Another tail strike at NZAA !!

[DontPanic_DontPanic]

:eek: 10 months ago a SIA B744 had a major tailstrike on T/O from Auckland ( there is a thread regarding the incident and the consequences for the FD crew), now it has happened again ( though with a much " nicer" outcome) to a CX A343.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3546044&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

[jeremy]

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

[320DRIVER]

Airbus SOPs (3.3.12 TAKEOFF) for the SA family, i.e. A318/319/320/321 has a caution note as follows:


CAUTION

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


Is it the same for the widebodies?

[jeremy]

I mean't to put this comment after posting the full text of the link but hit the wrong key!

I wanted to say that as a recently retired CX captain, I cannot believe that the crew continued to HKG - regardless of any input from a management pilot

I didn't fly the Airbus but the 744 QRH action for Tailstrike says ' Do not pressurise the aircraft due to possible structural damage'.

Any Airbus drivers care to enlighten me on what the 'bus QRH says?

[NigelOnDraft]

I think some of the above posters are (unintentionally) missing the point.

It is my guess (and no more) that when the decision was made to continue to HKG, neither the Flt Crew, the Mgmt Pilot or ATC felt the aircraft had suffered a tailstrike.

The Airbus QRH (I have flown both A430 and now A320/319) are as most types - do not pressurise, land etc.

It was only on landing in HKG that, indeed, the above judgement was seen incorrect, due to exceptionally minor damage to the aircraft.

Areas I would be interested in would be:
1. Did ATC actually inspect the runway?
2. Did the Flt Crew have any print outs in the Flt Deck they received, or could access, detailing the rotation and tail clearance (we have such on a few BA types)

If every time we got a report of a strange noise / smell we assumed the worst, a lot of flights would be aborted unnecessarily. It seems to me the situation was evaluated, and in the absence of further information (and they actively sought further information) a reasonable decision was taken with the agreement of Mgmt. In light of the actual tailscrape later discovered, I am sure lessons will be learned.

Virgin had 2 A340 tailscrapes in the early days, Turkish one, Airbus one with the A330 I think... 1+F was a factor in some...

NoD

[Basil]

On the face of the postings here and without pre-judging the enquiry, they may not have been at all certain that a tailstrike (brush ;) ) had taken place.
Tricky one - good command decision stuff.

Aah, written whilst NoD was posting much the same sentiments.

[jeremy]

I may be missing something here but doesn't the article say 'The newspaper said cabin crew and passengers felt the plane shudder as the bottom of the tail scraped along the runway.'?

On that basis, how can the crew [& management] have allowed the flight to pressurise and continue to HKG?

[NigelOnDraft]

'The newspaper said Ah of course, they are 100% right....

Bear in mind the article was written after the aircraft landed. A timeline would be:

1. cabin crew and passengers felt the plane shudder and alerted the crew.... A discussion took place between the Flt Crew, Cabin Crew, ATC and CX Mgmt. Nobody knew there had been a tailstrike - but suspected there might have been. They actively sought additional info, and the conclusion was there had not been (I suspect). I cannot believe the flight would have continued if it was judged a significant likliehood an actual tailstrike had occurred. In practice, ATC usually do notice.. so a negative report from them was likely quite influential.

2. bottom of the tail scraped along the runway Only after landing in HKG, and examining the aircraft damage which was 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 was the original judgement found erroneous.

Let's leave it to the CX internal enquiry, the results of which will probably not be published (no need to). I would think it will concentrate on the "post incident discussions and analysis" as much as the tailstrike itself...

I know no more than you, but find it amazing you can judge all involved to be in error, given the facts they likely knew at the time...

[SMOC]

Just checked, there is nothing in the CX Airbus 330, 340, 346, QRHs regarding tailscrapes ?

[Rosbif]

I thought there was some sort of 'envelope protection' doodad on FBW aircraft to prevent the machine from rotating to the point where it would scrape the tail. Isn't that supposed to be one of the advantages of FBW ?

[NigelOnDraft]

I thought there was some sort of 'envelope protection' doodad on FBW aircraft to prevent the machine from rotating to the point where it would scrape the tail. Isn't that supposed to be one of the advantages of FBW ?No.. it isn't in the A343/A32x series...

Was a rumour that something was incorporated in the A346, but a pilot on it says no. Maybe 346 operators might like to comment...

It would be a dodgy piece of software - imagine if the aircraft got a false "WoW" indication in flight, and prevented you raising the nose above 10nu. Bit embarrassing as you flew into the nearest hillside...

Tailscrapes are hassle, and expensive, but not really hazardous (well the SQ747 was, but that was an unusually bad one) - risk balance blah blah...

NoD

[slamer]

__________________________

Tailscrapes are hassle, and expensive, but not really hazardous (well the SQ747 was, but that was an unusually bad one) - risk balance blah blah
___________________________

Maybe so!..........Problem is these same Aircraft have a habit of falling out of the sky about 10-15 years latter!

[Shore Guy]

The Boeing 777-300ER is the only aircraft I am aware of with a “TSP system” (Tail Strike Protection System).

http://boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031209g.html

And from another Boeing document…….

“Takeoff tests with the Tail Strike Protection (TSP) system were also finalized. There were no airplane aft body contacts with the runway, despite aggressive testing. As mentioned in earlier notes, during the 777-300 flight-test program, there were 13 aft body-runway contacts. TSP operates through the airplane’s fly-by-wire flight controls and both FAA and JAA pilots have noted that its operation is imperceptible during normal takeoffs. TSP performed better than expected and 777-300ER takeoff speeds are 1 to 4 kts. lower than predicted. When operating from a sea level airport, using TSP improves 777-300ER takeoff distance by 600 ft.”

[Rosbif]

I may be wrong, but I think I heard that the new super long Dash 8's have this sort of thing, and they are not even FBW (not even close !! )

[Splat]

Must admit, that with all the automation in the Airbus cockpit, I'm always surprised that does not include some sort of tailscrape protection, specialy on some of the more vulnerable types like A321.

Splat

[NigelOnDraft]

Splat....

Take a look thru' the A321 tailscrape history. Almost all (if not all?) are landing - not takeoff.... and I'm not sure anyone advocates a "tailscrape" protection system operating at any time other than takeoff!

NoD

[Anti Skid On]

AKL sure is a fun place , what with Korean departing in a B744 with selecting flaps, SIA departing with the wrng weights in the FMC and the ex A340 captain not recognising the anomoly and now CX joining the fun.

Anyone know if their crews fly all the derivatives of the A340, cause they all come into NZAA? What was the weather at the time. Been hot and sticky here (but certainly not more than 15c above the standard 15c) and of course NZAA is hardly high!

[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/occ...etail.cfm?ID=79

I have also posted this reply on the Fragrant Harbour CX Tail strike thread.