Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates Tail Strike At Melbourne  
User currently offlineSsublyme From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 517 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 48597 times:

Emirates A340 has tail strike in MEL. All 300 passengers fine after dumping fuel and emergency landing

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25219433-661,00.html

113 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKU747 From Kuwait, joined Mar 2008, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 48543 times:

Is it wight distribution issue or pilot error?

According to the link the damage is substantial! I wonder where the smoke is coming from?

The good news that all pax are OK.



707,727,73all,741,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,77all,300,310,319,320,321,332,333,343,346, L10,L15,DC10,MD11,SSC,VC10
User currently offlineJokestar From Australia, joined Apr 2008, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 48505 times:

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/trav...ergency-landing-20090321-94t0.html

Just a routine fuel dump with a subsequent flight around the area and then landing, wouldn't you say? I understand that the thought of an "emergency landing" is obviously a daunting prospect, however, I can't see why the landing itself would have been anything out of the ordinary.

I'm glad to see that everyone was ok and the plane landed safely.


User currently offlineSq_ek_freak From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 1633 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 48489 times:

Just saw this, A345 registration A6-ERG, everyone is okay, heavy landing. EK 407 MEL-DXB

Too early to determine cause....will update when I find out more.



Keep Discovering
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 47978 times:



Quoting Ssublyme (Thread starter):
Emirates A340 has tail strike in MEL.

I was under the impression that A340's (at least the -500 and -600) had tail strike protection...am I off base, or did the system fail here?

Tom.


User currently offlineJbguller From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 47924 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):

I was under the impression that A340's (at least the -500 and -600) had tail strike protection...am I off base, or did the system fail here?

That's exactly what I first thought when I heard this story... Tailstrike protection would be more of a necessity than anything, especially on A346s!


User currently offlineTayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 47816 times:

From the Herald Sun:

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6541788,00.jpg


User currently offlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1848 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 47623 times:

IT looks serious! I am glad that all the passengers are ok. It is strange though that the A345 is not an abnormally long plane like the A346 or 77W, whose lengh can seem "more logical" to have a tail strike.


لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently offlineAntskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 932 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 47581 times:

You can track EK407's movements after the tail-strike on the regular 2230 flight on http://mel.webtrak-lochard.com.

Quoting Sq_ek_freak (Reply 3):
heavy landing

no! they bumped tha tail, took off safely, flew around the Bay for a while,dumped excess fuel, and landed safely. there was a report of smoke in the cabin, and scared passengers.


User currently offlineAirbus1 From United Arab Emirates, joined Feb 2001, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 47469 times:

Best I can find from news reports and PPRUNE is:

Take off was on Runway 16. The aircraft was struggling to take off and the tail struck the runway. Worse. The aircraft took out the ILS localiser main and monitoring antennae at the end of Runway 16 (the Runway 34 threshold). There were also tracks (probably jet blast) in the grass off the end of 16.

After dumping fuel the plane landed on Runway 34. The landing was apparently very long with touchdown well down runway 34 and far from the threshold. Reverse thrust was engaged quickly.

There were about 8 emergency vehicles on the tarmac and once the flight came to a complete stop at the end of 34, flood lights lit up the aircraft checking for any damage preventing it from taxing back to the gate.

One reporter commented that there were 3 seperate tail strikes observed on the take off roll and this leads to speculation that freight may have shifted rearward on rotation causing the problem.

Passengers reported that the tail strike led to smoke filling the cabin before the plane returned to Melbourne at 10.30pm last night.

"There was a report of smoke in the cabin, however, it did not impact the air return and dissipated before landing,'' an Emirates spokesperson said continuing that "the aircraft climbed safely to an intermediate altitude and contacted air traffic control to arrange the return to Melbourne. The landing was completed without incident''.

A Melbourne Airport spokesman said the incident was described in the industry as a "tail hit". "It took off very steeply, the tail touched the end of the runway and it went up, stabilised and came back," he said.

Emirates safety investigators are flying to Melbourne and will join the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in examining the cause of the incident. The crew have presumably been grounded while the investigation is commenced. It is unfair to speculate but if the cargo did shift on take off the pilots may have performed heroically!

The Australian investigation will be thorough and transparent. That may not have been the case in other jurisdictions.

There are at many possible causes; power loss on take-off; overweight or incorrect weight distribution (cargo); miscalculation of the rotation speeds; shifting freight. The good news is that everyone is safe.


User currently offlineDirectorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1686 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 47080 times:



Quoting Airbus1 (Reply 10):
The good news is that everyone is safe

Well said.
More than twenty years in operation, this is the closest EK has had to a real accident. Touch wood I say!


User currently offlineOzvirginuk From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 396 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 46811 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
I was under the impression that A340's (at least the -500 and -600) had tail strike protection...am I off base, or did the system fail here?

If the A340 series does have tailstrike protection, this would be the second case of failure I am aware of. VS had a tail strike with one of their A346s departing HKG for LHR approx 1.5 years ago.

Quoting KU747 (Reply 1):
The good news that all pax are OK.

Well said. This of course is the MOST important thing following any incident.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 46623 times:



Quoting Directorguy (Reply 11):
More than twenty years in operation, this is the closest EK has had to a real accident. Touch wood I say!

Sorry, not correct. There was a somewhat similar incident in JNB perhaps 3 years ago. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20040409-0


User currently offlineSketty222 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1778 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 45269 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):


Quoting Ssublyme (Thread starter):
Emirates A340 has tail strike in MEL.

I was under the impression that A340's (at least the -500 and -600) had tail strike protection...am I off base, or did the system fail here?

That was my first thought although as mentioned the 346 is expected to be more likely to ahve a tail strike than the 345

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 13):
There was a somewhat similar incident in JNB perhaps 3 years ago

I remember this incident and it was quite close to being major



There's flying and then there's flying
User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 44808 times:



Quoting Airbus1 (Reply 10):
The aircraft was struggling to take off and the tail struck the runway. Worse. The aircraft took out the ILS localiser main and monitoring antennae at the end of Runway

That sounds like a de ja vu just like what happend at JNB some years ago. Glad that everyone is save.  Smile


User currently onlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 921 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 43578 times:



Quoting Airbus1 (Reply 10):
Take off was on Runway 16. The aircraft was struggling to take off and the tail struck the runway. Worse. The aircraft took out the ILS localiser main and monitoring antennae at the end of Runway 16 (the Runway 34 threshold). There were also tracks (probably jet blast) in the grass off the end of 16.



Quoting Airbus1 (Reply 10):
One reporter commented that there were 3 seperate tail strikes observed on the take off roll and this leads to speculation that freight may have shifted rearward on rotation causing the problem.



Quoting Airbus1 (Reply 10):
It is unfair to speculate but if the cargo did shift on take off the pilots may have performed heroically!



Quoting Airbus1 (Reply 10):
The good news is that everyone is safe.

Very close one would think, and it may be that the final high degree angle of lift off has been the difference between survival and disaster. They got real close to the end of runway 16. The commitment of this crew to their training and professionalism has averted disaster, irrespective of the reasons for this incident. Well done to all, and I am sure the passengers would be the first to congratulate you.



remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
User currently offlineA3 From Greece, joined Oct 2006, 262 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 43570 times:

This incident makes you wander if using the tactic 'reduced flexible thrust' for takeoff , actually saves the company any money.
It suppose to save fuel but...........
If every couple years or so ,

-you have to loose a plane for some time needing repairs
-plus the cost of repairs
-risking a total loss
-rising the possibilities of humans being harmed
-risking the good record of your company

I guess that there not many savings enforcing this tactic.



Don't spend your money on airlines that don't respect your business.
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3766 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 42736 times:



Quoting Ozvirginuk (Reply 12):
If the A340 series does have tailstrike protection, this would be the second case of failure I am aware of.

The tailstrike protection system is not an active one, but a passive one which displays the maximum pitch angle before the tail hits the ground on the PFD. It does not intervene on the flight controls.

A knowledgeable Airbus jockey should ring in soon with more details.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently onlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1872 posts, RR: 41
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 42597 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR



Quoting Airbus1 (Reply 10):
Take off was on Runway 16. The aircraft was struggling to take off and the tail struck the runway. Worse. The aircraft took out the ILS localiser main and monitoring antennae at the end of Runway 16 (the Runway 34 threshold). There were also tracks (probably jet blast) in the grass off the end of 16.

Is that a reliable new source? If so, damn! In that case I wonder if the main gear has been damaged as well..



Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
User currently offlineSmi0006 From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 42513 times:



Quoting Airbus1 (Reply 10):
There were about 8 emergency vehicles on the tarmac and once the flight came to a complete stop at the end of 34, flood lights lit up the aircraft checking for any damage preventing it from taxing back to the gate.

The aircraft did taxi back to the gate where a normal disembarkation proceed, pax where either accommodated on the later EK409, or on today's EK405, EK407, or EK409. Most pax were completely unaware that something had happened until they noticed the wrong direction on the moving map and then a PA. The crew were apparently shaken, but that's to be expected.

Quoting RichM (Reply 18):
Anyway, the BBC have also reported this story. Quoting passengers who said:

"It was terrifying." - Overreaction?

Dunno if they were in the section with the alleged smoke maybe but most pax didn't even notice.


User currently offlineDingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 42079 times:

Quoting A3 (Reply 17):
This incident makes you wander if using the tactic 'reduced flexible thrust' for takeoff , actually saves the company any money.
It suppose to save fuel but...........
If every couple years or so ,

-you have to loose a plane for some time needing repairs
-plus the cost of repairs
-risking a total loss
-rising the possibilities of humans being harmed
-risking the good record of your company

I guess that there not many savings enforcing this tactic.

A reduced climb thrust is primarily intended to prolong the engine longevity so they go longer between very expensive overhauls.

There isn't a safety issue with using a reduced climb thurst, since the aircraft will at least meet or exceed all regulatory and airline requirements, both of which are centered around safety.

Reduced climb thrust (via assumed temperature on Boeing or FLEX detent on Airbus) has been used for years on many aircraft, types, and by many operators. It is a perfectly safe option in flying. If there was a special departure procedure or other conditions (runway length, temperature, contamination, weather, failure of certain A/C systems, etc) that required full thrust, then full thrust would be selected instead. Flight crews aren't going to knowingly select a mode that puts the aircraft in danger.

Full climb thrust is usually excess power, which is often wasted in a normal climb situation. No sense in shortening very expensive engines' lifetimes by unnecessarily pressing the gas pedal to the maximum, to use a comparison with driving a car. But full power is still an available option if you actually need it.

What does reduced climb thrust have to do with this situation, though? 

[Edited 2009-03-21 06:18:18]


DingDong, honey, please answer the doorbell!
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 41850 times:

Are all 10 A340-500s scheduled or do EK keep some as ops reserve? I am scheduled to fly in April with one of the A340-500s and I am wondering how severly the 345 schedules will be disrupted by the withdrawal of 1 of the 10 A340-500s.

Quoting Ssublyme (Thread starter):
Emirates A340 has tail strike in MEL. All 300 passengers fine after dumping fuel and emergency landing

How do they squeeze 300 in a A340-500? I thought EK's 345s are more in the 250seat category?

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
I was under the impression that A340's (at least the -500 and -600) had tail strike protection...am I off base, or did the system fail here?

Isn't the 345 of the same length as the A340-300?


User currently offlineDingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 41772 times:

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 24):
How do they squeeze 300 in a A340-500? I thought EK's 345s are more in the 250seat category?

Probably the press thinking it was an A380, like they've done for a recent incident. 

They've apparently now corrected the original story to say 225.

[Edited 2009-03-21 06:14:53]


DingDong, honey, please answer the doorbell!
User currently offlineCaptain.md-11 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 41710 times:

Thankfully everyone is ok.

Just to clear something up that another poster mnetioned.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an assumed temperature / flex take-off if given ambient conditions and aircraft weight allow. Using this procedure drastically improves engine life / time on wing, although it does burn slightly more fuel.

When calculating assumed temp on the 737, all figures allow for single engine climb out so there is no inherent safety risk.

Pilots at my company are permitted to use their judgement and if so wish, can depart using full thrust, although assumed temp / flex is encouraged.

Each operator will set a series of conditions as to when an assumed temp / flex take-off is not permitted e.g. when wind shear is anticipated etc

De-rate is a completely different thing, that physically involves downgrading the engines maximum thrust output. For example changing a CFM56-3B (on the 737-300) from B2 22k to B1 20k.

Hope that helps.



Twins,twins, everywhere.... but where are the three holers?
User currently offlineDingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 41604 times:



Quoting Captain.md-11 (Reply 26):
De-rate is a completely different thing, that physically involves downgrading the engines maximum thrust output. For example changing a CFM56-3B (on the 737-300) from B2 22k to B1 20k.

Whoops, yes, I misspoke. I have duly corrected the post. Thanks!



DingDong, honey, please answer the doorbell!
25 Kaitak : Apparently (and I have doubts about this) the crew were flown out of the country - and back to DXB - almost immediately. Does anyone know the national
26 Airproxx : Accident: Emirates A345 at Melbourne on Mar 20th 2009, tail strike and overrun on takeoff An Emirates Airlines Airbus A340-500, registration A6-ERG pe
27 Airproxx : Just a thought but most of these types of accident originate in bad takeoff speeds calculation...
28 TN486 : " target=_blank>http://mel.webtrak-lochard.com. Normally yes, however I watched it from 2215 and although there were 2 departures they were both from
29 EE-Kay : I believe it. Emirates is a crew-control freak, and even more obsessed - beyond extremes - when it comes to its crew coming in contact with the media
30 Mirrodie : Just saw this initially on FOX News, of all media sources. (you know, that anti-media, media group.( They made it sound much more serious.
31 Vfw614 : There are, by the way, some pictures of the tail of the said aircraft taken by a guy with ramp access at MEL at the forum mentioned earlier in this th
32 Manu : Could someone post this link or give information on the source where these pictures can be found?
33 Post contains links Vfw614 : I hope this does not violate any rules: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1558/a6erg2.jpg http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6858/a6erg.jpg http://i
34 DZ09 : I have been in one of those EK A340-500 in DXB and they do take forever to take off. They use up most of the runway. Could it be because of they way
35 AirlineCritic : Indeed. If you are hitting the lights, bad things are about to happen unless the plane climbs out immediately. It seems that the crew noticed they we
36 Cloudyapple : That's what FLEX is for. Making use of more of the runway and less of the engine. Long takeoff rolls have nothing to do with being overweight or unde
37 Cloudyapple : In most circumstances. You gotta qualify what you say on a.net!
38 Cricket : That doesn't look nice...not nice at all. I wonder how EK will repair that...
39 ZRH : The 340-300 is 63.6 m the 340-500 67.9 m.
40 Cloudyapple : Standard takeoff climb surfaces are 2% rising from the end of the runway strip. As long as you have not lost power or have other mechanical issues an
41 Tdscanuck : Don't forget that all takeoff distance calculations, including with derate or reduced thrust, assume you lose one engine just prior to V1. If you hav
42 Par13del : We should assume that all those requirements were to be met for this takeoff as well, but we do know that something happened, tail strike and runway
43 Airproxx : The main reason for the reduced thrust takeoff is not the fuel saving, but it's more the engine potential and its maintenance... I remember an intern
44 SuseJ772 : Simple. A whole lot of duct tape
45 AndrewUber : Speed tape baby!!! SEND IT!!! Actually that looks pretty bad... the holes in the skin and the grinding on the stringers means this bird isn't going an
46 Khobar : Could you please clarify - I would not have thought it a good idea to purposely use the entire length of the runway under any circumstances for the e
47 CrimsonNL : Then the other engines will go to full throttle (TOGA) and the plane will lift off, all aircraft are tested extensively for this.
48 Post contains links LongHauler : This looks like an incident that Pan American had in its early B747 operations. Upon takeoff from SFO, the aircraft struck approach lights and localiz
49 DingDong : He may not have had worded that 'just right', which he alluded to in the very next post. But: Well, you just keep on flyin'. Get the situation sorted
50 YWG : Almost sounds like they were over max gross. I could see a piece of freight getting loose and shifting the C of G, but if they hit the LOC antenna, t
51 BMI727 : A reduced thrust takeoff in an A340 is NOT and attractive idea. Good to hear everyone is okay. Sounds like everybody handled this well.
52 Lightsaber : To me this is the most informative shot. Thank you and the anonymous photographer for sharing. At best case, that can be made to fly with a patch. Bu
53 DingDong : Isn't the FLEX detent the normal takeoff setting on the A340, though? Attractive or not, it's a safe option. Of course, that doesn't mean there won't
54 Airbus_A340 : I would disagree, and if there was an issue- 80% of our Long Haul A340 flights in Cathay would not be conducted with FLEX take-off.[Edited 2009-03-21
55 BMI727 : My comment was tongue in cheek. I just forgot the smiley.
56 Alessandro : A6-ERG is little over 4 years old.
57 OldAeroGuy : Not true. The takeoff is continued without increasing thrust as the airplane takeoff performance was calculated based on the thrust reduction. This i
58 Post contains links Antskip : I definitely watched EK 407's track (it was labelled) on Webtrack http://mel.webtrak-lochard.com/ - not in real time but delayed, yesterday afternoon
59 Viscount724 : The 345 is about 14 feet (4.3 m) longer than the 343.
60 TN486 : Antskip, I do not doubt your post. The date would have been the 20/3 though (Fri), and yes, me thinks they have removed it. I tried it again this mor
61 FlyLKU : No. Max Gross Weight is a legal limit (subject to other criteria such as runway length etc.). If EK does not abide by the certificated limits that go
62 Airvan00 : Yes definitely removed, but you can still see the noise monitors to the south of the airport recording the passage of the "ghost" aircraft at 1035pm
63 AndrewUber : Um no, not even close. A small hole can be patched. A 20' long rub mark exposing the bilge is not fixed with a patch. This will require major work. I
64 Kellmark : This airplane will need major repair. There can easily be internal damage that affects the pressurized area, and this must be fixed absolutely correct
65 474218 : Standard belly skin and stringer replacement. If Airbus has a half way decent SRM the requirements and directions should already be there. However, i
66 Antskip : Ye, you are quite right. Sorry. this indeed looks the case - the tail-strike was not the central problem, but itself a result of a sudden need to get
67 Kevin : That'll cost a few bucks!!!
68 Lightsaber : I didn't notice bilge exposure at first. But if you note the 2nd part of my post which you quoted, I was questioning if three of the ribs were damage
69 Okie : Something has to had been a miss here. An intersection take-off? Even with flex/assumed temp TOGA is still available. 12,000 ft runway and a 160 knot
70 MilesDependent : Any photos of the gear marks on the grass at the end of the runway?
71 Post contains links Antskip : "In daylight Saturday morning it was established, that the airplane was still on the ground when it passed the runway end during takeoff, according ge
72 Post contains links Zeke : As mentioned earlier, the system is passive. I am "hearing" cargo moved on rotation. If a cargo shift lead to a improper rotation technique, i.e. the
73 DZ09 : From reading the posts above, it appears that this is not first time they had this kind of problems. It also seems to me that they may be pushing the
74 LTBEWR : Still this had to be an uncomfortable situtation for the pax. I wonder if the a/c will be flown elsewhere to be fixed, if it will involve Airbus staff
75 Francoflier : Again, despite all the speculation that has been going on on this thread about derates and reduced TO thrust, I see no reason behind that statement.
76 Zeke : I would think just about every takeoff in the US (even worldwide) would be FLEX (or reduced thrust), unless conditions or performance requires TOGA.
77 DZ09 : I am confused. you're saying then that this is the normal procedure. If so then I go back to my original comment and wonder again why some airlines,
78 Antskip : if the tail-strike was necessary to avoid going to ground at the end of the runway, they probably weren't aware of how dangerous things actually were
79 Zeke : That is probably mainly due to the short sectors on domestic flights, should go and have a look at the flights leaving LAX/SFO heading to Asia during
80 Tdscanuck : A normal takeoff (all engines operating) will never use the entire runway. The takeoff distance required is always the distance needed to accelerate
81 Francoflier : Yes, but un uncaught typo will easily do that, such as a misplaced decimal or a missed digit. I believe it has happened.
82 Zeke : Should never use full runway length even in the event of an engine failure, the numbers we use are padded to allow for some unknowns, and also for wi
83 Antskip : Thank you. A good point that the interests of the insurance company may be at odds with that of EK. And that the hull damage was not so severe as lik
84 Tdscanuck : Good point Zeke, thanks for the clarification. On an Airbus doing a FLEX takeoff, does the takeoff distance calculation assume you go to full rated t
85 PhilSquares : On Boeings and Airbus, the performance is based on the Flex/Assumed Temp/DeRate thrust setting. That's the most conservative approach to that type of
86 Zeke : Okay, being a little pedantic about terms again, on a FLEX takeoff, full rated thrust is always available. The FLEX temperature is done similar to th
87 RedFlyer : I'm no expert, but looking at those pics in Vfw614's Reply 33, it looks like the tail dragged along something. Hitting objects would have resulted in
88 BMI727 : That could easily be the case if the tailstrike damaged the rear pressure bulkhead.
89 Post contains images Rsg85 : The aircraft is now parked at the John Holland Area I was able to get a pic through the fence, there is security on the ground with the aircraft, most
90 OldAeroGuy : Fair enough, I was refering to a fixed de-rate takeoff. It also does not change for a Boeing assumed temperature method takeoff. Actually Boeing allo
91 Post contains links Chrisrad : Update on this story, appears the aircraft maybe have been overweight.. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25232117-2862,00.html AIR safet
92 Clickhappy : Interesting. One of the weight saving ideas Boeing is playing with for the 777NG is the removal of the tail strike protection gear. Wonder if this kin
93 Chrisrad : Considering the 772 is also capable from suffering a tail strike as evidenced by MH in ZRH. I would be very suprised if they removed this protection
94 Tdscanuck : At least some of the 777's (not sure if the 777-200ER is in that catagory) have electronic tailskids, which imposes no weight penalty because it's ju
95 Smi0006 : I tell the pax everytime! 7kg of hand luggage, but do they listen no! seriously though rumour is the aircraft will be with us in MEL for 3-4 months!
96 747m8te : And when you try and make sure that they have only 7kg at the counter, they then go and double it when they go shopping in duty free I'm hearing that
97 747MegaTop : What do the passenger & crew hear/feel during a tail strike? Is there an unusual jerk, loud noise etc when a tail strike happens or most often do the
98 Chrisrad : Well according to some articles, there were marks in the grass at the end of the runway, so who knows!
99 AirlineCritic : If true, catastrophe was indeed avoided at the last moment.
100 OldAeroGuy : Electronic tail skids are on the 772LR, 777F and 773ER. The 772ER has been considered for electronic tail skid retro-fit but to date it has not been
101 Khobar : Thanks for the replies. One thing I am still unclear on - is take off performance calculated assuming an engine out? The EK plane had all engines run
102 Zeke : Yes Takeoff performance numbers do not have an allowance for the friction caused by the fuselage making contact with the runway, or the high angle of
103 OldAeroGuy : The correct answer is: Maybe. As I pointed out in Reply 90: The factored all engines distance maybe greater than the one engine inoperative Go distan
104 Post contains links Khobar : Ah, now this is an interesting tidbit. I assumed a tail strike to be caused by over-rotation with the tail banging the runway. I had not considered t
105 Tdscanuck : As Zeke says in Reply 102, you always do a calculation assuming you lose an engine just before V1. However, as OldAeroGuy notes in Reply 90, there ar
106 Antskip : That seems right. The tail-strike was by-product. The tail strike happened after the real problem - which was the plane was not taking off as per exp
107 OldAeroGuy : To better understand the Melbourne situation, let's look at the definition of VR as defined by FAR Part 25. 25.107 Takeoff speeds. (e) V R, in terms o
108 JerseyFlyer : [quote=OldAeroGuy,reply=107]It seems pretty evident that the airplane rotated well below the VR appropriate for its actual weight. This could have bee
109 OldAeroGuy : No engine failure so no strong cue to stop until near the end of the runway?
110 BE77 : I think the first picture of the rub mark is informative, but the other two... I'm not sure that we needed to see pic's of the pilot's undershorts.
111 Post contains links Khobar : Thanks Tom. I did not know there was such an option (to stay on the ground longer so as to climb faster). When you say there's nothing to actually pr
112 OldAeroGuy : Yes. VMU testing and its relationship to VR was written into the regulations after a Comet was over-rotated on takeoff in airline serivce. The airpla
113 Post contains links RedFlyer : A really cool video of VMU testing is one on the A380. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwQMXz9PbrY
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 Tail Strike Video posted Wed Aug 22 2007 22:15:12 by Victor009
American Eagle Tail Strike In BOS posted Fri Jun 22 2007 23:55:22 by Md94
N900ER - 739ER Test Aircraft - Tail Strike? posted Thu Mar 22 2007 20:30:43 by Clickhappy
JetX Near Tail Strike? posted Fri Apr 1 2005 18:40:28 by RichM
CO 777 Tail Strike? posted Tue Mar 15 2005 17:34:42 by MasseyBrown
Tail Strike Champions posted Sat Aug 7 2004 17:23:38 by EnoreFilho
PanAm 747 Tail Strike posted Tue Mar 16 2004 00:45:11 by Bigphilnyc
AC A330 Tail Strike In Frankfurt posted Sat Aug 30 2003 03:43:15 by CanadaEH
A340-600 Tail Strike? posted Sat Sep 8 2001 21:03:06 by Twaneedsnohelp
Air Canada 747 Tail Strike posted Mon Mar 26 2001 19:52:12 by Jgardiner
Tail Strike At MAN Today posted Sat Dec 31 2011 06:16:20 by robso2
EK407 Emirates Tail Strike Leftovers posted Fri May 21 2010 15:37:54 by TeamDA
United 777 Wing Strike At LHR 1/3 posted Wed Jan 4 2012 18:39:00 by working2gether
Delta A319 Bird Strike At LGA posted Thu Sep 22 2011 13:07:19 by GothamSpotter
Jetblue A320 - Dual R/A Failure - Tail Strike posted Wed Oct 13 2010 08:54:10 by AVLNative
Emirates Cargo Teching At Anchorage? posted Sun Oct 10 2010 22:26:26 by 777way
N772UA Tail Issues At LAX? posted Thu Sep 2 2010 23:26:51 by ua777222
Possible Fuel Strike At OSL posted Wed Aug 25 2010 12:23:10 by mckvakk
Emirates' New Order At Farnborough? posted Mon Jun 21 2010 11:24:03 by Breiz
UAL B744 Tail Strike Sydney posted Sun May 23 2010 08:09:09 by UTAH744