EASA emergency airworthiness directive for A319/320/321 fleet 28Nov 2025. Immediate Grounding for many

[Saab34]

Network has a very old fleet so perhaps it’s also related to age, ie older aircraft didn’t get that specific problematic update for whatever reason?

 

[jb747]

Network has a very old fleet so perhaps it’s also related to age, ie older aircraft didn’t get that specific problematic update for whatever reason?

Or quality of maintenance..i.e not bothering to do updates. To me this smells of software that was updated to fix an issue, and then a subsequent update removed it. Presumably all will eventually be revealed.

 

[jb747]

Interesting… Air New Zealand is saying the directive doesn’t come into effect until 30 November (which does appear consistent with the document issued above), but they’re also saying:

It is important for customers to know that this is a precautionary software update and does not present an immediate safety risk to our flights.​

I’m not sure that’s true??

Well, as it completely grounds flights (with the exception of non passenger ferry flights) there’s obviously no flight risk…as they aren’t allowed to fly.

 

[I love to travel]

So was on JQ 800 BNE to ADL this morning. Apart from a slow flight, (speeds rarely topped 700k) was completely normal until about 7 mins from landing where we had to do a go around. Heaps of panicked people , a few screaming, as they assumes problem with plane due to the issues. Captain came on and said it was an emergency with another aircraft so that settled people down. Some still clapped though on landing. For what it is worth was an A320-200 aircraft. Lucked in this morning that is for sure.

 

[Quickstatus]

So was on JQ 800 BNE to ADL this morning

That aircraft was never grounded VH-VGJ

 

[oz_mark]

So was on JQ 800 BNE to ADL this morning. Apart from a slow flight, (speeds rarely topped 700k) was completely normal until about 7 mins from landing where we had to do a go around. Heaps of panicked people , a few screaming, as they assumes problem with plane due to the issues. Captain came on and said it was an emergency with another aircraft so that settled people down. Some still clapped though on landing. For what it is worth was an A320-200 aircraft. Lucked in this morning that is for sure.

Wouldn't have thought it would have been that big a deal 7 minutes from landing

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well, as it completely grounds flights (with the exception of non passenger ferry flights) there’s obviously no flight risk…as they aren’t allowed to fly.

Ha ha. Very droll.

Air NZ is saying however that the AD doesn’t come into effect until tomorrow, and that in the meantime there is no safety risk.

I’m not sure that’s true?

 

[serfty]

While the first flight of the the day SYD-MEL got away, the next four have been cancelled. That’s around 800-900 displaced pax just there

Yes, my Qantas flight to Sydney this afternoon has gone from L9 to Y0. My shadow has disappeared.

 

[moa999]

Air NZ is saying however that the AD doesn’t come into effect until tomorrow,

The confusion between immediate and two days is interesting.

Particularly when it's a month between the B6 incident and this directive, and possibly even longer since the problematic update was rolled out.

Obviously you need a high level of conservatism with aircraft safety, but this seems to be a pretty low incident event when even then (in AAs case) was recoverable and didn't cause any damage or injury.

I wonder what makes this different to any number of MEL items that aircraft fly with almost everyday.
I assume it's because someone at Airbus has determined that the worst case event could be fatal if the elevator event exceeds the structural capability of the aircraft (unclear if that's to the elevator itself, or general g force from a steep dive)

 

[Quickstatus]

AA incident

B6 incident.

Sounded like EASA gave the operators till end of next day notice

 

[oz_mark]

The confusion between immediate and two days is interesting.

The directive specifies an exact time as to when it comes into effect.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The confusion between immediate and two days is interesting.

Particularly when it's a month between the AA incident and this directive, and possibly even longer since the problematic update was rolled out.

Obviously you need a high level of conservatism with aircraft safety, but this seems to be a pretty low incident event when even then (in AAs case) was recoverable and didn't cause any damage or injury.

Jetblue B6?

The AD explicitly states this could lead to uncontrolled elevator movement pushing the aircraft beyond its structural capabilities.

That may be worst case, but not sure how NZ classifies this as posing no safety risk.

 

[moa999]

The directive specifies an exact time as to when it comes into effect.

Yet we are still 22+ hrs from 2359 UTC time on the 29th, and seemingly JQ is already grounding aircraft.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yet we are still 22+ hrs from 2359 UTC time on the 29th, and seemingly JQ is already grounding aircraft.

I don’t think an extended timeline in a case such as this would protect an airline from legal liability.

Once the AD was out, passengers would be entitled to be informed, and have remedies under ACL. How many pax would fly if they knew of this issue? So you might as well ground the flights now.

 

[I love to travel]

Wouldn't have thought it would have been that big a deal 7 minutes from landing

Agree - I have had steeper go around that is for sure. I get though why some (unseasoned) travelkers will have panicked. Hearing multiple JQ flights being cancelled whilst our boarding was delayed, plus the text we all got from JQ, mean't that people were aware of the issue so anything out of the ordinary was going to be disconcerting.

 

[elanshin]

The confusion between immediate and two days is interesting.

Particularly when it's a month between the B6 incident and this directive, and possibly even longer since the problematic update was rolled out.

Obviously you need a high level of conservatism with aircraft safety, but this seems to be a pretty low incident event when even then (in AAs case) was recoverable and didn't cause any damage or injury.

I wonder what makes this different to any number of MEL items that aircraft fly with almost everyday.
I assume it's because someone at Airbus has determined that the worst case event could be fatal if the elevator event exceeds the structural capability of the aircraft (unclear if that's to the elevator itself, or general g force from a steep dive)

It could also potentially be uncontrolled at lower altitudes where all there is less time to react and correct the problems.