Apparently there has been an incident at Heathrow today involving G-XWBC inbound from Dubai. The aircraft apparently landed and then took off again due to a technical issue. Apparently the aircraft was met by the police and the runway closed.

Does anyone have a more info?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/b ... Md8TytoiMc

There was another UK news link earlier suggesting a runway blockage affecting an aircraft landing, due to either a fox on the runway, or a bird strike. Whether or not it refers to the same aircraft mentioned above, I don't know ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... DLIFE.html

On a seperate event, Even BA118 was diverted to LCA on 01JAN, while coming in from BLR. Any idea of this?

XWBC suffered a tail strike while attempting to land at LHR yesterday



https://twitter.com/mzulqarnainbut1/sta ... 14496?s=21

On the upside, I don't see any areas of bubbling paint

I wonder if they have had a tailstrike yet on the all composite 350. Or the 787 for that matter. It's a very different repair than with an aluminum airplane.

And then there is the airmanship issue. Isn't it hard to tailstrike a FBW aircraft?

KingOrGod wrote:

On the upside, I don't see any areas of bubbling paint

There was, but the pilot got rid of it. Lol

Wonder if the A350 did a late touch and go because they saw the fox on the runway. There is certainly a lot of drivel in those newspaper reports.

Only shocker is that it wasn't G-XWBD, which is reputed to be the Hangar Queen of the fleet! (IIRC!)

[photoid][/photoid]

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder if they have had a tailstrike yet on the all composite 350. Or the 787 for that matter. It's a very different repair than with an aluminum airplane.

And then there is the airmanship issue. Isn't it hard to tailstrike a FBW aircraft?

I assume it has the “pitch” warning, as newer narrow body Airbus’ aircraft have, yet, it’s still possible to tail strike an A321, or even an A320.

qf789 wrote:

XWBC suffered a tail strike while attempting to land at LHR yesterday



https://twitter.com/mzulqarnainbut1/sta ... 14496?s=21

AD for tail skid installation inbound?

would it not need to be about a 45deg angle to skid an A351 - it sits quite high?
Any other tail strike similar cases?
The theory that carbon fibre cant easily be repaired is old news. Was thoroughly planned-for at time of design. How many have been scrapped (not scraped!) as a result?

Lots of comments here suitable for (NSFW) Vulture's Row.

11C wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder if they have had a tailstrike yet on the all composite 350. Or the 787 for that matter. It's a very different repair than with an aluminum airplane.

And then there is the airmanship issue. Isn't it hard to tailstrike a FBW aircraft?

I assume it has the “pitch” warning, as newer narrow body Airbus’ aircraft have, yet, it’s still possible to tail strike an A321, or even an A320.

Even worse, it's also possible to land gear up and have a dual pod strike and trash the engines on an A32x, as PIA unfortunately has demonstrated.

FlyingElvii wrote:

qf789 wrote:

XWBC suffered a tail strike while attempting to land at LHR yesterday



https://twitter.com/mzulqarnainbut1/sta ... 14496?s=21

AD for tail skid installation inbound?

Judging from the photo, it must have been a very minimal tail strike, not that it’s any help. A tail strike is still very undesirable. I have no idea what pitch correlates to a gear extended/compressed tail strike on an A350.

Interesting to have this happen on a landing. The speeds they were at are interesting and the flap setting used.

11C wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

qf789 wrote:

XWBC suffered a tail strike while attempting to land at LHR yesterday



https://twitter.com/mzulqarnainbut1/sta ... 14496?s=21

AD for tail skid installation inbound?

Judging from the photo, it must have been a very minimal tail strike, not that it’s any help. A tail strike is still very undesirable. I have no idea what pitch correlates to a gear extended/compressed tail strike on an A350.

It appears to be more than just superficial damage. That panel looks like it will need to be replaced which looks like rivets have to be be removed. It's hard to tell exactly how long this rash is but it does make you wonder what kind of pitch this aircraft was at.

All the Airbus I've flown it has been possible to scrape the tail. I don't have the A350-1000 figures to hand but for comparison the A330-300 will scrape the tail with compressed landing gear at a pitch in excess of 11.5 degrees and so I suspect the quote of 45 degrees pitch is wrong.

As a side note I think that picture on first inspection looks far worse than it is because of the large streak on the left hand side of the picture that appears to not be a scrape but rather a fluid streak.

MON wrote:

As a side note I think that picture on first inspection looks far worse than it is because of the large streak on the left hand side of the picture that appears to not be a scrape but rather a fluid streak.

The large streak on the left hand side is. I believe the reflection of the stand centreline .

Those dark areas forward of that panel would concern me the most. Kind of looks like it's worn through the paint, primer and a couple of layers of Composite material in the FWD L/H damaged area.

I thought Airbus FBW prevented incidents like this?

william wrote:

I thought Airbus FBW prevented incidents like this?

I think the systems reduce but cannot eliminate tail strikes.

11C wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder if they have had a tailstrike yet on the all composite 350. Or the 787 for that matter. It's a very different repair than with an aluminum airplane.

And then there is the airmanship issue. Isn't it hard to tailstrike a FBW aircraft?

I assume it has the “pitch” warning, as newer narrow body Airbus’ aircraft have, yet, it’s still possible to tail strike an A321, or even an A320.

It was actually a 747 which PIA landed with the landing gear retracted.

by738 wrote:

would it not need to be about a 45deg angle to skid an A351 - it sits quite high?

I am pretty sure you will tailstrike every airplane if you have a 45° pitch angle.

Do we know yet if they will have to write it off?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Do we know yet if they will have to write it off?

No.

That said, I suspect the likelihood of that is very low. Even a very expensive repair is cheaper than a new A350.

jimmy9irons wrote:

11C wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder if they have had a tailstrike yet on the all composite 350. Or the 787 for that matter. It's a very different repair than with an aluminum airplane.

And then there is the airmanship issue. Isn't it hard to tailstrike a FBW aircraft?

I assume it has the “pitch” warning, as newer narrow body Airbus’ aircraft have, yet, it’s still possible to tail strike an A321, or even an A320.

It was actually a 747 which PIA landed with the landing gear retracted.

There was an accident in May of 2020 where PIA landed an A320 gear up, went around and later crashed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakista ... light_8303

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Do we know yet if they will have to write it off?

What make you think a tailscrape would write off an almost new A350. I mean people come on!!

skipness1E wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Do we know yet if they will have to write it off?

What make you think a tailscrape would write off an almost new A350. I mean people come on!!

It’s sarcasm - the running joke anytime a jet has an incident on this forum.

How unfortunate. I presume the pilot(s) will be terminated in due time?

UPS757Pilot wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Do we know yet if they will have to write it off?

What make you think a tailscrape would write off an almost new A350. I mean people come on!!

It’s sarcasm - the running joke anytime a jet has an incident on this forum.

Ding. Winner!

jimmy9irons wrote:

11C wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder if they have had a tailstrike yet on the all composite 350. Or the 787 for that matter. It's a very different repair than with an aluminum airplane.

And then there is the airmanship issue. Isn't it hard to tailstrike a FBW aircraft?

I assume it has the “pitch” warning, as newer narrow body Airbus’ aircraft have, yet, it’s still possible to tail strike an A321, or even an A320.

It was actually a 747 which PIA landed with the landing gear retracted.

On the A320 I think the poster was referring to the accident in the link below
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/pia ... 79.article

Surely no way a write off.

BoeingG wrote:

How unfortunate. I presume the pilot(s) will be terminated in due time?

BA, not EK, so no, they will try and learn something from this.

jetwet1 wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

How unfortunate. I presume the pilot(s) will be terminated in due time?

BA, not EK, so no, they will try and learn something from this.

Then how will they be reprimanded? Demotions? Pay cut? Suspension?

BoeingG wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

How unfortunate. I presume the pilot(s) will be terminated in due time?

BA, not EK, so no, they will try and learn something from this.

Then how will they be reprimanded? Demotions? Pay cut? Suspension?

Maybe they will have an investigation to find out all the causes. Thanks nice these are known they will consider what, if any, sanctions are required.

Vmu demonstrations nicely picture the actual tailstrike attitude.

It was incredibly windy at LHR yesterday, with a high number of go-arounds. I suspect this played into the tail strike?

How's the Fox?

ordpark wrote:

How's the Fox?

The fox seemed very happy galloping down towards T3 (where the AA jets usually park). Nearly got runover, but kept going. It would trot, run, take a wee etc...haha Was watching on YT: big jet tv

StTim wrote:

they will consider what, if any, sanctions are required.

The perpetrators are buffing blistering paint in the Qatar heat until which point they will be allowed supervised visits with the cockpit.

BoeingG wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

How unfortunate. I presume the pilot(s) will be terminated in due time?

BA, not EK, so no, they will try and learn something from this.

Then how will they be reprimanded? Demotions? Pay cut? Suspension?

From my understanding of the UK CAA and the culture within BA, thats not how things are done. I have been lucky enough to attend their training centre for a non-flight relate course and I was left with an extremely high impression of the training standards and safety expectations at BA. There will be a CAA and BA investigation into the circumstances that happened. It might also be that the crew were relatively unfamiliar with the A350 in poor weather conditions - its a new and expanding fleet at BA and a lot of the crew have been flying reduced hours with the pandemic. Perhaps they ‘fell back’ on manoeuvres they would get away with on an A380/747 or even 777/320 due to this.

I doubt anyone will be ‘fired’, ‘ended’ or ‘terminated’. I’m sure BA will use it as a ‘lessons learned’ event.

BigJetTV caught the whole incident from a distance..At the 2:42 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK_4SCZTxig&t=10825s

I'm surprised a fox could have got into LHR airside like that. I know LGW has them airside as there's more open space between the main runway and the southern perimeter fence, but LHR ? It's all built up all around the place. And the grass surrounding the runways and taxiways is kept quite short.

BrianDromey wrote:

BoeingG wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

BA, not EK, so no, they will try and learn something from this.

Then how will they be reprimanded? Demotions? Pay cut? Suspension?

From my understanding of the UK CAA and the culture within BA, thats not how things are done. I have been lucky enough to attend their training centre for a non-flight relate course and I was left with an extremely high impression of the training standards and safety expectations at BA. There will be a CAA and BA investigation into the circumstances that happened. It might also be that the crew were relatively unfamiliar with the A350 in poor weather conditions - its a new and expanding fleet at BA and a lot of the crew have been flying reduced hours with the pandemic. Perhaps they ‘fell back’ on manoeuvres they would get away with on an A380/747 or even 777/320 due to this.

I doubt anyone will be ‘fired’, ‘ended’ or ‘terminated’. I’m sure BA will use it as a ‘lessons learned’ event.

BA38 captain is said to leave the company under peer pressure, although eventually returned (I wonder if that was under PR pressure).

TC957 wrote:

I'm surprised a fox could have got into LHR airside like that. I know LGW has them airside as there's more open space between the main runway and the southern perimeter fence, but LHR ? It's all built up all around the place. And the grass surrounding the runways and taxiways is kept quite short.

Maybe he outfoxed security! You should visit Dublin sometime; there's quite a decent sized population of hares around the runways. There was an occasion where one was ingested into the engine of an A330 on departure. You can just guess the number of puns on Irish aviation websites - "Ireland's first harestrike", "Bunny chow", "hare today, gone tomorrow" etc!

Back to the subject, I think that the culture of BA in dealing with something like this, versus the way EK deals with its recent incident is instructive and interesting. BA has an open safety culture, which prioritises safety over image. That means that it recognises that errors will be made and that you cannot complete excise human error from aviation, BUT you can learn from it. That doesn't mean that if you make an almighty cock-up arising from negligence, you won't be fired, but it does mean that they will look at factors and that the image of the airline will not be the driving factor in determining the outcome of a safety investigation. I don't want to prejudice what EK will do in relation to the recent incident, because some of the news and forum rumours are not true (the crew has not been sacked, although they're obviously not flying at the moment), but let's just say that there are likely to be significant differences in the way both airlines handle similar incidents.

It is also fair to say that what happened at DXB is far more serious than what happened with the A35K at LHR.

kalvado wrote:

BA38 captain is said to leave the company under peer pressure, although eventually returned (I wonder if that was under PR pressure).

Don't believe everything you read in the UK media. Captain Burkhill took voluntary redundancy thinking (wrongly) that he would walk in to a job with another major carrier. His book "Thirty Seconds to Impact" is an interesting read although inevitably self-serving.

kaitak wrote:

TC957 wrote:

I'm surprised a fox could have got into LHR airside like that. I know LGW has them airside as there's more open space between the main runway and the southern perimeter fence, but LHR ? It's all built up all around the place. And the grass surrounding the runways and taxiways is kept quite short.

Maybe he outfoxed security! You should visit Dublin sometime; there's quite a decent sized population of hares around the runways. There was an occasion where one was ingested into the engine of an A330 on departure. You can just guess the number of puns on Irish aviation websites - "Ireland's first harestrike", "Bunny chow", "hare today, gone tomorrow" etc!

Back to the subject, I think that the culture of BA in dealing with something like this, versus the way EK deals with its recent incident is instructive and interesting. BA has an open safety culture, which prioritises safety over image. That means that it recognises that errors will be made and that you cannot complete excise human error from aviation, BUT you can learn from it. That doesn't mean that if you make an almighty cock-up arising from negligence, you won't be fired, but it does mean that they will look at factors and that the image of the airline will not be the driving factor in determining the outcome of a safety investigation. I don't want to prejudice what EK will do in relation to the recent incident, because some of the news and forum rumours are not true (the crew has not been sacked, although they're obviously not flying at the moment), but let's just say that there are likely to be significant differences in the way both airlines handle similar incidents.

It is also fair to say that what happened at DXB is far more serious than what happened with the A35K at LHR.

Yes. Pilots will of course be interviewed but unless they have seriously messed up, they will not be worried and will see it as part of the usual investigation process. Possibly they may be given a quick sim session, but that may only be for the sake of BA being seen to do something about it, depending of course on what actually happened and we are all conjecturising at this point.

Closest I got was a trainee captain tail scraping an Avro RJ 100 at London City, by over-rotating, with a BA subsidiary/franchise carrier. Mitigating factors were that it was his first LCY launch, the bridge and light poles looming towards us beyond the end of the runway, and the fact that his previous type required a pull through a dead zone before any pitch effect took place. We felt nothing and the damage was noticed next walk round inspection. Skid protector strip was replaced and that was it. Obviously I called the chief about it, but no CAA involvement as far as I know.

The trainee went on to be a captain as expected, and I continued my various instructor duties. To my knowledge someone else scraped one on landing at LCY, and someone did same in one of the other franchise operators. No demotions. No drama.

As for the fox, the fact that LHR is surrounded by built up areas is irrelevant. Urban foxes are so named for a reason. Grass is cut to a standard depth, determined by bird nesting habits. I wouldn't be surprised if there as as many foxes at LHR as LGW, but would be surprised that one was being so brave during daylight.

I would appreciate being told why landing an aircraft of the dimensions of an A350 should be aborted as late as this appears to have been because of a fox running about. Could a strike with such a relatively light animal really result is damage (as much as this tail strike has done) worth the risks involved?

I have heard of incidents in more "rural" airports in Africa, India, etc where aircraft much smaller in all measures than an A350 have collided with domestic animals and continued apparently without incident (maybe not for the animal concerned)

musang wrote:

kaitak wrote:

TC957 wrote:

I'm surprised a fox could have got into LHR airside like that. I know LGW has them airside as there's more open space between the main runway and the southern perimeter fence, but LHR ? It's all built up all around the place. And the grass surrounding the runways and taxiways is kept quite short.

Maybe he outfoxed security! You should visit Dublin sometime; there's quite a decent sized population of hares around the runways. There was an occasion where one was ingested into the engine of an A330 on departure. You can just guess the number of puns on Irish aviation websites - "Ireland's first harestrike", "Bunny chow", "hare today, gone tomorrow" etc!

Back to the subject, I think that the culture of BA in dealing with something like this, versus the way EK deals with its recent incident is instructive and interesting. BA has an open safety culture, which prioritises safety over image. That means that it recognises that errors will be made and that you cannot complete excise human error from aviation, BUT you can learn from it. That doesn't mean that if you make an almighty cock-up arising from negligence, you won't be fired, but it does mean that they will look at factors and that the image of the airline will not be the driving factor in determining the outcome of a safety investigation. I don't want to prejudice what EK will do in relation to the recent incident, because some of the news and forum rumours are not true (the crew has not been sacked, although they're obviously not flying at the moment), but let's just say that there are likely to be significant differences in the way both airlines handle similar incidents.

It is also fair to say that what happened at DXB is far more serious than what happened with the A35K at LHR.

Yes. Pilots will of course be interviewed but unless they have seriously messed up, they will not be worried and will see it as part of the usual investigation process. Possibly they may be given a quick sim session, but that may only be for the sake of BA being seen to do something about it, depending of course on what actually happened and we are all conjecturising at this point.

Closest I got was a trainee captain tail scraping an Avro RJ 100 at London City, by over-rotating, with a BA subsidiary/franchise carrier. Mitigating factors were that it was his first LCY launch, the bridge and light poles looming towards us beyond the end of the runway, and the fact that his previous type required a pull through a dead zone before any pitch effect took place. We felt nothing and the damage was noticed next walk round inspection. Skid protector strip was replaced and that was it. Obviously I called the chief about it, but no CAA involvement as far as I know.

The trainee went on to be a captain as expected, and I continued my various instructor duties. To my knowledge someone else scraped one on landing at LCY, and someone did same in one of the other franchise operators. No demotions. No drama.

As for the fox, the fact that LHR is surrounded by built up areas is irrelevant. Urban foxes are so named for a reason. Grass is cut to a standard depth, determined by bird nesting habits. I wouldn't be surprised if there as as many foxes at LHR as LGW, but would be surprised that one was being so brave during daylight.

I can't help wondering what kind of reception this Swiss crew got when they got home!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c0eaofrdTo

ScottishDavie wrote:

kalvado wrote:

BA38 captain is said to leave the company under peer pressure, although eventually returned (I wonder if that was under PR pressure).

Don't believe everything you read in the UK media. Captain Burkhill took voluntary redundancy thinking (wrongly) that he would walk in to a job with another major carrier. His book "Thirty Seconds to Impact" is an interesting read although inevitably self-serving.

"UK" is an unnecesary word there. Still:
He did leave for whatever reason. He wrote some nasty words about the company as he left. And yes, pressing people into voluntary leaving is a well known approach.
As far as I understand, 5 months of grounding following the accident were also a safety measure...
And despite being publicly critical about the company, he was re-hired.

It all doesn't add up to a simple story for me. So I am still going to assume that rosy picture sometimes doesn't survive a crash into reality...