OK, we suck at landing.

And before you take offense and say "Not me," remember we're all in this together. We are only as good as our weakest link - and it could be you on any given day given the right winds, your fatigue level, mindset, etc. Don't think that it can't be you because it can - this is the 1st step in mishap mediation.

2nd step - look at the data. This plane records everything. What were the pitch stick inputs at 50' to the ground. Did the winds die off. Airspeed? There are probably 20-30 factors that all combine for a bad landing which, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, should have been mitigated well prior to 50'.

3rd step - get the data out and train to it. Simple really but the most involved part. In the military, you have a "safety" day where there's no flying and all manner of safety related briefings/demos/people talking would occur. Since that can't happen for us, there's gotta be a way to get out some TRAINING (not memos) to people about actual techniques for pitch/airspeed control as well as actual things to look for (perhaps the PNF watches the ADI and calls out pitch OR calls out wind speed or whatever). Maybe it's a one time 1/2 hr sim for EVERYONE in the company that goes over hazards/techniques/mitigation - Lord knows, we train some of the strangest things already which seem to be pointless. This may sound intrusive but when you suck (and that's ALL of us), then you take necessary measures to correct. It's overkill for probably 99.92% but better that than another tailstrike 5 months from now.

4th step - look at the human factors/operational aspects of these strikes. First thing I thought of when reading both the company and union emails were that the operation itself is hazardous. We routinely fly to special airports w/o any training beyond blue pages. We fly more red-eyes in a month than some companies do in a year and have lines w/ circadian rhythm swaps all throughout. So, there needs to be an INDEPENDENT and exhaustive search into the effects this operation has on pilots abilities. Everything from what leg did most strikes occur, to what time of day to how far into the duty day was the crew to many others.

Of course, this all costs $. That is if we REALLY wanna solve the problem.

My thoughts are that the company really just wants pilots to magically fly better...

 

We can do that also but not with a speed additive. That requires a manual calculation.

 

I’ve seen guys send numbers with +5 Vapp. That seems legit to me.

 

The added corrections are based off Vls, don’t believe me. Send one for +0 and send one for +5. They are the same. That’s because we fly approaches at Vls +5. If you want to add speed you need to send +10 (or more)

 

You serious, Clark?

You talking about the acars landing data page where you can add speed in 5 kts increments?

I got to try this next time I fly. If so, I've been doing it wrong

 

There was a memo about this 6 months ago or so, the perf solution automatically adds 5 knots for autothrust usage. If you want to an additional 5 you need to send the solution with 10 knots added. Not very intuitive.

 

I would caution against this as a general practice.

One because sometimes adding 10 kts isn’t prudent (short/wet runway, etc.).

Second, and more importantly, that’s not correcting the problem. That’s a workaround that would soon become policy that inherently is incorrect.

Is that the method other Airbus drivers are taking?

 

Yup. What that tells me us the auto thrust is slow to react. In reducing power as well hence the buffer.

 

Wow. I'm surprised and disappointed in myself for missing that memo. And doing landing days wrong for the last 10 years

 

That’s the problem with 5 memos a day and no idea which one’s are important.