SAS, Airbus "A320" Tailstrike In Shanghai!

JMJAirways · Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:08 pm

Hey!

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,700527,00.html
article in Swedish

apparently a SAS A320 made a tailstrike on take off in Shanghai and damaged the aircraft. It is now in Toulouse for repair. According to the article there was 200pax on board.

My question is since when did SAS start flying Copenhagen - Shanghai with A320 and at the same time manage to carry 200pax. Must be a super version of the A320 or something... rotfl

Best regards

[email protected] · Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:12 pm

When I was in SIN, I saw a Swiss 320. Swiss does not, of course, fly this machine to SIN or anywhere in the Far East, but for a special occasion or charter. Indeed, in this instance a musical group were being flown. I suspect it was a similar thing re. the SAS machine.

JMJAirways · Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:16 pm

Hey!

I know this can happen BUT, Is the A320 able to carry 200pax and fly that distance at all ? Seams unrealistic to me !?

Pozdrav

Scorpio · Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:18 pm

Quoting [email protected] (Reply 1):
Indeed, in this instance a musical group were being flown. I suspect it was a similar thing re. the SAS machine.

What, and they crammed people into the toilets, aisles, cockpit and cargo hold to get 200 in? Not to mention SAS doesn't have A320s... Wink

A319114 · Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:19 pm

Obviously, they meant an A340...

breiz · Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:19 pm

Quoting [email protected] (Reply 1):
When I was in SIN, I saw a Swiss 320. Swiss does not, of course, fly this machine to SIN or anywhere in the Far East, but for a special occasion or charter. Indeed, in this instance a musical group were being flown. I suspect it was a similar thing re. the SAS machine.

Apart from the fact that SAS does not operate any A320.
That may be at best an A321 if it is not really an A330 or A340.

lazyshaun · Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:22 pm

Methinks theres something wrong with this article...

JMJAirways · Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:26 pm

Hey!

Most likely a A340... That Swedish newspaper is not famous of telling the truth always.

But still it is not possible for a A320 to make that journey with 200pax !?

Best regards

[Edited 2005-09-18 12:38:28]

breiz · Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:31 pm

Quoting JMJAirways (Thread starter):
apparently a SAS A320 made a tailstrike on take off in Shanghai and damaged the aircraft

According to a question asked (and not answered) on SAS Flight Operations website early September, the incident occured in August at Shanghai, and it was an A340 (which sounds very logical), but which one ?

Scanorama · Sun Sep 18, 2005 10:29 pm

It was indeedly an A340. I remember reading a post somewhere (probably on a.net forum) or a newspaper article that an SK 343 had a tailstrike in Shanghai.

LN-MOW · Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:48 pm

SAS A340 LN-RKF did indeed have a tailstrike in Shanghai on August 24. They had 243 pax on board and returned to Shanghai after being airborne for about two hours.
The aircraft was ferried to TLS on Sept. 5 and is expected to be back in traffic around Sept 27-28 ...
The lack of an aircraft has caused numerous cancellations on SAS' long haul network.

A360 · Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:49 pm

Quoting JMJAirways (Reply 7):
But still it is not possible for a A320 to make that journey with 200pax !?

No! Lol! Not even with 100 pax!

wrighbrothers · Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:14 am

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 3):
What, and they crammed people into the toilets, aisles, cockpit and cargo hold to get 200 in?

Yes , it's called Ryan Air rotfl

Quoting Lazyshaun (Reply 6):
Methinks theres something wrong with this article...

Just a wee bit inaccurate , It always makes me laugh how stupid and/ or inaccurate the press can be.

Quoting LN-MOW (Reply 10):
They had 243 pax on board and returned to Shanghai after being airborne for about two hours.
The aircraft was ferried to TLS on Sept. 5 and is expected to be back in traffic around Sept 27-28 ...

Why was it airborne for 2 hours before it landed , didn't they know , or was it because the pilots thought that they could make it back but there was a problem in-flight ?
And also , why was the aircraft only put into maintinece on Sep 5th when it was struck on Aug 24th ?
Any info is much apprechiated

Happy flying !!

USADreamliner · Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:16 am

320,330 or 340 is the same for some newspapers, it's all about "Another airline accident scared

!!! They don't give a sh...

Anyway, I think it was a A340 in this case.

Cheers.
USADreamliner airplane

bar032 · Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:20 am

Swedish media, especially Aftonblandet often don't have a clue about details within the aviation sector. Therefore I am not att all surprised!

Cheers/BAR032

scandinavian · Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:32 am

Stupid newspapers! Why do they write about this today and not in August?

Here is a link to the "incident": (sorry only in Norwegian, written August 24)

http://www.boarding.no/art.asp?id=17814

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 12):
Why was it airborne for 2 hours before it landed

Because of the fuel on board.

Regards

JMJAirways · Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:22 am

Quoting Bar032 (Reply 14):
Swedish media, especially Aftonblandet often don't have a clue about details within the aviation sector

I am glad that somebody else also notice this.

What caused the tailstrike may think ?

Best regards.

3204ever · Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:01 am

Funny acc to Airbus an A340 can´t do a tailstrike.....?

Ping

B727230 · Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:15 am

Quoting JMJAirways (Reply 16):
What caused the tailstrike may think ?

Wrong data inserted in the FMGC.

Quoting 3204ever (Reply 17):
Funny acc to Airbus an A340 can´t do a tailstrike.....?

The pilots are of another opinion... Smile

it's even trained in the simulator.

TAP340 · Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:21 am

Quoting A360 (Reply 11):
No! Lol! Not even with 100 pax!

It is possible with eight though (And some extra fuel tanks)

747400F · Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:32 am

LN-RKF it did strike, then circled for 2½ hours before landing with full emergency services. A friend was on board - not very funny. 264 pax on board

AirPacific747 · Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:10 am

Quoting 747400F (Reply 20):
LN-RKF it did strike, then circled for 2ï¿½ hours before landing with full emergency services. A friend was on board - not very funny. 264 pax on board

2ï¿½ hours?! why so long? was there that much traffic? or couldn't they dump the fuel?

comorin · Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:23 am

What causes a modern airliner with well-trained pilots to tailstrike? Did they rotate too soon?

I thought take-offs in a 340 were so simple a Caveman could do it... cheeky

BEG2IAH · Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:30 am

Maybe those pilots were pissed from all the comments about A340's bad take off performance, so they wanted to show the world that it can actually take off like a rocket. It seems that they got carried away.
Big grin

BEG2IAH

FlySSC · Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:43 am

Quoting JMJAirways (Reply 7):
But still it is not possible for a A320 to make that journey with 200pax !?

Quoting A360 (Reply 11):
No! Lol! Not even with 100 pax!

Of course they could ! (not with 200 PAX) ... with two en route stops !

Nouvelair Tunisie is flying a A320 between TUN and YUL ... (refueling stop at KEF).

AirPacific747 · Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:45 am

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 23):
Maybe those pilots were pissed from all the comments about A340's bad take off performance, so they wanted to show the world that it can actually take off like a rocket. It seems that they got carried away.

but seriously, you don't need to be able to take off like an F-16 when its a commercial airliner.. pax don't care, except a few aviation enthusiasts.. (not reason enough to burn more fuel for faster climb rate Wink

) the 340 is comfortable and not very noisy.. perfect for most people! and you never hear or read about an a340 that crashed due to lack of takeoff performance.. 777s have tail strikes aswell.. I remember a malaysian 777 I believe it was that had a tail strike last year or so.

N1120A · Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:53 am

Quoting Breiz (Reply 5):
That may be at best an A321

No, it wasn't one of those either

Quoting JMJAirways (Reply 7):
But still it is not possible for a A320 to make that journey with 200pax !?

You can't put 200 PAX in an A320, let alone fly it that far with 100

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 25):
pax don't care, except a few aviation enthusiasts.. (not reason enough to burn more fuel for faster climb rate ) the 340 is comfortable and not very noisy.. perfect for most people! and you never hear or read about an a340 that crashed due to lack of takeoff performance..

One of the main reasons SQ dumped their A340s was their lack of performance. Additionally, the lack of performance holds the A340 back against the 777 in every economic category

JMJAirways · Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:49 am

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 23):
Maybe those pilots were pissed from all the comments about A340's bad take off performance, so they wanted to show the world that it can actually take off like a rocket. It seems that they got carried away.

Haha... I like that one... !

Best regards

christiaan · Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:00 am

It was an A340 and have had to cancel approx 12 days of ARN-ORD because of the Tailstrike.

[Edited 2005-09-19 04:00:56] There were rumours of over-rotation due to Pilot error and/or weight and balance/shifting issues. Nobody is talking about the specifics of the strike inside SAS.

[Edited 2005-09-19 04:03:56]

HS-LTA · Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:31 pm

http://bbs.feeeco.com/cache/topic-0016-743575.html

This is the photo taken by Shanghai Spotter.

Maersk737 · Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:06 pm

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 12):
And also , why was the aircraft only put into maintinece on Sep 5th when it was struck on Aug 24th ?
Any info is much apprechiated

Minor repairs were made in Shanghai. They had to make sure, it was safe to ferry the aircraft to France Wink

Cheers

Peter

StarFlyer · Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:11 pm

The media always get this wrong. Seems quite funny. 200 people on a a320, how many does easyjet cram in?

JMJAirways · Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:33 pm

Quoting Christiaan (Reply 28):
[Edited 2005-09-19 04:00:56] There were rumours of over-rotation due to Pilot error and/or weight and balance/shifting issues. Nobody is talking about the specifics of the strike inside SAS.

I've heard the same... Maybe that's why they don't want to talk about it...

Best regards

intothinair · Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:21 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 25):
I remember a malaysian 777 I believe it was that had a tail strike last year or so.

Yes indeed. That was on the route ZRH-KUL. They dumped fuel over the black forest, obvously it all evaporated before reaching the ground, before turning around to land again. As for the SAS A340, i'd like to know what happened there and why they didn't dump fuel instead of flying around for 2 and a half hours?

Cheers, Konstantin G.

FBU 4EVER! · Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:53 pm

Latest reports mention the fact that the pilots may have entered the Zero Fuel Weight instead of the Take Off Weight in the Take Off Data Computer.This generates lower V1/Vr/V2 speeds and in this case the plane has to be rotated a lot more than under normal circumstances.The plane was probably rotated at a speed outside the "tailstrike protection range" and the tail struck the ground as the plane lifted off.The strike created a large hole in the lower fuselage and the cabin would not pressurize.The plane went to the designated fuel dump area and dumped fuel to allow a normal,not overweight,landing to be made. The plane spent several days at Shanghai to permit temporary repairs to be made,then ferried to Toulouse for final repair.The plane in question was,as LN-MOW states,A340-313 LN-RKF.

As to why the pilots made the error,crew fatigue has been cited.The return flight from Shanghai departs at a time when the crew has not yet recuperated from the flight out from CPH.The stop is 24 hrs.

200 pax in an A320? Sure! But they have to be Chinese! LOL

[email protected] · Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:11 pm

Quoting Breiz (Reply 5):
Apart from the fact that SAS does not operate any A320.

Hence me saying "SAS machine."

SK973 · Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:35 pm

FBU 4Ever is correct!

ZFW instead of GW was entered in the FMGC and with a difference of about 70 tonnes it gave a Vr that was about 20 kts lower than it should have been.

And to make matters worse the crew were doing a flex T/O and only when they noticed something was wrong and they were running out of runway did they shove in full thrust.

AirPacific747 · Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:57 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 26):
One of the main reasons SQ dumped their A340s was their lack of performance. Additionally, the lack of performance holds the A340 back against the 777 in every economic category

If you read what I wrote, you will find out that I did not talk about that at all. I was talking about that the 340 never crashes due to lack of performance. SQ dumped it, yes, but there is still a lot of airlines operating the A343.

CPH757 · Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:12 pm

The Danish newspaper "Jyllandsposten" today post that the A340-300 had 244 passengers on board and 12 crew members.

The aircraft have been out of service for one month, and sources from SAS states that the real loss is estimated at nearly 100 million DKK ($16M).

http://www.jp.dk/erhverv/artikel:aid=3280078/

JMJAirways · Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:46 pm

WoW 100million DKK is a lot !

Best regards

JFKviaPHX · Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:18 am

Another A320 incident the media is trying to exploit. At least they are incidents and not crashes. Few if any people get hurt as compared to the recent 737's killing most to all on board.

AirPacific747 · Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:42 am

Quoting CPH757 (Reply 38):
at nearly 100 million DKK ($16M).

WOW! how can it be so much?? Not good for SAS Sad

they are already in financial trouble

christiaan · Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:40 am

Latest report from SAS is that the Crew put the ZIP weight in instead of actual Weight. Caused Over rotation and tail strike.

FBU 4EVER! · Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:02 pm

LN-RKF is now back in service and is flying CPH-PEK-CPH right now.100 million kr is the cost of the repair plus loss of revenue from cancelled flights.

JMJAirways · Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:43 pm

Any insurance can help ? How does this works with insurance and Airlines ?

Best regards

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net