A321
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Troubleshooting; Fatigue; Workload
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Software and Automation; Human Factors; Aircraft; Weather
I was the First Officer and pilot monitoring on our flight from ZZZ1 to ZZZ. This was the last leg of a three-day trip. We taxied out on time and parked to wait out a ground stop. ZZZ was just starting to get the worst of a tropical storm. Convective SIGMETs for embedded thunderstorms covered much of the mid-Atlantic states. The ground stop lifted and we were able to depart 2 hours and 2 minutes after pushback.The first part of the flight went fine; and we were clear of weather until contacting Approach Control. The controller gave us good vectors; but we still had to penetrate some moderate rain showers. Our aircraft was an older 321 with CRT screens and the old radar display; and it was night by this point. This made it difficult to know the intensity until we were very close to the depicted weather. We were able to keep clear of magenta turbulence indications on the display; yet we still encountered moderate to severe turbulence with speed indications +/- 20 kt. below 8;000 ft. Upon turning base; we were in a clear area and could see one more cell crossing the final approach course. Traffic ahead that had just flown through the same cell reported moderate rain and smooth ride. Our ride was worse than that; and after configuring we got an aural predictive windshear warning; 'GO AROUND; WINDSHEAR AHEAD.' We initiated a go-around. The ride was moderate and there were big airspeed fluctuations; but we didn't get a reactive windshear alert. Approach vectored us back for another ILS. The downwind took us around more moderate intensity rain and turbulence. Approach informed us that traffic behind us had landed; and that we were the only one to go around so far. I believe two aircraft landed between our first approach and our second attempt.Our second approach also resulted in a go-around. When we encountered the heaviest part of the rain; airspeed loss was unacceptable and we initiated the go-around. We did not get a predictive windshear alert. I don't recall if we had a reactive windshear warning; but almost instantly we had multiple ECAM warnings and cautions. The autopilot disconnected and Captain assumed manual control - he was pilot-flying throughout the event. The ride felt very similar to how the simulator presents a windshear event. Recovery felt like it took forever. With no autopilot and multiple F/CTRL ECAM messages; we were fully caught up in recovering to a normal state. We climbed up to 3000; which was [the] missed approach altitude. Flight director guidance was fluctuating a lot; and we turned off FD 1 and 2.Re-configuring the aircraft after the approach was delayed; the airspeed trend arrow indicated a very imminent flap over-speed condition. I asked the Captain if he wanted flaps up; and then raised them when he indicated in the affirmative. My perception here was that we were in level flight and accelerating rapidly. In retrospect; I misjudged our energy state and failed to follow the prescribed schedule for flap retraction; retracting them too quickly. As the flaps were retracting; we were somewhere around 3;100 ft. correcting for 3;000; in moderate turbulence. These factors all compounded; resulting in a low-energy state and stall warning indication. I'm not sure what the auto thrust was commanding at this point; or if it had reduced thrust for us to descend back to 3000. I believe I yelled; 'Nose down!' and Captain responded that he was full forward stick. I momentarily pushed my flight stick forward and was corrected by the aural 'dual input' alert. Captain recovered the aircraft. I gave ATC a quick description of our flight control computer problems and they climbed us to 5000 on vectors. We began the process of going through the ECAM malfunctions; with me working the ECAM. The autopilot was inoperative for the rest of the flight. F/CTRL ALTN LAW was next. There is no follow-up for this. I believe the next was F/CTRL ELAC 1 PITCH FAULT and F/CTRL ELAC 2 PITCH FAULT. I know that's the checklist I went to; but after the fact I can't say whether it was the ELAC PITCH FAULT or a generic ELAC FAULT. The pitch fault follow-up prohibits resetting an ELAC in flight; and so we did not attempt a computer reset. The ELAC FAULT reset procedure does allow a reset in flight if you do it one at a time and there are no uncommanded maneuvers happening.After follow-ups; I called Dispatch to see if we could go to ZZZ2 or ZZZ3 or ZZZ4. We had around 12;000 lb. of fuel. ZZZ4 appeared to have storm cells at the field but ZZZ2 and ZZZ3 were clear. I expressed that we were hand-flying with degraded flight controls and needed a clear airport. Dispatch gave us a minimum fuel of 8.0 to go to ZZZ4 if we could not get into ZZZ. Ultimately; ZZZ updated us that winds were shifting straight out of the north; and they could turn the airport around for us. The non-normal section of the Land App confirmed we had enough runway landing distance. The final for XXR was clear of storms; and we were able to shoot the ILS and land.So many factors were at play here. At the time we entered ZZZ airspace we had been on duty for 10 hours. We were navigating around severe weather in a tropical storm with the old-style radar. It was working well; but overall; it just doesn't provide the clarity that the new radar presents. We were in continuous turbulence of varying intensities; occasionally severe; before our first approach. Our picture of what the weather was doing was not as clear as the situational awareness that can be achieved in cruise flight. We were relying on ATC vectors through areas that other aircraft had just previously flown. Reports from other aircraft indicated acceptable conditions; or conditions that we could plan for by following severe weather avoidance guidance. The predictive windshear system did its job the first time and we had a clean go-around. Other aircraft landed after our missed approach and conditions were ok. Startle factor played a huge role on the second attempt. Windshear plus multiple ECAMs and autopilot failure created a complex and dynamic situation. We were getting bounced all over the place. We were struggling to get the airplane under control. The monitoring challenge was huge because of the turbulence and the degraded flight controls. I was making FCU inputs in between running checklist items. I had sent an ACARS to Dispatch asking where we should go and listing our system failures; and got no response. The crew phone app worked well enough; but I was frustrated that the feedback we got was that it would be preferred that we hold for ZZZ or go to our listed alternate. I'm sure the Dispatcher could hear my frustration. I am glad that we were able to safely continue to ZZZ; but I wanted to get the plane on the ground without dealing with any more threats to the flight. Holding between thunderstorms with no autopilot in alternate law is an unnecessary risk. I'm not sure why the ground stop for ZZZ was lifted. After the flight; we learned that there had been 7 confirmed tornadoes in the area right around ZZZ. These storms were moving very quickly. It looked like it was possible that ZZZ would clear up before we got there; but there was a good chance it would not. Our decision to go was based on having a lot of fuel; and two alternates. Our second alternate was ZZZ3; which remained clear. This meant that if at any point the path ahead looked bad; we could turn around and have an escape plan. The weather moving in from the south across the final ended up being the worst that we would encounter. If we had delayed this flight by another hour; I think we would have been better off.
On first approach; got a windshear warning and went around. On second approach with moderate to almost severe turbulence; we hit a heavy rain shower. From what I remember we were configured for landing when we hit turbulence. Right then from what I can remember; the autopilot kicked off with the nose pitching up and the speed tape coming up. I pushed the power to climb and tried pushing the nose down. At first; nothing was happening. We did get a low-energy warning too. The plane did recover and started to respond to control inputs. On the ECAM we had F/CTRL ALTN LAW [and] ELAC 1&2 PITCH FAULT. I was flying; the FO (First Officer) did the ECAM and follow-ups and communication. No resets in the air so we looked at going somewhere I could shoot a visual approach. ZZZ Approach had us flying a box pattern until we figured out what we wanted to do. ZZZ Approach then gave us the option to land on XXR and visibility was adequate for a visual. We made an uneventful landing in normal law and gusty crosswinds. I'm guessing we hit the rain at the wrong time.ATC did a good job vectoring us between. The aircraft in front of us just had heavy rain and a smooth ride. Cells were building very fast. I'm thinking that one of the probes froze up momentarily; giving us the speed tape fluctuations. One thing that bothered me was that we couldn't get a hold of Dispatch right away; even after sending the 7700 over ACARS. The FO did a great job with all the ECAM and checklist procedures.
A321 flight crew reported windshear; heavy rain; and severe turbulence on approach along with the loss of autopilot systems that resulted in multiple go-arounds before finally safely landing at the destination airport.