View Full Version : DC-8 Tailstrike

27th Apr 2001, 11:47
This happened a while ago.
A Cargo Lion DC-8 made a tailstrike during takeoffroll at Keflavik airport, Iceland.

Reportedly the captain controlled the loading of the plane. During taxi to RWY 11 the plane didn´t steer well but there was slush on the taxiways, so they had that to blame. During the takeoff the pilot was at the controlles. He had trouble keeping the nose on the ground and finally the nose went up and the tail struck the RWY with the stickshaker and various bells going of. The captain aborted the takeoff with full thrust reverse slamming the the nosewheel down. The plane then taxied back to the gate. It appears the plane was to rearwardly loaded. So they had to shift weight more forward.

Nothing to see here, just making use of the internet!

27th Apr 2001, 13:40
No Loadmaster? Just goes to show what happens when amateurs get involved loading freighters.

rgds Rat

Dark Skies
27th Apr 2001, 13:41
As Cargo Lion always carried Loadmasters, I cannot see how that would have happen.

Though if you could give some more details like the date etc, maybe it would give the parties involved (if any!) the chance to reply.

'Thats not Flying! Thats just falling with style'

27th Apr 2001, 14:42
Hi Dark Skies
Am waiting for the wings to be sent over to me. Will be in the post as soon as I get them.

rgds Rat

27th Apr 2001, 15:41

Actually, the Captain didn't 'control' the loading.Asuming you mean the load sheet.No LoadMaster onboard at the time.Also the tail didn't strike, but the rear outflow valve did.No damage done.Also seriously doubt the ringing bells, this means a fire warning.

Flew for about 2 years on a -55 with no Loadmaster.I did it myself.So shows that with the right people Loadies aren't needed.I think calling us amateurs is a bit unfair.And for your info, no i wasn't on the above mentioned flt.

[This message has been edited by wheelchock (edited 27 April 2001).]

28th Apr 2001, 06:19
Check Emery Worldwide DC-8 crash of Feb. 16, 2000. Same thing, only no reject and three dead crewmembers.

28th Apr 2001, 06:26
Well what would you call a tail strike then?If you hit the outflow valve that is definitely classified as a tailstrike. And on a 62 of all aircraft.Lucky they did not crash.Sounds like another ridiculous incident where the captain did serious damage to #1 engine on landing and then claimed the landing was under control and expressed surprise at the damage.

28th Apr 2001, 10:41
I have the above info. from the Commercial Pilot Association of Iceland newsletter. Where there where two Icelandair pilots deadheading whith the Cargo Lion Plane to Lion. Needless to say after the tailstrike the Icelandair pilots called it the quits and went home. wheelchock yes this time there was no loadmaster and the captain controlled the loading. And for the record "I did not call them amateurs". Somebody else did. The newsletter doesn´t state the date but I could defenetly find out if you guys want.

Nothing to see here, just making use of the internet!

28th Apr 2001, 11:24
Sorry to interrupt here, but there's something I don't understand...

What's the point of revealing this info from the Iceland-something-newsletter ?

There's been no official investigation I believe. No recommendation. Nothing. Almost useless.

At least you waited until CargoLion disappeared before putting the rumour on PPRuNe.

before landing check list
28th Apr 2001, 11:34
Well I cannot comment on the 55 but the 61/63which both have the longer fusalages and have the skid, the 62 has none, but that does not matter. My question is what ever happend to the the F/E? In the absence of the load master it is normally his job no? And the first clue to a aft cargo loading/shift besides the possiblity of having a nose up attitude on the ground is the electrical/mechanical ground shift when the nose strut extends. The crew did a good job keeping it on the runway and stopping it though.

Here's to cheating, stealing, fighting, and drinking.
If you cheat, may you cheat death.
If you steal, may you steal a woman's heart.
If you fight, may you fight for a brother.
And if you drink, may you drink with me.

28th Apr 2001, 15:18
Yes PaleBird, I also know some guy who wouldn't fly the airplane, unless the company called MDC, and insured him there's nothing wrong with the airplane.Though that wasn't enough, he wanted it in writing.Aren't we all perfect?

Any more comments?

28th Apr 2001, 16:24
Alright, I have had enough of you PALEBIRD! Are you the one commonly called N1, or WB, or the one gloved super dupper airline pilot that needs a rolex to fly straight?
Get a life :rolleyes:
That's right folks, some pilots need gloves to steer the aircraft, and it must be a white glove at that!!

I have always said that you make your bed and sleep on it. Having been "expelled" from the company, you should keep your mouth shut and keep a low profile.
Consider your self lucky that the FAA never ....... (especially when an airline in Florida asked for references)
You were well taken care of in the company during your stay, why can't you be a man and be professional and stop insulting your "fellow" pilots? After all, you were part of the group and your comments reflect your true personality..... :mad:

28th Apr 2001, 19:31
Well look. Somebody loaded that aircraft incorrectly. We've established that there was no Loadmaster to ensure that it was done properly. Stands to reason that the loadsheet will also have been wrong cg-wise. So someone was fiddling with something that they shouldn't have been fiddling with.
There is one other possibility though: the given weights might have been wrong.

rgds Rat

28th Apr 2001, 21:29
Thanks for clearing up this subject,Cargorat.I still don't understand what the fuss is all about, since this company doesn't excist no more.Have to agree with 'some'of the things that Alapt brought up.

My question for PaleBird is: when are you going to give up on this CargoLion syndrome, that you're suffering from?

Top Loadie
28th Apr 2001, 21:44
You could be right Rat. There are a number of possible scenarios.
The weights given may have been incorrect, therefore whoever it was "up-front" who completed the loadsheet would have had a perfectly acceptable trim when in fact the trim could be grossly out of limits.
There may have been an error in the recording of figures when they were entered on the Loadsheet.
The freight may even have been loaded in the wrong order by the load teams.
By carrying a Loadmaster there is someone who specifically deals with the loading which can be a complicated procedure (especially on older aircraft!). The guys "up-front" have plenty to do already without having to supervise the complete onload.
All the more reason to carry a Loadmaster to keep an eye on the ramp rats who, at times, have a very slack attitude to matters of aircraft safety. The aircraft isn't going to fall out from underneath them!
Would be interesting to know how much training the crew got on loading procedures and who it was down to, in the absence of the Loadmaster, to complete the trim. Did everyone have a go and the best trim was used?

29th Apr 2001, 01:51
Welcome Top Loadie. Some valid points.

rgds Rat

29th Apr 2001, 03:40
No there has been no official investigation since it happened only recently. The info. in newsletter was taken from the Icelandair pilots. Both first hand witnesses. Whats the point of revealing this info? Whats the point of this website? ;)

Nothing to see here, just making use of the internet!

Ignition Override
29th Apr 2001, 09:23
Erased due to lack of any response.

[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 29 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 29 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Ignition Override (edited 01 May 2001).]

freightdoggy dog
29th Apr 2001, 17:08
Top Loadie:Valid Points you have earnt your "spurs"?
It seems some companies value their crews including such obscure beings called F/Es and Loadies, some don't.
Just strange that Cargolion who had Loadies did not have one on this flight.Luckily the crew walked away this time.Remember the weakest link is the underpaid, mistreated grunt, AKA the RampRat.

29th Apr 2001, 19:36
if you guys have nothing better to do than speculate on things you know nothing about, then go do it somewhere else

30th Apr 2001, 13:41
Get out of the wrong side of bed did we gurnzee?
Sounds like you were there, so why not spill the beans.

rgds Rat

30th Apr 2001, 21:13
Iwasnt there but Ive seen too often how things can get out of control when the rumour mill starts to grind. Sometimes its fun but if you are on the receiving end it can have disastrous effects. Although this is a 'rumour' section I just think cut the guys some slack

p.s. Im not pointing the finger at anyone specific

Top Loadie
1st May 2001, 05:04
I am sure that no Aircrew would knowingly put the safety of other crew or the aircraft at risk just to "make the schedule". Just making the point of where mistakes can and do occur.
Everyone knows how the rumor mill works and everyone knows where to find official incident reports for hard facts.
Good point gurnzee, rumors can get out of proportion....
The guys did well to minimize the effects of a potentially disasterous situation.

1st May 2001, 15:45
I have flown cargo under contract in a clapped out 727-100 with -7 engines and no loadmaster.

This company I was contracted to was an Alaska operator who´s primary a/c was the DC-6. We were hired to provide guidance and training to the 6 crews transitioning to the jet.

Anyway, I was appalled at the attitudes I saw in this company. Maybe they do do it differently in Alaska, but I routinely saw overloading and out of trim situations occuring as a matter of expediency. For instance if 2 pallets were to be off loaded at the first stop, they were put in the door, regardless of CG considerations. The ground crews sometimes (although I can´t prove "intentional") mislabeled the weights to make the paperwork right, and also expedite loading.

We lasted the contract without any major mishaps, but the 727´s are now for sale and these folks are sticking to Alaska.

My point is, the crew can direct the loading, but they have to know what they´re doing, and they have to be given the correct information to work with from the start.

1st May 2001, 16:45
D3G. Yes.
A Loadmaster has got a better "feel" & can stand there and say "bull****" - done it myself. If Top Loadie is still looking, no doubt own stories to tell!

rgds Rat

Top Loadie
2nd May 2001, 00:05
You're right there, Rat. Each aircraft has its quirks and will subtly "tell you" if something is wrong. As the Loadmaster is there for each onload/offload you become more aware of these "clues"
I've a few stories where I have taken one look at a load and said "Bull***t"

While we are on the subject, good program on Discovery Wings last night, Sky Truckers, about Cargo Lion. The Loadmaster had done 58hours on duty and the crew came back from the hotel, rested, fed and watered with a cheese sandwich for him. I suppose its the thought that counts!

2nd May 2001, 00:14
Don't get Discovery Wings. 58hrs banned in my company - what's the point; your a vegetable with those kind of hours (done 46 europe/india/HKG/india/europe non-operating).

rgds Rat

2nd May 2001, 02:08
So is this post here our 'Cargo Forum'.Looks like......

5th May 2001, 04:10
Let's hijack the "Europe" forum. Otherwise empty. What say folks? All -F subjects into "Europe". Seems we're not important enough to have own own forum. (Months of total lack of interest to our repeated begings on pprune/emails to moderators). Ask for a Joe Bloggs private forum, & you'll get one! BUT pax only.

rgds Rat

5th May 2001, 04:59
Europe forum it is!