a minute, for the LDR-delta of the A319 to be equal to the LDR-Delta of the A330, the delta being the difference between -5 kts and -10 kts, it would require that the A330 would have the same LDR, all other parameters being equal.

In the QRH of A319/A320/A321, 4.02 you have actual landing performance without autobrakes, flaps 3.
These are nett, without the performance margin, so exactly what we need here.

Per 10kt tailwind, it adds
+18% (-4% if both T/R work) on a dry runway
+23% (-8% if both T/R work) on a wet runway
+33% (-23% if both T/R work) on a runway covered with ice

Landing distances for respectively:
-40 tons LW: 700 meters
-52 tons LW: 820 metes
-64 tons LW: 980 meters

I'm pretty certain per 10 kts of tailwind, it will add more than 100-150 meters to a A330 with a good load of pax on it, without having to pull out the numbers. I will suck it out of my thumb and say it will be 200-350 meters per 10kts of tailwind, depending on the load of the flight.

[Flanker2]

American pilots often think they are Buck Danny.

The approach to aviation is much more casual in America, in Europe and Asia it's treated like rocket science.

In my experience, the result is that American pilots are much more in tune with the art of flying.
European and Asian pilots are much more about procedures.

If you switch to the military world, you notice that European pilots are more casual regarding flight procedures, in contrast with the commercial world.

[tolipanebas]

I think that you're missing at least one zero there.

No, yet I think you've seriously misread me:

The A330 adds 10m more to its Landing Distance per 5kts of tailwind, compared to the A320 (taking into account a dry runway, with Autobrakes MED), so the situation doesn't get any worse for an A330 than it is for an A320 in case of tailwind: both suffer just as badly.

Note how I don't say the increment to the Landing Distance is just 10m per 5kts tailwind, but that the difference between the increment for the A320 vs. that of the A330 is just 10m per 5kts tailwind, believe it or not!

In the QRH of A319/A320/A321, 4.02 you have actual landing performance without autobrakes, flaps 3.

Airbus has recently changed its philosophy on LDRs and all of its manuals: if you're indeed still using QRH 4.02 and its traditional method with the percentage increases, then you're staring at the results of the old school philosophy: percentage increases are completely out now at Airbus because they have finally understood they are complete nonsense as they may give false impressions of certain relations which are not there.

I'm pretty certain per 10 kts of tailwind, it will add more than 100-150 meters to a A330 with a good load of pax on it, without having to pull out the numbers. I will suck it out of my thumb and say it will be 200-350 meters per 10kts of tailwind, depending on the load of the flight.

That sounds about right for the A330... and also for the A320, btw, which is the whole point.
From the current Airbus QRHs for both the A320 as well as the A330, dry RWY, SL, ISA, MED autobrakes:
LDA increases by:
140m per 5kts on the A320,
150m per 5kts on the A330,
So the A330 is adding 10m more to its Landing Distance per 5kts of tailwind, compared to the A320.
Note how not only those values are pretty close, but also how weight is completely irrelevant for these increments, so whether or not its an A330 with a good load of pax or an empty A320, is completely irrelevant and it shouldn't even be such a surprise, if you think about it for a second...