CX Tailstrike

[jtr]

Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Cathay grounds pilot, officer after incident
SIMON PARRY
A Cathay Pacific captain and first officer have been grounded after the tail end of an Airbus carrying 145 passengers hit the runway as it took off from Auckland on a flight to Hong Kong.

The "tail strike" happened as the Airbus A340-300 aircraft left the ground too steeply in takeoff last Tuesday.

The incident is being investigated by Cathay and New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority.

Cabin crew and passengers alerted the pilot after they felt the plane shudder as the bottom of the tail scraped along the runway.

The pilot checked with air traffic controllers in Auckland who said they had not seen the plane touch the runway.

He then contacted Hong Kong to seek guidance on whether to continue with the flight or return to Auckland airport.

Upon consultation with management, a decision was taken to continue with the flight as the plane had only made light contact with the ground and there did not appear to be any damage.

Cathay Pacific spokeswoman Lisa Wong stressed that the contact between the tail and the ground had been "minor" and "more a scrape than a strike". "During the whole takeoff and landing process, the aircraft was safe and there was no safety issue involved," she said.

The captain and the first pilot had been suspended from flying while the investigation into the incident was being carried out, Ms Wong said.

Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department (CAD) said it had been informed about "a tail-scrape incident".

"The CAD has conducted an inspection of the aircraft in Hong Kong," it said.

"The damage, which consisted of some scratches on the skin, is considered not significant and the incident is not classified as a reportable accident in accordance with the Hong Kong Civil Aviation [Investigation of Accidents] Regulations."


Dragging arse of a/c along tarmac at 300 kmh = 'minor' and 'no safety issues involved' WTF?

[sigma]

I hear that it was one of the recently promoted local captain.

[411A]

Hmmm, looks like those at CX, who claim to be some of the best (according to them) got it all wrong.
Why are we not surprised?:E

[fire wall]

411A,
The right to freedom of speech was certainly not written with fools such as yourself in mind.

[spud]

411a, take first the beam from thine own eye.

[Cpt. Underpants]

Ah, 411A...my favourite idiot. Your predictability is astonishing.

Here's (click here >)something (http://julian.sourcecod.com/misc/swf/youare.swf) (<click here) just for you. Enjoy.

[B787]

NZ Herald

Pilots suspended after tail strike at Auckland

28.01.2004
11.45am
Two pilots have been grounded after the tail of a plane carrying 145 passengers hit the runway at Auckland International Airport on takeoff last week.

The tail of the Cathay Pacific Airbus A340-300 hit the runway surface as it took off last week on its way to Hong Kong, the Dominion Post reported today.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was investigating the incident, the paper reported. CAA spokesman Bill Sommer was not immediately available for comment this morning.

The newspaper said cabin crew and passengers felt the plane shudder as the bottom of the tail scraped along the runway. Crew members alerted the pilot, a junior captain and one of the airline's first Chinese pilots to be promoted to captain.

The paper said the captain checked with air traffic controllers in Auckland, who said they had not seen the plane touch the runway. He radioed ahead to Hong Kong for guidance on whether to continue the flight or return to Auckland.

After consultation with a management pilot, the decision was made to continue to Hong Kong because it was not believed the damage was serious, the paper reported.

The incident is the second of its type within 10 months at Auckland Airport. A Singapore Airlines Boeing 747 with 369 passengers aboard made an emergency landing after a tail-strike in March.

Cathay Pacific spokeswoman Lisa Wong said during the takeoff and landing, the aircraft was safe and there was no safety issue.

The paper said the captain and the first officer were suspended from flying while the investigation was carried out.

The Singapore Airlines pilot and first officer were found to be at fault for the 747 tail strike.

The pilot took off at too low a speed and the first officer entered an aircraft weight figure 100 tonnes lighter than it should have been.

The captain was demoted.

Civil Aviation spokesman Bill Sommer said the incident was being investigated by the airline and it would be monitored by the authority.

"That is normal under our rules. If there is an accident or incident the operator is required to investigate it.

"We will monitor it. If we are satisfied we will accept the findings. If not we will take it further."

Mr Sommer said the CAA was not made aware of the incident until the aircraft had landed at Hong Kong and had been inspected.

He said the CAA was not concerned that the aircraft continued to Hong Kong rather than return to Auckland for inspection.

"That is up to the operator. It is not up to us. They will operate in what they believe is a safe manner and if they decide that is a safe manner that is what they will do," Mr Sommer said.

He said aircraft occasionally scraped their tails on runways and some were fitted with a pad to minimise damage.

"They are very long, some of these aircraft. It doesn't happen very often but it has happened," Mr Sommer said.

- NZPA

[HotDog]

411A, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! Make sure it doesn't happen to you when you start up that great "Airline" of yours. Better stick to L1011s rather than the DC-10. The Tristar has a donkey dick.

[Felix Lighter]

411a you are a knob of the highest order. you speak with forked tongue and are in embarrassment to pilots globally.

now...............
I sure would like to know who the "management pilot" who ordered the rtn to HK was? airbus, i hope not?- the fcom is very clear and very black and white for the airbus!

1. do not pressurise,
2. return to land.

the cause of the incident will be something pilots globally can learn from.........sadly the actions after the event SEEM (at this stage) far more vague.

we wait with baited breath.

i have to say the skipper is a very very nice chap, my heart goes out to him - as should all pilots lest they throw stones in a very small glasshouse - 411a? (good thing youve never made any mistakes.....whats it like on your planet!)

[B787]

It is difficult to say what they should have done.

The ECAM warning was not triggered.

The only indication that they had of a possible tail strike was a report from a couple of cabin crew at the back. (have they ever been right before? Well in this case they were.)

The tower did not see it, the vehicle next to the runway did not see it and the runway inspection revealed nothing.

So do you go on the word only of the cabin crew? Hard call.

[NoseGear]

B787, please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand there is no ECAM warning for a tailstrike on the A340-300. I believe they have now installed them on the 600 model. But like you said, a hard call to make.

[Flying Bagel]

That is correct, the 343 does not have tailstrike protection.

[B787]

Well I personally have not seen it, but for those of you with the right books, my FCOM 3 ref 3.02.31 P9 says that it does.

Happy reading.

[Felix Lighter]

FCOM3.04.27P14

The A340-600, being longer than the A333/A343 has a higher risk of tailstrike...........several new features have been added.......[including a] warning display.

NB: The 333/343 do not have tail strike (Ms Wong "scrape") warning systems.

FCOM3.02.31P9, as stated above refers to the 346 indicating system/ECAM message.

P9, for example, does not exist in the A333 FCOM.

However: FCOM3.03.12P3 which is applicable to 333,343 and 346 states:

"If a tailstrike occurs, avoid flying at an altitude requiring a pressurized cabin and return to the originating airport for damage assessment"

**B787: YES! You go on the advice of the cabin crew......would you be willing to take the chance that structural integrity has not been compromised.

Im only going on the press articles but if pax and cabin crew said they heard/felt a tail strike.......you dont take the risk?

With all humble deferance to Ms Wong sense of safety how does she equate "there was no safety issue involved" to LAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?

As stated previously the tailstrike itself is an unfortunate incident that could, under the varying circumstances happen to any of us, so I cast no stones and feel for the chaps involved. Not a great year of the monkey for them...........

[Schrodingers Cat]

Remembering the trijet, perhaps its also worth remembering the depressurisation on the way past ELATO as an orange segment shaped piece of the aft bukhead peeled back due to an 'old injury' sustained before CX obtained the L1011 from the outer darkness........a certain loud flengineer still with CX freighters was on that flight)

There is no such thing as no damage in this sort of incident if you consider the force vectors involved.......

[Plastique]

I think it's a bit unfair and unprofessional to play armchair quarterback on this issue.
Lets wait until all the facts have been accessed before throwing stones and pilot bashing:
Were there any factors (technical) which contributed to the tailstrike?

What lessons can be learned about the management culture, and decision making in this case...

[aussietruckdriver]

Plastic
A similar symptom of the culture could be the B744 flight to SYD on 19/12/03, where the commander opted to fly on for over 9 hours with NO toilets, again after buy-in from those on the ground. I bet those PAX had a 'memorable' flight.


Looks like you are a great mis-leader of the facts. The flight you mention was arriving on christmas eve, the problem was being trouble-shooted by a fully qualified ground engineer who was PX on the plane. It took over 4 hrs to realise the whole system was
U/S.
Divert I would like your very informed comment? Darwin had a cyclone front,manilla out ?? back to Hong Kong same time as continuing to Syd (no input from the grd)

As it worked out the Cabin Crew did a great job, the Capt made the best choice that was availible at the time and 300+ passengers were extremely pleased that they were home for Christmas.

aussietruckdriver - please read my message about personal attacks and abuse at the front of this forum and comply. Many thanks. BlueEagle - Moderator.

[VR-HFX]

SC

That was the old Court Line jobbie and Tug did the right thing as he always did operationally....but the back end of the 1011 is built like a brick sh.. house.

The jury's out on who gave the OK to continue on to HK but under no circumstances do you pressurize an airframe that has scraped terra firma on departure.

I feel for the Captain as he is a nice guy and totally competent. A really tough call given the evidence to hand. A call made more difficult by the fact he felt he couldn't make his own call.

Where is aviation heading??

Last time I looked the a/c was till down the other end of the field...

[411A]

It would appear that CX has very poor operational control of their enroute aircraft, especially allowing the Captain to continue a flight where the fuselage was damaged.
Better question...why would the Captain even consider continuing, as he had absolutely no knowledge of the potential damage?

If this is an indication of the type of Commanders that CX has, would suspect that an audit of CX flight operations are urgently needed, by an unbiased outside authority, not a white-wash by the HK DCA.

[404 Titan]

411A

As usual you are talking out of your a**e. If you don't know the facts could you please refrain from posting as you are embarrassing yourself sunshine.

Just as a matter of clarification, the flight crew wasn’t informed of a possible tail strike until passing FL180. The brief scraping noise was only heard by one junior flight attendant who had only been in the company for six months and a frequent flyer passenger who when questioned by the captain said he did hear a scraping noise but wasn’t concerned as the airbus always seems to make strange noises up the back. The captain then contacted the tower and they said they saw no tail strike occur and neither did an airport patrol office who was near the runway at the time chasing birds away. An inspection was conducted of the runway and no evidence was found of any tail strike. The captain then contacted the company via satcom who in turn phoned the tower at Auckland to confirm the information the captain was told. Armed with this information it was decided to proceed onto Hong Kong. Personally I would still have returned to Auckland as per the “recommendations" of the FCOM Bulletin 05/3 but I can imagine it was a very hard call for the captain at the time. As a matter of interest the aircraft was returned to service on the 28th after Haeco completed repairs.

[jtr]

Plaz, irrespective of where it is hidden, thinking INSIDE the box would lead you to believe there is probably a reasonable amount of stress placed on the a/c when a 250 odd ton frame "brush"es the ground at 300 kmh. I just hope the duty ops manager gets hung out to dry. It is pumped into these guys to call ops, eng etc. If this had ended in 4000 pieces of aluminium, jet fuel, and body parts fluttering down from 350 over PNG I am pretty sure I know who would have been blamed. The figures for a overweight landing are known, why not send it back, autoland it (haven't been there for a few years, but surely you can) , if its ok, send it off again? Surely there must be some suspicion when you dont feel the "thug" of the gear leaving the ground by 11 deg? Ever seen the pattern the 340 doing AKL does? have a look and you will may begin to get an idea why the decision was made, particularly on the busiest 5 days in the history of CX.

IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT, THERE IS NO DOUBT

[BusyB]

Gosh BlueEagle perhaps it doesn't apply to 411A after all.

I recall 411A taking off knowing an engine wasn't working correctly, perhaps Blueeagle didn't know that 411A operates on a different level to us mere mortals.

"Wasn't working correctly" - well that does leave the door wide open, was it a minor deferred defect or a Major no-go item? And I don't classify his post here as abuse or personal attack, do you BusyB? More a strongly expressed opinion that is not likely to be too popular amongst CX pilots! Take the topic on, start a new thread, discuss!

BlueEagle - Moderator.

[boofta]

The press do not provide FACTS, they provide rumour and pure
speculation.How anyone could quote the press as being the only
source of real information available is WRONG. Most of the facts
have been posted in this discussion.
What should be discussed is the dilemma faced by the Captain, the definition of a tailstrike, the companies involvement, cabin crew training for such events and so on. CX does need an audit and these issues need to be resolved. People, aviation is a very
dynamic constantly evolving business.
What its developed into is not always SAFE. Blind adherance to
SOPS cannot fix every possible problem.
Commonsense and airmanship also need to be discussed on this
forum, command of any aircraft is not about total reliance on the
BOOKS.
Every trip made on an older aircraft is still a trip to MARS, after all
no-one has done it before. I mean that seriously!
Who knows what will happen to a tired older AIRBUS particularly
on a flight sometime in the future.
None of us have been there yet.

[411A]

Hmmm, tail goes bang, hostie notifies the flight deck, they call the company...and the company says...carry on regardless.

Seems to me...the Commander of the concerned flight, without knowing the damage done, contacts the company, who...has no idea either, decides to do as the duty officer suggests.

Tail wagging the dog here, it would appear.


Clearly CX operational control is substandard, in a rather large way.
Could it be that the Captain has no say in the matter...ie: commercial considerations always prevail?
My, how the mighty have fallen.:uhoh:
Seems to me if the pressure vessel has been (or suspected to be) compromised, a return/diversion to the nearest suitable would be advised.

If those in the left seat do not understand this, perhaps a change is needed...in the left seat OR (supposing the Commander has no say in the matter) the management that allows this nonsense to be the norm.

Hello...ICAO audit.
Korean and Asiana found out...big time.:ooh:

[Kaptin M]

411A, you. my "friend" are a hypocrite of the first order by writing, "Seems to me...the Commander of the concerned flight, without knowing the damage done, contacts the company, who...has no idea either, decides to do as the duty officer suggests."
Your self-confession on the main R&N forum some months back (as BusyB alludes to) of KNOWINGLY taking off - as PIC - in an aircraft that had a defective engine, delivering an unreliable output, with the intention of diverting to have it fixed PRIOR to take off, damned any bona fides you might have thought you could claim forever and a day, in my book and that of most who read that thread.
From 411A in September of last year:-Likewise, a year later, same company...#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust. After many complaints and no action, uplifted the pax, departed at a lighter weight, and diverted enroute for more fuel.
After just one of these diversions, they fixed the engine. Here is a link.
http://pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100717&perpage=15&pagenumber=3

Sorry for the deviation again, Blue Eagle, however if respondents to this discussion wish to debate the ISSUES raised by other contributors - namely 411A - then his comments need to be read in the light of HIS self-confessed, past practices ("antics", might be more apt terminology).

[411A]

Kaptin M,

As usual, you do seem to have the propensity of barking up the wrong tree.
My personal actions with regard to my flight in question were in full conformity with the AFM, someting that you seem to have conveniently forgotten...or choose to ignore.

Now on the other hand, the CX Airbus tailstrike in question on this forum would seem to indicate a rather irresponsible action on the part of the flight deck crew, considering that damage to the airframe was (is) a distinct possibility. This was certainly compounded by the poor operational control from HKG.

Can't imagine a tailstrike to be in conformity with the Airbus AFM, unless of course you personally have knowledge to the contrary.

Perhaps CX management and/or its Commanders have the opinion that commercial considerations outweigh safety, when structural damage to the airframe is a consideration.
Perhaps also they think the opinions of trained cabin crew, who report that scraping noises from the aft end should be ignored.
Certainly does not inspire confidence of the traveling public who after all expect better performance from CX, a respected aircarrier which has been around a rather long time.
Could it be that CX Commanders are as poorly trained and operational control is as deficient as this incident indicates?

[404 Titan]

411A

You propensity to mouth off garbage ceases to amaze me. You don’t know the facts so I suggest you shut it before you make yourself look even more stupid.

I have already explained to you the sequence of events, as they are publicly known. Only one junior flight attendant who had been with the company six months and one passenger heard anything. Nothing was heard by anyone else. From all the evidence that was before the crew, the company and Auckland airport, it was concluded that a tail strike didn’t occur. With hindsight this was wrong and systems will need to be put in place to guide crews and IOC and engineering staff if this isn’t to be repeated in the future.

In reference to your last question:
Could it be that CX Commanders are as poorly trained and operational control is as deficient as this incident indicates?
Answer: No & No.

[~~~^~~~]

BlueEagle,

Would it be OK for me to post 411A's home address and phone#, so the boys could communicate more directly with 411A, instead of wasting space on this forum?

Sharkman

Definitely Not!!! regards, BlueEagle

[Wizofoz]

Tail wagging the dog here, it would appear.

So 411A, you are content for the Captain to make the decisions in this situation...PROVIDED they happen to be the ones you agree with with the benefit of 20 20 hindsight.

I've worked for people like you, and feel sorry for those who work for you now (ASSUMING they exist...Website up yet?).

[404 Titan]

Jizzmonkey

What you say is very true but what I have been told is that the DFDR doesn’t support this theory. It must be pointed out though the limitations in the DFDR to accurately record this phase of flight in any great detail. Auckland airport also has cameras that record all arrivals and departures from both ends of the runway. These photos don’t show anything untoward though the resolution I believe doesn’t make it definitive either. Other areas being looked at are the load sheet and how the loading of the aircraft was accomplished. I won’t make any assumptions about this though until that side of the investigation is complete and in the public arena.

[Kaptin M]

Looks as though Jizzmonkey's got the whole subject sussedWhen a tail strike occurrs:
1. Rotation too fast/high
2. Rotated early
3. Wrong Vee speeds calculated
So we can dispense with superficial stuff like stab trim setting, actual loading in accordance with the W&B, security of cargo loading, correct oleo inflation, and windshear, to name a few.

Great - hang 'em fast, and hang 'em high.

[411A]

404Titan,

No and No?

Aircraft on takeoff has a tailstrike, crew and pax in the back end report scraping noises....yet the Captain decides to continue the flight to destination, with the concurance of HKG ops.

Not a very pretty picture.

Wrong vee speeds? FMC problem? Trim sheet incorrect?
All easily noticed by a competent crew, with the possible exception of the trim sheet, but usually these are quite accurtate, if computer generated.

Looks to me like a major stuff up by the handling pilot, and rather poor advice from the concerned HKG duty officer.

No & No?......hardly.:sad:

[hart744]

Look, everyone makes mistakes. 411A, did you ever make one? Why would CX fire the local captain since they spent so much money training him. May be a letter of reprimand on his file and make the guy a CRM instructor.

[Dale Harris]

Dunno, as much as wouldn't wish it on anyone, maybe 411A will hire him.

[BusyB]

Thanks for the support Kaptim M, Seems that previous admissions don't count on this forum as don't threats from moderators.
Brgds

[F-flyer]

The following link is to an Australian Transport Safety Bureau report (Occurrence Number: 200003037) involving a tail scrape incident at Melbourne airport on 21 July 2000.

The opening paragraph states:

'The crew of an aircraft waiting for clearance to taxi across an active runway observed a departing Boeing 767-300 scrape its hydraulic tail bumper during rotation. This information was then relayed to the pilot in command of the departing aircraft who elected to continue the flight in accordance with the non-normal checklist. Maintenance personnel inspected the aircraft when it arrived in Sydney and determined the strike was minor. A repaint of the skid was all that was required for the aircraft to continue in service.'

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=79

[411A]

hart744,

Did not personally mention anywhere about 'firing' the Commander, indeed this would seem to be counterproductive, as others would then try to cover up future mistakes.

Overrotation is more common now with modern types than before, by guys who simply think that to...'point it up, period' is the right way.
Retraining, or to be more provocative....PROPER TRAINING is required...in the first place.

CX would do well to examine their training procedures, and act accordingly.
Many CX pilots think they can do no wrong...sadly they are quite mistaken, as the statistics prove.

[Oasis]

A shame this is turning into 411a bashing, although he is being a little harsh before the facts are all in.
I was told a while ago that you make a decision before you call the company.
If the cc had only 6 months of experience, if he/she heard a scrape on rotation, then it's still a scrape, if he/she isnt fit to report a problem to the fltcrew, he/she shouldn't be there otherwise.
Let the lawyers figure out the difference between scrape and strike but I think I would have turned back.
I hope the facts will be different than what they seem, but if they are not, the people upstairs should make some changes to the system.

Especially in these vague cases it is important that the captain makes the right call.

[BuzzBox]

411A, your comments are slanderous and extremely offensive. As you seem to be a bit slow to get the point, I'll spell it out for you one more time - the crew used all the resources available to them and DECIDED THAT A TAIL STRIKE HAD NOT IN FACT OCCURRED. In hindsight, that decision was obviously flawed. Had there been any doubt at the time, I am quite sure the captain would have elected to return to AKL. I am also quite sure the CX investigation of this incident will examine ALL the relevant factors. Perhaps you should keep your bigoted views to yourself until that investigation is complete.

[411A]

Buzzbox,

Your phrase..."in hindsight, that decision was obviously flawed" is right on the mark, IMO.

Clearly it was, and will CX learn from this....more than likely not as, according to most there, they can do no wrong.:sad: :E

[BuzzBox]

411A - what utter crap.

[Felix Lighter]

411a enlighten me,

Quote "according to most there, they can do know wrong"

How many people are 'most' people?

If youre going to make damning comments you'd be best to state your facts lest you think you have some sort of 'parlimentary privilege' on this forum.

My biggest gripe is that you have some quite valid points but your delivery is spiteful, vindictive and entirely unconstructive.

Objectivity and subjectivity are vastly different skills.

[Cpt. Underpants]

I can't stand it anymore. This person 411A is despicable.

He professes to be a highly experienced, semi-retired former L1011 captain. Yet, he is highly opinionated, xenophobic, bigoted, thick-skinned and a fraud – all the traits I do not associate with a captain of any sort.

He claims to be on the threshold of starting an airline - just how long have we had to endure this lie - and yet when challenged on it he hides behind a veil of anonymity that only the internet can offer.

He threatens legal action against this BBS when someone calls his bluff - how long will this post stand, I wonder? I am sure that he will continue unabated with his litany of lies and disinformation because (in the opinion of some) he lends a "unique" flavour to the BBS.

Who is he? Is he really what he claims to be? For all we know, he could be a wannabe geek with a computer and lots of time. For an airline tycoon, he sure has a lot of time on his hands, doesn't he? Yes, I have read the disclaimer on the bottom of the page.

Blue Eagle and others - please tell this fool to stop. Had Joseph Goebels been alive today, despite all the ACLU efforts to defend freedom of speech (in the style of Voltaire) he would have been muzzled pdq. Like Goebels, this man is spreading a litany of hatred and lies, untruths and just plain, first-class snake-oil hokum.

To paraphrase:

"I disapprove of what you say, and I will defend to the utmost my right not to have the whole experience of this BBS spoiled by your lies."

[AVIATOR757]

411A probably wears cowboy boots and thinks the worlds biggest desert is Arizona. Great BEHIND sight.LOL:}

[~~~^~~~]

Capt Underpants, please check PM

[Fr8t M8te]

He probably morphed from the Guvernor

[jtr]

If you think about it in a logical manner, then it is a binary outcome decision, i.e. it is either a 0 or a 1 (Y or N).

Did I suffer a tailstrike

Y=Do not pressurise, and return

N=Continue

Neither of these lead themselves to calling company, they (Ops Duty Manager) are not going to be able to give you any more info than what you have at hand. This information is what you must make your decision on. Calling company implies that you have some doubt in your mind as to whether a tailstrike occured. If you think it may have happened, even the slightest possibility, then there is only one course of action.


Feel sorry for the individual concerned, but they pay you the $ to make the decisions.

And off topic, haven't you people learned to ignore 411 yet?

[BlueEagle]

Whilst I don't agree with much of what 411A has said in this thread he hasn't attacked any individuals, only CX in general and it's pilots, again, in general. Naturally enough the majority on this forum disagree strongly with 411A and you are free to go ahead and say so, without using abusive language please!
It is very easy to over moderate and that is something we wish to avoid whilst, at the same time, giving everyone a fair go.

When one takes the heat out of the various posts it still remains an interesting debate, nevertheless, it might help to bear in mind the facts as they are known and treat with caution what is, at this stage, just supposition.

regards to all,

BlueEagle - Moderator.

[411A]

Felix Lighter,

JTR has mentioned some very valid points, ie: if there is the slightest doubt that a tailstrike has occured, limit pressurizing the aircraft, and return for landing.
There have been in the past several accidents where the aft pressure bulkhead has been compromised, resulting in rapid pressure loss...JAL 747 being the most severe (yes, I know poor/improper repair...nonetheless) and if it were me, would positively not want to continue the flight to destination, at planned altitudes.

In addition, many aircraft have in the AFM target pitch attitudes expected for various weight/trim conditions. Commanders (and indeed First Officers) should have an intimate knowledge of this data, to KNOW what the target pitch attitude should be for the weight anticipated,, and operate accordingly.
It would also follow that the crew should double check the loadsheet figures, and expect them to be in rough agreement with the planned payload and fuel uplift.
And this double check includes vee speeds as well, as the recent SQ tailstrike demonstrates....and not just rely on the FMC generated figures.

In short, know your aircraft and have a good idea of the planned weights/trim/vee speeds for the planned flight and ask yourself....does the generated loadsheet data seem reasonable.

I can think of no valid reason (other than mechanical failure) that a transport jet would be over-rotated during takeoff.
Even freighters that are badly misloaded generally have the control capability available for pilots to stop over-rotation.

In nearly all instances where tailstrikes have occured, the pilot(s) have stuffed it up.

[126.9]

In nearly all instances where tailstrikes have occured, the pilot(s) have stuffed it up.
Unless of course, they were participating in certification tests and actually doing it on purpose...?


I can't stand it anymore. This person 411A is despicable.
It does appear that at any one time he is trying to p!55 off at least 4 or 5 people; check his message history! :yuk:

[411A]

126.9

Certification flying is an entirely different matter, as i'm sure you know...then again, maybe you don't.:yuk:

[~~~^~~~]

I used to fly freight in a old crapped out Cessna (N210Z) and tailstrikes happend all the time. All we did was having MX painting over it at the next stop.

[Felix Lighter]

All above are possible but the list is significantly longer still.....esp in Airbus.

eg:

In the airbus the inputs from both side-sticks are added by the computer....ie: they are cumulative.

So, consider the option that one pilot is rotating the aircraft and the other accidentally knocks his side-stick aft.
Inputs are added by the computer, resulting in rapid pitch-up.

Pausible and possible......albeit unlikely?

Lets not second guess the inquiry, it will all come out in the wash.

411a - If you read all my posts on this thread you will see that I am uncompromising in my opinion that IF they knew they had had (or even suspected they had had) a TailStrike.........they should have returned to AKL, without question!

However with the evidence at hand so far.....we dont know if any of the above is true (sorry old boy, I just dont believe anything from the mouths of politicians or the press). Until then I'd prefer that we didnt hang the crew first and ask questions later.

There is a process, lets let it sort facts from fiction.

[411A]

There is of course one other avenue of consideration. As the aircraft in question is a FBW type, it would be possible for a software glitch to have compromised the flying pilots' input...now having said this, the design is rather mature, so this is unlikely, but still possible.
The DFDR information is surely available, whether CX releases same is a horse of a different color.

-----

Interesting info ~~~^~~~, but hardly relevant to heavy jet ops discussions.
Afraid you have duff gen, but do keep trying old boy.

----

Felix Lighter

We must have been posting at the same time.
Have never personally liked the Airbus FBW system. I do recall the problems with reduced pilot control authority with full flaps selected, in gusty wind conditions.
Cannot be pleasant for the handling pilot.
Yes indeed, the facts will come out in due time.
Perhaps all can learn from same.

[Schrodingers Cat]

It is also worth considering the chances of a fair and unbiased report from the HK CAD on its biggest customer........what with the filthy pollution problem in Hong Kong, SARS, bird flu, and Jeremy Clarkson saying he would rather eat his own head rather than ever come here again, is there the possibility of government pressure for the 'right' result..............? :suspect:

[Plastique]

Did somebody mention oleo inflation pressure as a potential cause?
Very interesting.

[126.9]

You will (probably) recall that this BBS has previously endured a character of similar reputation to that which you describe above. One can only hope for a similar result... :ok:

[Cpt. Underpants]

OK, I agree - maybe that was too much. Had fun though.

Azure Raptor, thanks for not deleting it.

[BlueEagle]

OK, that's enough!.

411A has made some remarks that you obviously don't like, (but avoided attacking any individual, please note), whilst some of you have thrown barely disguised insults at 411A. There are obviously some very fragile egos out there.
Anymore posts in that vein will be deleted and, if necessary, the thread closed.

Closing this thread would be a pity as there is still some reasoned debate to be had, let us all try and stick to that shall we? I don't propose to enter into a debate on 411A v. CX so any attempt at that will be unsuccessful, (deleted!).

Normally you guys and gals can moderate yourselves pretty well, let's see if we can get back there please!

Thanks.

BlueEagle - Moderator.

[spleener]

All entertaining stuff, but back to the tailstrike/scrape/buffing etc.
The incident will hopefully be appropriately investigated and handled by CX...
I would avoid taking any spin-doctoring of the press as being actual flight ops policy.
However some interesting observations/suppositions have been made:
CREW REST: Possible. AKL flight patterns do not necessarily provide practical adequate rest [yes I know it is LEGAL rest] especially with some other roster combinations
OPERATIONAL FACTORS: Possible. I'll let someone else come up with all the possible factors affecting tailstrike, I'm bound to miss one! Airbus maintain that a mistrimmed takeoff can be adequately controlled.
TRAINING FACTORS: Possible. Although training emphasis is given during CCQ training. Continuation [albeit engine inop] training is covered during recurrent sim sessions - in particular A330 with high flex setting. The different rotation targets and control response has evolved through a combination of operating various types [remember trying to smoothly rotate the A340-200 anyone?] and reduction of A330 V speeds. Suffice to say that the takeoff rotation response variation at TOGA thrust between a light A330 and max AUW A340 300/600 is broad and probably greater than the differences experienced, for example, between L1011 100/500 series. Nomination of AFM Pitch targets would not address the controllability variance.
MANAGEMENT FACTORS: Possible, however if there is no relevent information to be gleaned from operations management, all training emphasis is on making a Command decision, then tell 'em what you are doing/ have done.
HUMAN FACTORS: Possible. The natural get-home-itis has to be tempered.

In this case, everything is pure conjecture, but the thread is interesting.

[christep]

As an interested SLF, I'm surprised this hasn't come up again now that the report has been published...

As I understand it from the SCMP (yes, I know, but it's all I have to go on...) the problem was underinflated oleos causing the plane to sit far too low. This was spotted on walkround but deemed OK by engineering in AKL. The Captain allowed himself to be talked out of believing there had been a tailstrike by a "very senior" Captain on the ground.

It seems from the SCMP report that the maintenance concern is a serious one since apparently on checking 50% of the A340s had a similar problem with the oleos, and this wasn't being picked up in routine maintenance.

And the second lesson was that the Captain in the air (and the cabin crew who reported it) were absolutely correct about the tailstrike, and shouldn't have let himself be talked out of a divert.

Did the SCMP get it more or less right for once?

[404 Titan]

christep

Not really. The oleos were still inflated within the limits stipulated by Airbus but on the low side of those limits. As far as I have been told there was no senior captain on the ground in Auckland or Hong Kong that tried to convince the Captain that a tail strike hadn’t occurred. I believe the captain was in contact with IOC in HK and the duty manager there after contacting Auckland tower and engineering advised the captain that a tail strike probably didn’t occur. As a side note non of the cockpit crew had any idea that a tail strike may have occurred until informed by one of the cabin crew down the back approaching FL185 that she heard a strange noise on takeoff.

As for the merits of continuing the flight, well no one is condoning the decision. The said captain has been counseled and undergone retraining. The company is looking at the errors made by others that led to this happening one hopes and counseling will be imposed.

[HotDog]

Titan, the MLG oleos were grossly under inflated and out side AMM limits. The left oleo pressure (required: 120.5 BARS) was 62 BARS, -49%. The right oleo pressure was 69 BARS, -43%. The AMM tolerance is +/- 15mm, which corresponds to +/- 8 BARS.
The centre line gear was also outside tolerances.

[404 Titan]

Rev,

I stand corrected.:O

[mrfox]

Any place to read this report online?
(w/o buying a subscription to SCMP)
Thanks!

[HotDog]

I don't think you can get it online at the moment as it is the CX internal investigation report which is in house only but sooner or later you'll be able to read the official CAD findings. None of which should be detrimental to operating crew procedures.

[Schrodingers Cat]

And of course all airline internal investigations are scrupulously impartial......... as of course are Civil Aviation Departments with only two customers to justify their existence............:cool:

[HotDog]

Cat, have you read the report? I have and I can tell you that it is totally impartial and of a high technical standard.

[Traffic]

I agree with the Rev.

The report is very comprehensive and well written.

HXI was an accident waiting to happen. The bar graphs on oleo pressures at the bottom of the report covering the 340 and 330 fleet are very enlightening.

No one can convince me that we do not live in a less safe environment without the ginger beers.

Full marks to the F/O for raising the question. Shame on the system for ignoring him and then talking the operating crew out of the their original conclusion and decision.

I am sure that the Captain learned a very valuable lesson. If you carry the can (which you do when it all goes pear shaped), follow your instincts...and I am very pleased his standing in the company was not damaged in this process.

All's well that ends well and I am sure that this incident and the report will improve the safety of the Bus overall.

Toulouse or not Toulouse ...that is still the question

:sad:

[HotDog]

I think the answer is not to lose, but Toulouse.:ok: