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...........
Last edited by Felix Lighter; 30th Jan 2004 at 10:34.