Accidents & Serious Incidents involving A320 family

1. A320 fly-by-wire Indian Airlines flight on 14 February 1990 that crashed on its
final approach to Bengaluru (formerly Bangalore) airport, killing 92 people.The
aircraft, , flew from Mumbai (formerly Bombay) airport to Bengaluru-Hindustan
Airport, taking off at 11:58. While executing a visual approach to runway 09, the
plane was allowed to descend below the safe glide path. Its final approach initially
impacted the ground at a local golf club hard enough to become briefly airborne only
to hit the ground again, also striking an embankment where it lost its engines and
landing gear and came to its final stop, at 13:03.The probable cause has been reported
as the pilots' failure to properly understand the aircraft's reactions behaviour in
different modes of operations. There appeared to be some confusion with the
automatic radio altitude announcements and to increase thrust, as the aircraft was in
idle/open descent mode.[1]

2, A320 operated by Air Inter departed Satolas Airport (now known as Lyon-Saint
Exupry Airport) in Lyon, France. While being vectored for a VOR/DME approach to
runway 05 at Strasbourg, it crashed at 19:20:33 CET (18:20:33 UTC) in the
mountains at an altitude of 2,620 feet (800 m).The pilots had no warning of the
imminent impact because Air Inter had not equipped its aircraft with a ground
proximity warning system (GPWS). It is speculated that this was because Air Inter
facing ferocious competition from France's TGV high-speed trains may have
encouraged its pilots to fly fast at low level (up to 350 knots below 10,000 feet, while
other airlines generally do not exceed 250 knots), and GPWS systems gave too many
nuisance warnings.The accident occurred at night, under low cloud and with light
snow.Flight 148 was the third in a series of crashes caused, at least in part, by what
was believed to be pilots' unfamiliarity with the sophisticated computer system of the
Airbus A320. The Bureau d'Enqutes et d'Analyses pour la Scurit de l'Aviation
Civile (BEA) believe that Flight 148 crashed because the pilots inadvertently left the
autopilot set in Vertical Speed mode (instead of Flight Path Angle mode) then entered
"33" for "3.3 descent angle", which for the autopilot meant a descent rate of 3,300
feet (1,000 m) per minute.Accident investigators determined that there was no single
cause of the accident, but rather multiple factors that contributed to the crash. On the
approach to the airport Air Traffic Control incorrectly warned the crew that they were
to the "right" of the runway, causing the flight crew to experience high workload.
When investigators input the descent rate, which had been set into a flight simulator,
the aircraft initially did not crash. Further investigation revealed, however, that when
a small amount of turbulence was introduced, a safety feature of the autopilot further
increased the descent rate, adding to the chain of events that led to the crash

3. A320, Bilbao Spain, 2001 (WX AW) (On 7th February 2001, an Iberia A320 was
about to make a night touch down at Bilbao in light winds when it experienced
unexpected windshear. The attempt to counter the effect of this by initiation of a go
around failed because the automatic activation of AOA protection in accordance with
design criteria which opposed the crew pitch input. The aircraft then hit the runway so

hard that a go around was no longer possible. Severe airframe structural damage and
evacuation injuries to some of the occupants followed. A mandatory modification to
the software involved was subsequently introduced.)

4. A320 Lufthansa Flight 2904 was cleared to land at Okcie International Airport
Runway 11 and was informed of the existence of wind shear on the approach.[1] To
compensate for the crosswind, the pilots attempted to touch down with the aircraft
banked slightly to the right. Additionally they landed with a speed about 20 knots
(37 km/h) faster than usual. According to the manual, this was the correct procedure
for the reported weather conditions, but the weather report was not up-to-date. At the
moment of touchdown, the assumed crosswind turned out to be a tailwind. Due to the
tailwind of approximately 20 knots (37 km/h) and the increased speed, the airplane hit
the ground at approximately 170 knots (310 km/h) and far beyond the normal touch
down point. The aircraft's right gear touched down 770 m from the runway 11
threshold. The left gear touched down 9 seconds later, 1525 m from the threshold.
Only when the left gear touched the runway did the ground spoilers and engine thrust
reversers start to deploy, these systems depending on oleo strut (shock absorber)
compression. The wheel brakes, triggered by wheel rotation being equal to or greater
than 72 knots (133 km/h), began to operate about 4 seconds later.

The main cause of the accident was incorrect decisions and actions of the flight crew.
Some of the incorrect decisions were taken when information about wind shear was
received by the crew. The wind shear was produced by the front passing over the
airport, accompanied by intensive variation of wind parameters as well as by heavy
rain on the runway itself.

Further additional causes were certain design features of the aircraft. Computer logic
prevented the activation of both ground spoilers and thrust reversers until a minimum
compression load of at least 6.3 tons was sensed on each main landing gear strut, thus
preventing the crew from achieving any braking action by the two systems before this
condition was met.To ensure that the thrust-reverse system and the spoilers are only
activated in a landing situation, the software has to be sure the airplane is on the
ground even if the systems are selected mid-air. The spoilers are only activated if at
least one of the following two conditions is true:

there must be weight of at least 6.3 tons on each main landing gear strut

the wheels of the plane must be turning faster than 72 knots (133 km/h).

The thrust reversers are only activated if the first condition is true. There is no way for
the pilots to override the software decision and activate either system manually.

In the case of the Warsaw accident neither of the first two conditions was fulfilled, so
the most effective braking system was not activated. Point one was not fulfilled
because the plane landed inclined (to counteract the anticipated crosswind). Thus the
pressure of 12 tons on both landing gears combined required to trigger the sensor was
not reached. Point two was not fulfilled either due to a hydroplaning effect on the wet

runway.Only when the left landing gear touched the runway did the automatic aircraft
systems allow the ground spoilers and engine thrust reversers to operate. Due to the
braking distances in the heavy rain the aircraft could not stop before the end of the
runway. The computer did not actually know the aircraft had landed until it was
already 125 meters beyond the halfway point of runway 11.

Illustration of distance relative to main strut touchdown. The striped line marks 1400 m,
which divides the runway in half. Red indicates the landing gear have not touched down, blue
indicates hydroplaning, and green indicates wheels on the ground.
As a result of the accident, Airbus Industrie changed the required compression value from 6.3
tons to just 2 tons per main landing gear.

5. A320, Los Angeles USA, 2005 (AW) (On 21 September 2005, an Airbus A320
operated by Jet Blue Airways made a successful emergency landing at Los Angeles
Airport, California, with the nose wheels cocked 90 degrees to the fore-aft position
after an earlier fault on gear retraction.)

6. A320Flight 8501 was a scheduled flight from Surabaya, Java, Indonesia to

Singapore on Sunday, 28 December 2014.After departure, Flight 8501 was in contact
with the Jakarta Area Control Centre when it approached a line of thunderstorms off
the southwest coast of Borneo.[11] At 06:12, Flight 8501 was flying at flight level 320
approximately 32,000 ft (9,750 m)when the cockpit requested and received
permission to deviate left from its original flight path to avoid these storms.[12] The
pilot then requested to climb to flight level 380, which was deferred by ATC because
of other aircraft in the vicinity |AirNav Indonesia, which operates the Jakarta Area
Control Centre, reported that Jakarta Centre then cleared Flight 8501 to flight level
340 at 06:14,[but no response was received; other aircraft in the vicinity were asked to
contact Flight 8501, but also did not receive a response.Between 06:17:00 and
06:17:54, the aircraft climbed from 32,000 to 37,000 ft (9,800 to 11,300 m),
exceeding a climb rate of 6,000 ft (1,800 m) per minute, about twice the maximum
rate that a commercial aircraft should climb in still air. A photo of a secondary radar
screen, without a timestamp, showed the aircraft at flight level 363approximately
36,300 ft (11,100 m)and climbing with a ground speed of 353 knots (654 km/h;
406 mph), which is too slow to maintain stable level flight in still air.[16][21] The
Indonesian Minister of Transport interpreted the apparent aircraft behaviour at peak
altitude as an aerodynamic stall, when it began to descend at 06:17:54, descending
1,000 ft (300 m) within six seconds and 8,000 ft (2,400 m) within 31 seconds.The

aircraft also began a turn to the left, forming at least one complete circle before
disappearing from radar at 06:18:44.The cockpit voice recorder captured multiple
warnings, including a stall warning, sounding in the cockpit during the final minutes
of the flight.124 minutes of cockpit dialogue was successfully extracted from the
cockpit voice recorder. The sound of many alarms from the flight system can be heard
in the final minutes, almost drowning out the voices of the pilots. The investigators
ruled out a terrorist attack as the cause and said they would examine the possibility of
human error or aircraft malfunction.[24] The aircraft altitude recorded by ATC radar
increased from 32,000 ft (9,750 m) to 37,000 ft (11,300 m) between 06:17:00 and
06:17:54 WIB, at an initial rate of up to 6,000 ft/min (1,830 m/min). At 06:17:54, the
aircraft descended from 37,000 ft (11,300 m) to 36,000 ft (11,000 m) in six seconds,
and to 29,000 ft (8,840 m) in 31 seconds.[18]
A malfunction of the Flight Augmentation Computer (FAC) was persistent enough to
cause the captain to take the "very unusual" initiative to pull the circuit breaker for the
FAC, cutting power to it a few minutes before the end of the flight. The captain left
his seat to access the breaker panel behind the copilot, who was in control of the
aircraft at the time. The FAC is the part of the fly-by-wire system in A320 aircraft
responsible for rudder control. It had been the subject of maintenance problems on
previous flights of this aircraft.The sudden nose-up climbing condition occurred at
this time, possibly because of failure of the copilot to respond to the sudden change in
control characteristics due to FAC shutdown, which eliminated protection against
control inputs that exceed aerodynamic limits.

7 A 320 March 22, 1998 Phillipines Flight 137 overshot the runway while landing at
Bacolod City Domestic Airport. There were no fatalities among the aircraft's crew and
passengers, but three people died on the ground as the airliner plowed through a
residential area.The aircraft, an Airbus A320-214, tail number RP-C3222, was
destroyed. It had been in service for barely three months prior to the accident.A
selection by the pilot of the wrong mode on the onboard flight computers prevented
power from being reduced to idle, which inhibited thrust reverse and spoilers from
being used. The offending engine was shut down, and brakes applied, but the aircraft
was unable to stop before the end of the runway.

8. A320The crash of Armavia Flight 967 was a Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT),
specifically water, while conducting a climbing maneuver after an aborted approach
to Sochi airport at night with weather conditions below landing minimums for runway
06.While performing the climb with the autopilot disengaged, the Captain, being in a
psychoemotional stress condition, made nose down control inputs due to the loss of
pitch and roll awareness. This started the abnormal situation. The Captain's
insufficient pitch control inputs led to a failure to recover the aircraft and caused it to
crash.Along with the inadequate control inputs from the Captain, the contributing
factors of the crash were also the lack of monitoring the aircraft's pitch attitude,
altitude and vertical speed by the First Officer and no proper reaction by the crew to
GPWS warnings

9. A320, Phoenix AZ USA, 2002 (RE HF) (On 28 August 2002, an America West
Airbus A320 operating under an ADD for an inoperative left engine thrust reverser
veered off the side of the runway during the landing roll at Phoenix AZ after the
Captain mismanaged the thrust levers and lost directional control as a consequence of
applying asymmetric thrust. Substantial damage occurred to the aircraft but most
occupants were uninjured.)

10. A320, So Paulo Congonhas Brazil, 2007 (RE HF AW FIRE) (On 17 July 2007,
the commander of a TAM Airlines Airbus A320 being operated with one thrust
reverser locked out was unable to stop the aircraft leaving the landing runway at
Congonhas at speed and it hit buildings and was destroyed by the impact and fire
which followed killing all on board and others on the ground. The investigation
attributed the accident to pilot failure to realise that the thrust lever of the engine with
the locked out reverser was above idle, which by design then prevented both the
deployment of ground spoilers and the activation of the pre-selected autobrake.)At the
moment of touchdown, the spoiler lever was in the "ARMED" position.According to
the system logic of the A320's flight controls,[17] in order for the spoilers to
automatically deploy upon touchdown not only must the spoiler lever be in the
"ARMED" position, but both thrust levers must be at or close to the "idle" position.
The FDR transcript shows that immediately after the warning, the flight computer
recorded the left thrust lever being retarded to the rear-most position, activating the
thrust reverser on the left engine, while the right thrust lever (controlling the engine
with the disabled thrust reverser) remained in the CL position. The pilots had only
retarded the left engine to idle because they thought that without thrust reverser, the
right engine did not need to be retarded as well. Airbus autothrust logic dictates that
when one or more of the thrust levers is pulled to the idle position, the autothrust is
automatically disengaged. Thus, when the pilot pulled the left engine thrust lever to
idle it disconnected the autothrust system. Since the right engine thrust lever was still
in the "climb" detent, the right engine accelerated to climb power while the left engine
deployed its thrust reverser. The resulting asymmetric thrust condition resulted in a
loss of control and a crash ensued. The A320's spoilers did not deploy during the
landing run, as the right thrust lever was above the "idle" setting required for
automatic spoiler deployment.The flight was under the command of an experienced
cockpit crew, consisting of Captain Henrique Stefanini Di Sacco (53) and Co-Pilot
Kleyber Lima (54). Both pilots had been flying for over 30 years. The captain had
accrued nearly 13,700 flight hours throughout his career and the co-pilot had almost
14,800 hours of flying experience,

11. A320, Toronto Canada, 2000 (AW GND HF) (On 13 September 2000, an Airbus
A320-200 being operated by Canadian airline Skyservice on a domestic passenger
charter flight from Toronto to Edmonton was departing in day VMC when, after a
loud bang and shudder during rotation, evidence of left engine malfunction
occurred during initial climb and the flight crew declared an emergency and returned
for an immediate overweight landing on the departure runway which necessitated
navigation around several pieces of debris, later confirmed as the fan cowlings of the
left engine. There were no injuries to the occupants.)

12. A320, en route, north of land Sweden, 2011 (AW LOC HF) (On 5 March 2011, a
Finnair Airbus A320 was westbound in the cruise in southern Swedish airspace after
despatch with Engine 1 bleed air system inoperative when the Engine 2 bleed air
system failed and an emergency descent was necessary. The Investigation found that
the Engine 2 system had shut down due to overheating and that access to proactive
and reactive procedures related to operations with only a single bleed air system
available were deficient. The crew failure to make use of APU air to help sustain
cabin pressurisation during flight completion was noted.)

13. A320, en-route, Kalmar County Sweden, 2009 (GND FIRE HF) (On 2 March
2009, an Airbus A320-200 being operated by Wizz Air Hungary on a scheduled
passenger flight from Stockholm Vasteras to Poznan was in the cruise at night when
the flight crew detected an unfamiliar smell on the flight deck and decided to guard
against possible incapacitation by donning their oxygen masks from time to time for
the remainder of the flight. There was some evidence of the same effect in the
passenger cabin. The flight was completed without further consequences and none of
the 85 occupants was affected except temporarily.)

14. A320, en-route, Sydney Australia, 2007 (LOS HF AW) (On 11 January 2007, an
Air New Zealand Airbus A320 which had just departed Sydney Australia for
Auckland, New Zealand was observed to have turned onto a heading contrary to the
ATC-issued radar heading. When so advised by ATC, the crew checked the aircraft
compasses and found that they were reading approximately 40 degrees off the correct
heading.)

15. A320, vicinity Frankfurt Germany, 2001 (AW LOC HF) (On 21 March 2001 an
Airbus A320-200, operated by Lufthansa, experienced a flight controls malfunctions
shortly after take-off which resulted in loss of control and subsequent near terrain
impact. The uncontrolled roll, due to the malfunction of the pilot flying's sidestick,
was recovered by the other pilot and the aircraft safely returned to land in Frankfurt
without further incident.)

16. A320, vicinity LaGuardia New York USA, 2009 (BS LOC AW) (On 15 January
2009, a United Airlines Airbus A320-200 approaching 3000 feet agl in day VMC
following take-off from New York La Guardia experienced an almost complete loss of
thrust in both engines after encountering a flock of Canada Geese . In the absence of
viable alternatives, the aircraft was successfully ditched in the Hudson River about.
Of the 150 occupants, one flight attendant and four passengers were seriously injured
and the aircraft was substantially damaged. The subsequent investigation led to the
issue of 35 Safety Recommendations mainly relating to ditching, bird strike and low
level dual engine failure.)

17. A320, vicinity New York JFK NY USA, 2007 (FIRE) (A320 diversion to KJFK
after signs of smoke from an overhead locker. The source of the fire was a lithium
battery in passenger hand luggage.)

18. A320, vicinity Perpignan France, 2008 (LOC HF AW) (On 27 November 2008,
the crew of an XL Airways A320 on an airworthiness function flight following aircraft
repainting lost control of the aircraft after fail to take the action necessary to recover
from a full stall which had resulted from their continued airspeed reduction during a
low speed handling test when Stall Protection System (SPS) activation did nor occur
at the likely airspeed because two of the three angle of attack sensors were blocked by
ice formed by water ingress during preparation for the repainting. This condition
rendered angle of attack protection in normal law inoperative.)

19. A320, vicinity Tel Aviv Israel, 2012 (LOC HF) (On 3 April 2012, the crew of an
Air France Airbus A320 came close to loosing control of their aircraft after accepting,
inadequately preparing for and comprehensively mismanaging it during an RNAV
VISUAL approach at Tel Aviv and during the subsequent attempt at a missed
approach. The Investigation identified significant issues with crew understanding of
automation - especially in respect of both the use of FMS modes and operations with
the AP off but the A/T on - and highlighted the inadequate provision by the aircraft
operator of both procedures and pilot training for this type of approach.)

20. 320, vicinity Auckland New Zealand, 2012 (LOC BS AW) (On 20 June 2012,
the right V2500 engine compressor of an Airbus A320 suddenly stalled on final
approach. The crew reduced the right engine thrust to flight idle and completed the
planned landing uneventfully. Extensive engine damage was subsequently discovered
and the investigation conducted attributed this to continued use of the engine in
accordance with required maintenance procedures following bird ingestion during the
previous sector. No changes to procedures for deferral of a post bird strike boroscope
inspection for one further flight in normal service were proposed but it was noted that
awareness of operations under temporary alleviations was important.)

21. 320Flight 1878 was a scheduled international passenger flight to Atatrk

Airport, Istanbul, Turkey. 25 April 2015, the aircraft rolled to the right just before
landing on runway 05 at Istanbul and touched down hard from a height of 100 feet
(30 m) above ground level. A tail strike was followed by a hard landing on the
starboard main gear.[1] This caused substantial damage to the starboard wing, including
the rupturing of fuel lines. The force of the landing was severe enough to cause some
oxygen masks to deploy in the cabin.The aircraft made a go-around, climbing to an
altitude of 3,800 feet (1,200 m). During the approach to land on runway 35L, a
passenger noticed the damaged wing was on fire. During the second landing, at 10:41
local time (07:41 UTC), the aircraft's right landing gear collapsed and the aircraft
spun almost 180 off the runway. The airport's fire and rescue service attended the
aircraft and the fire was extinguished. All on board evacuated the aircraft via the
emergency slides. There were no injuries reported.[3] The flight crew claimed that
wake turbulence from a Boeing 787 Dreamliner which landed ahead of them may
have been the reason for the initial roll and contact with the runway.

22. On 26 June 1988, Air France Flight 296, using a recently introduced and just
months-old Airbus A320-111, crashed into the tops of trees beyond the runway on a
demonstration flight at Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport, France. Three passengers (of
136 on board) were killed.

23. Gulf Air Flight 072 was a regularly-scheduled flight from Cairo to Bahrain . On
23 August 2000, the Airbus A320 serving the flight crashed into the shallow waters of
the Persian Gulf 5 kilometers from the airport.All 143 on board the aircraft were
killed.The A320 with 143 passengers and crew on board approached the landing at
higher speeds than normal and carried out an unusual low altitude orbit in an attempt
to correct the approach. The orbit was unsuccessful and a go around was attempted.
While carrying out a turning climb, the aircraft entered a descent at 15 degrees nose
down. The aircrew did not respond to repeated GPWS warning and approximately
one minute after starting the go-around the aircraft disappeared from radar screens.
There were no survivors. There were 36 children on the aircraft. The accident
investigation concluded that the primary cause of the crash was pilot error (including
spatial disorientation), with a secondary factor being systemic organizational and
oversight issues.[

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving A319

24. A319, Belfast Aldergrove UK, 2011 (FIRE GND HF) (On 6 January 2011 an
Easyjet Airbus A319 experienced the sudden onset of thick "smoke" in the cabin as
the aircraft cleared the runway after landing. The aircraft was stopped and an
evacuation was carried out during which one of the 52 occupants received a minor
injury. The subsequent investigation attributed the occurrence to the continued use of
reverse idle thrust after clearing the runway onto a little used taxiway where the
quantity of de-ice fluid residue was much greater than on the runway.)

25. A319, London Heathrow UK, 2009 (FIRE AW) (On 15 March 2009, an Airbus
A319-100 being operated by British Airways on a scheduled passenger flight from
London Heathrow to Edinburgh experienced an electrical malfunction which blanked
the EFIS displays following engine start with some electrical fumes but no smoke.
The engines were shut down, a PAN was declared to ATC and the aircraft was towed
back onto the gate where passengers disembarked normally via the airbridge.)

26. A319, London Heathrow UK, 2013 (LOC FIRE AW HF) (On 24 May 2013 the
fan cowl doors on both engines of an Airbus A319 detached as it took off from
London Heathrow. Their un-latched status after a routine maintenance input had gone

undetected. Extensive structural and system damage resulted and a fire which could
not be extinguished until the aircraft was back on the ground began in one engine.
Many previously-recorded cases of fan cowl door loss were noted but none involving
such significant collateral damage. Safety Recommendations were made on aircraft
type certification in general, A320-family aircraft modification, maintenance fatigue
risk management and aircrew procedures and training.)

27. A319, Luton UK, 2012 (LOC HF) (On 14 February 2011, an Easyjet Airbus A319
being flown by a trainee Captain under supervision initiated a go around from below
50 feet agl after a previously stabilised approach at Luton and a very hard three point
landing followed before the go around climb could be established. The investigation
found that the Training Captain involved, although experienced, had only limited
aircraft type experience and that, had he taken control before making a corrective
sidestick input opposite to that of the trainee, it would have had the full instead of a
summed effect and may have prevented hard runway contact.)

28. A319, en-route, Free State Province South Africa, 2008 (LOC HF AW) (On 7
September 2008 a South African Airways Airbus A319 en route from Cape Town to
Johannesburg at FL370 received an ECAM warning of the failure of the No 1 engine
bleed system. The crew then closed the No. 1 engine bleed with the applicable press
button on the overhead panel. The cabin altitude started to increase dramatically and
the cockpit crew advised ATC of the pressurisation problem and requested an
emergency descent to a lower level. During the emergency descent to 11000 ft amsl,
the cabin altitude warning sounded at 33000ft and the flight crew activated the cabin
oxygen masks. The APU was started and pressurisation was re-established at 15000ft
amsl. The crew completed the flight to the planned destination without any further
event. The crew and passengers sustained no injuries and no damage was caused to
the aircraft.)

29. A319, en-route, Nantes France, 2006 (AGC AW) (On 15 September 2006, an
Easyjet Airbus A319, despatched under MEL provision with one engine generator
inoperative and the corresponding electrical power supplied by the Auxiliary Power
Unit generator, suffered a further en route electrical failure which included power loss
to all COM radio equipment which could not then be re-instated. The flight was
completed as flight planned using the remaining flight instruments with the one
remaining transponder selected to the standard emergency code. The incident began
near Nantes, France.)

30. A319, en-route, east of Dublin Ireland, 2008 (AW HF) (On 27 May 2008 an
Airbus A319-100 being operated by Germanwings on a scheduled passenger flight
from Dublin to Cologne was 30nm east of Dublin and passing FL100 in the climb in
unrecorded daylight flight conditions when the Purser advised the flight crew by
intercom that something was wrong, that almost all the passengers had fallen
asleep, and that at least one of the cabin crew seated nearby was unresponsive.
Following a review of this information and a check of the ECAM pressurisation page
which showed no warnings or failures, a decision was taken to don oxygen masks and

the aircraft returned uneventfully to Dublin without any further adverse effects on the
125 occupants. A MAYDAY was declared during the diversion.)

31. A319, south of London UK, 2005 (LOC AW HF) (On 22 October 2005, a British
Airways Airbus A319 climbing en route to destination over south east England at
night in VMC experienced a major but temporary electrical failure. Most services
were re-instated within a short time and the flight was continued. However, during the
subsequent Investigation, which took over two years, a series of significant
deficiencies were identified in the design of the A320 series electrical system and the
manufacturer-recommended responses to failures in it and in response, Airbus
developed solutions to most of them.)

32. A319, vicinity Wuxi China, 2010 (LOC HF WX) (On 14 September 2010, the
crew of a Sichuan Airlines Airbus A319 continued an ILS approach into Wuxi despite
awareness of adverse convective weather conditions at the airport. Their inattention to
automation management then led to a low energy warning and the inappropriate
response to this led to the activation of flight envelope protection quickly followed by
a stall warning. Inappropriate response to this was followed by loss of control and a
full stall and high rate of descent from which recovery was finally achieved less than
900 feet agl.)

33. B738, En route, near Lugano Switzerland, 2012 (LOC AW HF) (On 4 April 2012,
the cabin pressurisation controller (CPC) on a Boeing 737-800 failed during the climb
passing FL305 and automatic transfer to the alternate CPC was followed by a loss of
cabin pressure control and rapid depressurisation because it had been inadvertently
installed with the shipping plug fitted. An emergency descent and diversion followed.
The subsequent Investigation attributed the failure to remove the shipping plug to
procedural human error and the poor visibility of the installed plug. It was also found
that "the pressurisation system ground test after CPC installation was not suitable to
detect the error".)

34 A319 / B744, en route near Oroville WA USA, 2008 (WAKE HF AW) (On 10
January 2008, an Air Canada Airbus A319 en route over the north western USA
encountered unexpected sudden wake vortex turbulence from an in trail Boeing 747400 nearly 11nm ahead to which the pilots who then responded with potentially
hazardous flight control inputs which led to reversion to Alternate Control Law and
aggravated the external /disturbance to the aircraft trajectory with roll up to 55 and
an unintended descent of 1400 feet which with cabin service in progress and sea belt
signs off led to cabin service carts hitting the cabin ceiling and several passenger
injuries, some serious.)

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving A321

35.A321, Manchester UK, 2011 (LOC HF) (On 29 April 2011, an Airbus A321-200
being operated by Thomas Cook Airlines on a passenger service from Manchester UK
to Iraklion, Greece took off in day VMC but failed to establish a climb at the expected
speed until the aircraft pitch attitude was reduced below that prescribed for the aircraft
weight which had been entered into the FMS. No abnormal manoeuvres occurred and
none of the 231 occupants were injured.)

36.A321, en-route, Northern Sudan, 2010 (AW LOC) (On 24 August 2010, an Airbus
A321-200 being operated by British Midland on a scheduled public transport service
from Khartoum to Beirut experienced, during cruise at FL360 in night IMC, an
electrical malfunction which was accompanied by intermittent loss of the display on
both pilots EFIS and an uncommanded change to a left wing low attitude. Deselection of the No 1 generator and subsequent return of the rudder trim, which had
not previously been intentionally moved, to neutral removed all abnormalities and the
planned flight was completed without further event with no damage to the aircraft or
injuries to the 49 occupants.)

37.Airbus A321 On 28 July 2010, Airblue Flight 202, flying from Karachi to
Islamabad, crashed in Margalla Hills in Islamabad, Pakistan. The weather was poor
with low visibility. During a non-standard self-created approach procedure below
Minimum Descent Altitude the aircraft collided with terrain after the captain ignored a
total of 21 cockpit warnings to pull-up. 146 passengers and six crew were on board
the aircraft. There were no survivors.[31] The commander, Pervez Iqbal Chaudry, was
one of Airblue's most senior pilots with more than 35 years' experience. The accident
was a pilot error/controlled flight into terrain accident and the only fatal accident
involving the A321.

38. Airbus A321, Lufthansa Flight 1829,(On 5 November 2014 an was flying from
Bilbao to Munich when the aircraft, while on autopilot, lowered the nose into a
descent reaching 4000 fpm. The uncommanded pitch-down was caused by two angle
of attack sensors that were jammed in their positions, causing the fly by wire
protection to believe the aircraft entered a stall while it climbed through FL310. The
Alpha Protection activated, forcing the aircraft to pitch down, which could not be
corrected even by full stick input. The crew disconnected the related Air Data Units
and were able to recover the aircraft. The event was also reported in the German press
several days before the Germanwings crash. The German BFU (Aircraft Accident
Investigation Bureau) reported on the incident on 17 March 2015 in a Bulletin
publishing the flight data recorder and pitch control data in English and German. As a
result of this incident an Airworthiness Directive made mandatory the Aircraft Flight
Manual amended by the procedure the manufacturer had described in the FOT and the

OEB and a subsequent information of flight crews prior to the next flight. EASA
issued a similar Airworthiness Directive for the aircraft types A330/340

39.A321, Manchester UK, 2008 (LOC AW) (On 28 July 2008, the crew flying an
Airbus A321-200 departing Manchester UK were unable to raise the landing gear. The
fault was caused by damage to the Nose Landing Gear sustained on the previous flight
which experienced a heavy landing.)