EK407 Tailstrike @ ML

[strobes_on]

Loose liver - lets have your in depth analysis then.

Mr. Ed - Some significant thread drift with your "off beat" comments.

To me, a likely scenario with this event is:

1. The crew at some stage may have extracted laptop speeds and FLEX using ZFW as TOW.
2. The FMGC may well have contained the correct weight data (from the flight plan).
3. The PERF T/O page had the incorrect V speeds from the laptop.
4. The crew rotated at the incorrect (low) Vr to a normal pitch attiude.
5. The aircraft flap configuration and speed was inappropriate for flight.
6. When the aircraft wouldn't become airborne, the pitch attitude was increased and the aircraft had a severe tail stirke with possible multiple contacts.
7. The higher FLEX temperature combined with tailstrike drag contributed to the long ground roll.
8. TOGA thrust was probably selected at some stage.

The crew did a remarkable job in a very dynamic situation. After all, they were expecting the aircraft to fly off after rotating at the Vr speed in the PERF T/O page. They were confronted with a situation about which they had no experience. What would we all do ? I wouldn't like to be there.

There probably is an error component on the part of the crew with respect to cross checking (no idea what the EK checking procedure REALLY is) . But I bet there are much greater systemic issues for which management and the company must take responsibility.

I hope the Australian ATSB is able to overcome Dubai Inc. in arriving at a final report that tackles the difficult and overriding issues of corporate errors and cover ups.

As a final comment, it's probably now worth including SIM sessions that look at this type of event, and also maybe having an idea of what the V speeds should roughly be at heavy weights.

Discussion about V1 > Vr has no place here.