Emailed to me..Wondered about authenticity!

[1279shp]

A pilot and his first officer have been grounded after the tail of a plane carrying 145 passengers hit the runway at Auckland International Airport on takeoff.


The "tail strike" happened as the Cathay Pacific Airbus A340-300 left the ground too steeply when it took off from the airport last week on its way to Hong Kong. The Civil Aviation Authority is investigating.

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

According to the airline, the captain checked with air traffic controllers in Auckland who said they had not seen the plane touch the runway. He then radioed ahead to Hong Kong to seek guidance on whether to continue with 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 incident is the second of its type within 10 months at Auckland Airport. A Singapore Airlines Boeing 747 with 369 passengers on board made an emergency landing after a tail-strike in March.

Some pilots expressed surprise yesterday that the Cathay plane did not return immediately to the airpor . "With something as serious as a tail strike, you would normally go straight back to the airport. It is standard procedure," one said.

Cathay Pacific spokeswoman Lisa Wong said: "During the whole takeoff and landing process, the aircraft was safe and there was no safety issue involved."

The captain and the first pilot have been removed from flying duties while the investigation into the incident is carried out.

An investigation into the earlier Singapore Airlines incident found the pilot and the first officer were both to blame. The pilot tried to take off at too slow a speed and the first officer entered an aircraft weight figure 100 tonnes lighter than it should have been.

Singapore Airlines demoted the captain.

Not the one mentioned in story above!

Click Here (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/219906/M/)

[troppo]

try the nzherald online mate....

Pilots suspended after tail strike at Auckland (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3546044&thesection=news&thesubsection=general)

:8

[vortsa]

It has to be the runway at fault it couldn't be the pilots fault?? not twice in such a short time.

[swh]

I thought airbus had upgraded the flight control law software to prevent over rotation ? was something unservicable on the 330 which is normally an input to the control law that prevents over rotation ?

It happens when people rotate too early, or wind gust gives you a sudden change in IAS

[Austin Holed]

Only the A340-500 & 600 have the control law modification. In the A340-300, you can leave skid marks a mile long down the runway.

(Which reminds me of a dodgy curry I had in Bangkok a few weeks ago)

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Some pilots expressed surprise yesterday that the Cathay plane did not return immediately to the airpor . "With something as serious as a tail strike, you would normally go straight back to the airport. It is standard procedure," one said

Here is another one expressing surprise..... In a Boeing it is in the checklist, Land at nearest suitable.

Do Airbus do it (again) differently? How did Cathay know it was only minor damage before the aircraft landed?

[vortsa]

Maybe they confirmed the tail was still there by trying to run the APU, because the Singapore tail strike only left half an APU.

Airbus have proved they can fly with half a wing so it should be obvious that they can fly with half a tail.

[Kaptin M]

"it should be obvious that they can fly with half a tail.".....and a ruptured rear pressure bulkhead!

Chickens coming home to roost.
The cheap pilots that the airlines wanted (by paying low salaries, and short cutting training) are starting to make their presence felt, and will do moreso as time goes on.
I don`t mean this as an indictment of the pilots concerned, but of the system that has been introduced - AGAINST the general negative consensus of pilots - to cut costs without due regard for Safety.

Unfortunately, as this latest case, it is the pilots who will suffer, rather than the bean counters responsible for the degraded system they introduced.

"You want cheap - you`ll get cheap."

[lambsie]

It wasn't the pilot's fault, it wasn't the plane's fault, it was the asphalt! :)

[Capt Claret]

The World Renowned NT News :yuk: had the following little snippet, published yesterday, 28 Jan 2004.Pilots grounded over take-off

HONG KONG: Two Cathay Pacific pilots have been suspended while authorities investigate an incident in which a jet's tail scraped a New Zealand runway on takeoff last week.

Cathay Pacific Airways said Flight CX108 from Auckland to Hong Kong suffered "some scratches" on its tail end during takeoff in Auckland on January 20.

[1279shp]

I was told once by a grumpy instructor,

"If anything other than the round and rubbery things touch the deck when your taking off :ouch:, get what's left of it back on the deck as soon as you, or the big guy, can! :eek:

[troppo]

its gotta be the runway...

i saw richie mccaw on 3sport have a tailstrike in the airbus sim:p

[TIMMEEEE]

It makes me laugh how all of the experts jump out of the woodwork to put in their two-pence worth without knowing all the facts - "facts" from a newspaper in this case.

Firstly the PIC called up Auckland tower and sought out their opinion as to whether there actually was a tailscrape.
Both a visual observation as well as the safety officer being dispatched to inspect the runway would have given them some input to work with.
Nothing was noted by ATC or the Safety Officer.

Secondly the pilots called up CX engineering via the Sat Phone to enquire as to their opinion/options/recommendations.
CX monitor such details from the ACARS departure transmission and I believe tail-clearance is one of the parameters.

If the controllers had no evidence and CX recommended proceeding then why throw these pilots to the wolves so to speak without knowing all the relevant facts guys?

If a very mild tail scrape did occur (as I've witnessed on walk arounds in the past years from previous drivers) then I believe the standing down of the pilots would allow for an investigation as to why/how it occurred and retraining of the crew if deemed necessary.

The controllers couldnt confirm a scrape and CX engineering gave them the go-ahead.
It's an individuals call as to whether a return is sanctioned without hard proof but in my opinion these pilots proceeded on company recommendations after having being told by ATC that no indications of a tail scrape were evident.


Kaptin M , I believe in this case calling the pilot "cheap" I think in this case is not warranted, but I do agree that certain airlines that deliberately employ "cheap" pilots eventually get what they pay for.
Time will be the judge.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

No-one is throwing these guys to the wolves, just wondering why they continued.

I have only flown Boeings. The checklist is clear on tailstrikes. Even if it was just a suspected strike reported by the cabin crew, then airmanship (in a Boeing at least ) dictates that you do not pressurise the aeroplane and land at nearest suitable.

Is Airbus different?

How could CX engineering be so sure there was no problem?Remembering that ACARS monitored tail clearance can also be in error. We have it on the RR powered QF 767's and it sometimes reports a negative value for clearance when no tail strike actually occurred.

I just find this surprising considering the conservative and clear cut procedure on a Boeing.

[Capt Claret]

Perhaps Airbus are built stronger than Boeing! :p

tin hat on ...... and
runnnnnnn

[Anti Skid On]

Troppo

McCaw in an Airbus sime - where the hell did you see that. Is he following in the footsteps of those pommy players (brothers) who were in the RAF but now fly &£&'s for Easyjet (can't remember their names, but their mum was Malaysian)

[troppo]

it was on 3sport on sunday night
some yarn about him taking on the AB's captaincy and relating it to him training as a pilot

[splatgothebugs]

I thought it was common practice to yank bank on the controls (ooppps I mean men side stick) as much as possible on take off and get that great rocket fealing. :p

Sorry but I'm in agreence with that other fella/girl (person) maybe we should all just wait until the report comes out.

Innocent until proven gulity. :ok:

splat