A DC-9 Jet belonging to Cebu Pacific lost its tail while landing in the Phillipines after operating a domestic flight. The conical tail end of the fuslage under the vertical stabiliser. The DC-9 taxied to the terminal tail-less

EDIT: Sorry if this has already been discussed. I did a search but could not find anything on it.

[Edited 2004-11-08 22:28:03]

Try this link, i think this is what you are talking about, it's a video.

http://www.airdisaster.com/download/md80.shtml

Mike

I have just read it in the paper, so it must be recent

Try this link, i think this is what you are talking about, it's a video

Actually there was an incident that happened today.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=cebu+pacific

The video that you referrenced is probably a good dramatization of what happened though.

http://www.airdisaster.com/download/md80.shtml

Dl757Md

Probably means the tail cone and not the whole tail.
GS

No, it is real, i read about on 2 crash sites, one states that it was on a test flight.

This is when they were still trying to get the A/C perfect, as there was a lot of problems with the high mounted stabalizer.

Mike

Now that I've read the whole article it does state the tail cone. This piece is jettisonable for emergency evacuations anyway. Shouldn't have come off during a hard landing though. Perhaps a combination of improper installation/faulty hardware and the hard landing caused this. The aircraft should be fine though. No structural damage eluded to in the article.

Dl757Md

Folks,

What happened in the Phillipines is that the fairing at the very back of this DC-9 came off. It's not the "whole" tail, it's not the MD80 landing incident at Edwards (that we have discussed here many times BTW).

This fairing is back there for streamlining purposes only. It is not part of the main fuselage structure. It contains no flight controls. It is designed to come off in an emergency so pax may use the emergency exit in the aft bulkhead.

This incident is not even close to the severity of the MD80 incident in the video Dogfighter is talking about.

Probably means the tail cone and not the whole tail.

How could this happen? Wouldn't the horizontal stab also separate if the tail cone separated? (I'm assuming that the horizontal stab is supported by the tail cone)

Dogfighter211, that flight test you were referring to wasn't suppose to happen that way. It was pilot error if I'm not mistaken, as they did not realize that they were too high on the approach, with such a low speed. They were suppose to conduct a low-speed approach, but for some reason, the aircraft was too high, and thus the sinking of the aircraft.

Regards,
AK

Although there have indeed been instances of DC-9s/MD80s losing the entire tails during very hard landings (as shown in the 1980 video), the fact that this one "taxied nornally to the gate" indicates that it was a tailcone separtion, and NOT the entire tail itself.

It looks like this...


View Large View Medium

Photo © Don Boyd

No, you assume wrong.

The tail cone supports itself and that's it. It is able to be jettisoned in an emergency (so you can still use the rear exit in a belly landing when the rear stairs won't come down).

How could this happen? Wouldn't the horizontal stab also separate if the tail cone separated? (I'm assuming that the horizontal stab is supported by the tail cone)

This picture shows the DC-9 tailcone very well. Look at the bottom of the rudder. At about the midchord point there is a line on the empennage that goes down and forward at about 30 degrees from vertical. In front of the line you can see seams, rivets, louvers, etc.. Aft of that line is smooth white. This is the tailcone that came off. It is NOT directly connected to the vertical stabilizer(which supports the horizontal stabilizer). It is composite, non structural, and is there mainly for aerodynamic fairing.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Patrick Mutzenberg



Dl757Md

Thanks guys for correcting me. Now I get a better idea of what's happened. It may be that I've been watching the test-video too many times in the past that I would assume that the vertical stab (not the horizontal) - correction in my previous post  - is connected to the tail cone . Thanks once again for the explanations  

Regards,
AK

RogerThat,

StudentFlyer did not start the thread...... Perhaps apologies to his sister are in order.....

As I interpret the report, the article suggested that it is believed that the aircraft "over-flared" on landing causing the tail cone to strike the ground before the landing gear could make contact. I'm sure that would be sufficient force to jettison the tailcone.

RogerThat,

Maybe an apology but certainly FUNNY.

Haha i'm surprised no one has mention NW yet.

Ah the tail cone would be no big deal,it wont affect anything in fact what is it the md90s or 88s have like fins that pop out to slow the plane down...

Your sister is LOOSE

Hey RogerThat, the fact that I don't have a sister probably proves me that you are the one that's loose!

SATL382G, Thanks for backing me up  

Regards,
AK

No problem. The guy probably didn't read the entire thread......

Isn't it amazing what people will say when they're anonymous and hiding behind a keyboard?

[Edited 2004-11-09 01:58:25]

It happened to Air Canada many years ago, while climbing out of BOS for YHZ. A crack in the rear pressure bulkhead let go, causing a depressurization, and losing the tailcone. The DC-9-32 returned to BOS.

I recall listening to an eyewitness/passenger. The poor soul happened to be in the aft lav, and pushed the flush button when the pressure bulkhead let go. I am sure to this day, he thinks he caused the incident 

what is it the md90s or 88s have like fins that pop out to slow the plane down...

The engine pylons on the MD-8x/MD-90 (717?) have stabilizers that help recovery in case of a deep stall. Not connected to the tailcone though.

>>>what is it the md90s or 88s have like fins that pop out to slow the plane down...

Maybe thinking about a F28/F100?

Over flaring (tail strike) wouldn't impact on the tail cone. There is a bumper just aft of the APU inlet attached to a shock strut. The strut is inside the fuselage and absorbs the impact of a tail strike somewhat. The tail cones are known to fall off if the latches aren't secured properly and tightened to the correct tension. Too tight and the tailcone won't release no matter how hard you pull. Its really not that big a deal except that the slide usually deploys automatically with the tailcone dropping away. The tail skid is right above the ground in this one.
View Large View Medium

Photo © Charles Juszczak
And right in front of the stairs in this one.
View Large View Medium

Photo © Fabian Gysel

At first I thought this was the DC-9 version of AA 587...

But good to hear that everyone is safe and that the tailcone simply popped off as opposed to having the entire vertical stablizer be ripped off mid-flight.  

same thing happened to an eastern air lines jet at pns or pfn (can't remember which) in the late 80's.

i worked for EA at the time...scared us all to death.

Does this mean NW is going to get rid of their DC-9's????



Sorry, I just had to do it.

>>>same thing happened to an eastern air lines jet at pns or pfn (can't remember which) in the late 80's.

That was a tail separation, and not a cone separation as with the Cebu Pacific bird...

http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR89-02S.pdf with a picture on page 18....  

>>>what is it the md90s or 88s have like fins that pop out to slow the plane down...

Maybe thinking about a F28/F100?

Ah of course, the airbrake on the Fokkers. But as OPNLguy says, the DC-9/MD-8x does not have a tail airbrake.

Now this DC-9 really lost it's tail!


View Large View Medium

Photo © Chris Lucak

>>>same thing happened to an eastern air lines jet at pns or pfn (can't remember which) in the late 80's.

Happened December 27, 1987 at PNS, 1139pm cst to be exact  
Thank You, OPNLguy for the accident report.

View Large View Medium Photo © Javier F. Bobadilla - IBERIAN SPOTTERS

View Large View Medium Photo © Chris Lucak

Here's a picture of the external emergency tailcone release handle on an Alitalia MD-82 (I-DANR)


MyAviation.net photo:

Photo © Marco Carcioffo


I-DAWA

is it just the MD80 and DC-9 that have this tail evac? How about the 717?

Im still surprised that no one has made mention about NW.

I wonder if this is an isolated incident or if it is a problem that has to be delt with immediately for md-80s/dc9s/717s across the board.

XJR

All DC-9 family aircraft have this, including the 717. This isn't a new problem. This has existed for some time and is a result of improper installation of the tail cone most likely. It could also have been caused by not resetting the latches after accidently pulling one of the evac handles a little. You can't just put the handles back in the clips they rest in and think its all ok.

We're getting several things mixed up here.

First, the tailcone. It is an aerodynamic faring at the rear of the airplane. On all DC-9's and early MD-80's, the tailcone is conical in shape. On most MD-80's and later airplanes in the DC-9 family the tailcone tapers to a vertical fin also called a boat tail fairing. The boat tail fairing results in lower airframe drag.
There have been several cases of airplanes losing the tailcone in flight or on landing due to improper installation of the tailcone. Occasionally, someone on the ground attempting to lower the ventral airstairs (on airplanes with them) will pull the wrong handle and jettison the tailcone instead.

Second, fuselage failures. All of the DC-9 family airplanes are susceptible to failure of the fuselage aft of the wing if an exceptionally hard landing is made. If you do it really really hard, the fuselage forward of the wing may also fail.
Often, if the airframe is relatively young, the airplane will be repaired and placed back into service. I've been involved in the repair of a DC-9-30 that got bent, but not quite broken. I don't not know of any serious injuries or fatalities occurring due to a fuselage failure on landing.

Third, rear pressure bulkhead failures. At the rear of the cabin is the rear pressure bulkhead. It is susceptible to cracking in the curve Tee shaped member that attaches the bulkhead to the skin around the periphery of the bulkhead. The Air Canada DC-9-30 airplane incident flying from Boston to Halifax is an example of this kind of failure. This is one of the structural areas on the DC-9 that has been subject to Airworthiness Directives. The failure may be due to fatigue, corrosion, or a combination of the two.

Fourth, engine pylon failures. The engine and its pylon are supported by two bulkheads in the fuselage. The forward bulkhead is in the pressure vessel and is also used to support the forward wall of the aft lavatories. The aft bulkhead is aft of the rear pressure bulkhead and you could see this bulkhead if you ever get back in that area. There have been failures (or partial failures) of the attachments between the pylon and bulkhead with result in the engine sagging usually at the forward bulkhead. I don't think an airplane has ever lost the engine in flight, but there have been several close calls. People who have detected the engine sag, say that they sense that something is wrong before they realize that the engine is sagging. The engine normally is canted forward end up and sometimes a person has to look at both engines and compare them to be sure if one is sagging or not.