We are having this discussion now because things turned out alright, there WAS a tailstrike, but everybody got back OK. It appears that the CREW, who were obviously on the spot, accepted the advice of a company manager many thousands of miles away over the advice of the FCOM, and the evidence of a crew member.
Why was this? What evidence did the manager have that meant he could categorically say that it was SAFE to proceed? Now that he has been proved categorically in error, what re-training is he undergoing? How was his advice and input more valid than the cc who, despite her relative inexperience, sits down the back during every take off and KNOWS what it sounds like? Were the CRM procedures followed? Was the problem solving model introduced? If so why wasn't the state of the oleo pressures brought up? How can procedures be strengthened so this doesn't happen again, both in Company procedures AND CRM training of both flight and cabin crew? i.e. how can we make the operation SAFER?
God forbid, but what would we be discussing now if things had NOT turned out alright? This is NOT scaremongering, the topic was opened to the public by the company the moment the report appeared in the SCMP, this is legitimate questioning of the Company response and procedures to this incident in an open forum. Just thank God we don't work for Emirates (if you've been following the Rumors thread....)
Has this happened before (pressurization after a tailstrike)?
Last edited by BlueEagle; 23rd Jun 2004 at 10:26.