A321 flight crew reported known airport mechanical turbulence with wind shift resulted in an unstable landing configuration; bounced landing; and a pitch warning.
Synopsis
A321 flight crew reported known airport mechanical turbulence with wind shift resulted in an unstable landing configuration; bounced landing; and a pitch warning.
Narrative
Normal arrival but brought in a little high but stable very early due to slow traffic in front of us. Winds were 240/10 so looking at a right quartering headwind with an approach speed of around 142 kts. Told to intercept final and then asked if we had the runway. When we acknowledged the runway in sight we were cleared the visual. Planned a full flap landing and low auto brakes to expedite the arrival since landing away from the terminal. Disconnected the Autopilot once preceding GA traffic was clear the runway and continued a stable visual approach. Between 30 and 20 feet started pulling power off the airplane while a wind shift of 10 kt loss happened which created a larger than normal sink rate. The wind shifted back to a head wind at touchdown which helped the airplane to bounce up to a max of 3 feet. Since it was such a small hop elected to continue the landing but used back pressure to try and arrest the descent rate and received a pitch warning (only one). Besides a firm landing the pitch didn't seem excessive and rollout was normal.Cause: Apparently Runway XXL at ZZZ has mechanical turbulence associated with the approach end of the runway. Upon discussion with the First Officer (FO); he was aware of it from coming to ZZZ a lot in his previous job. A note in the company pages would go a long way into preparing pilots for this issue and planning their approaches with more speed or different flap settings. I don't remember having this issue at ZZZ myself but was told that the last tail strike was at this airport on this runway! Note; the FO was very helpful and knowledgeable and a great asset during this whole event. Also; the FOQA personal at company should be lauded for their though research on this event and understanding of the issues. Again; a great help in furthering ones aviation skills.
Second reporter narrative
While on the visual approach to XXL in ZZZ we encountered the normal thermals over the parking garage and parking lots before the runway. the Captain (pilot flying (PF)) maintained stable approach criteria throughout the entire approach. The flare appeared normal and auto thrust was disconnected appropriately. After idle thrust was achieved there was a very sudden 'down draft' with a sudden loss of airspeed of about 10 knots under Vapp while in the flare over the runway threshold. The PF pitched up more than normal to prevent a hard landing; but no PITCH callout was made for the first touchdown. The first touchdown occurred after a slight gain of airspeed back near Vapp and g force of around 1.6.The aircraft bounced less than 10 feet and no RA callouts were given. The PF maintained pitch initially and then increased pitch very slightly near the second touchdown which resulted a single PITCH callout and a 2.0 g landing less than 3 seconds after the initial touchdown. This is what most likely lead to a tailstrike.We pulled off the runway as normal and landed within a normal landing distance. The landing did not feel any harder than a firm short field landing. There were no adverse noises or impacts reported by the us; the cabin crew; the passengers; or any other aircraft.Things to note:-The winds had been reporting a quartering headwind the entire time and the winds shifted to a 15 kt quartering tailwind in the initial flare.-The initial touchdown to the bounce and second touchdown was less than 3 seconds and less than 10 ft. This seems to be classified as a small bounce or skip in AOM which allows the continuation of the landing. Even if we had initiated a go-around I extremely doubt the engines would had spooled up in time to allow for a different outcome.- At the very end of the second flare and the PITCH callout I (pilot monitoring (PM)) unintentionally pushed the side stick down to lower the nose. This lead to a DUAL INPUT annunciation and obviously had no action. This was so late in the flare that calling for a go-around or saying something to the PF would had made no difference as everything happened so fast.Cause:- Thermals.- Unreliable weather reports for on field locations.- Captain's (PF) experience on the aircraft lead me to believe a go around should not be initiated.- AOM does NOT define the differences between a small bounce and a high bounce to decide on which procedure to follow.- Bounces in sim training are unrealistically high. This is well known and doesn't allow for a rejected landed with a second touchdown.Looking back I wish we went around; which I was half a second away from saying. I don't know if the GA would had prevented the outcome with the lag of the engines spooling up.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.