FR 737 in DUB tailscrape

[akerosid]

A Ryanair 738 suffered a tailscrape on departure from DUB, en route to STN yesterday. Aircraft operating FR 296 to STN. Aircraft returned to DUB, return landing described as "hard" by pax. AAIU investigating.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/0321/1173880660432.html
(Unfortunately, this is a subscription site).

[bobusse]

Why to mention it,then?

[Mach Buffet]

Why Mention?

Because they did the right thing.

Unlike some other operators that have flown all the way back to Heathrow, unable to pressurise.

[Whitehatter]

The -800 has a tailskid for that purpose anyway, unless O'Leary had that ripped off with the blinds as well....

shouldn't be a major problem anyway if the skid did its job properly.

[poorwanderingwun]

Amazing how blasé people can be while sitting comfortably at zero altitude with a hot coffee at their elbow....
WhiteHat... I think the words 'shouldn't ' and 'if ' are the important ones to be considered... and where would you prefer to be when you discovered that the tail-skid had not done its job properly... on the ground talking to the engineer or at FL330 ?

Crew did the right.. and only thing... RTB is always a better bet than RIP.

[Whitehatter]

I am not making any kind of judgment about the RTB decision. Merely that the -800 has a tailskid and it should have protected the aircraft from any major damage.

Safety first, foremost, always.

[lostintranslational]

"Merely that the -800 has a tailskid and it should have protected the aircraft from any major damage."

Whitehatter, me thinks you miss the point - and your use of the word 'should' is evidence of this. Many aircraft have safety features that should prevent catastrophic consequences, but the final link in the chain is not being blindly reliant on these. Well done to the crew for doing the 'safe' thing by recognising the potential consequences. Perhaps the key here is in the learning of why it happened and how one can prevent it happening to me i.e. was the rotation rate too fast for a reason?

I have airbags in my car - but I do not drive in a manner that I am reliant on them. Point made, totally agree with poorwanderingwun - fly safe!:ugh: :mad:

[Consol]

Actually the point of having a tailskid on the longer 737s is to protect the elevator jack screw not to relieve you of worry about a tail scrape. It also contains a cartridge which allows the amount of contact to be measured. A serious issue and quite right to RTB.

[lgw_warrior]

"The -800 has a tailskid for that purpose anyway"

Indeed,the tailskid is fitted to protect the a/c during takeoff(not landing).
it is fitted with a collapsable cartridge in order to show how much(only visible on the ground)

However,the boeing 737-800 QRH states-

condition:Airplane tail has contacted the ground during takeoff.

CAUTION:do not pressurise airplane due to possible structural damage.

PRESSURIZATION MODE SELECTOR............MAN
OUTFLOW VALVE switch..........................OPEN

PLAN TO LAND AT NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT

so,if it happened or not,they did the right thing.so subject closed.:ugh:

[Whitehatter]

are we having an attack of inability to comprehend here?

I posted that the -800 has a tailskid. I didn't suggest it should be used as a tailwheel, just that it would have helped protect the aircraft from a much more serious incident if indeed it did happen.

IMHO any tailstrike incident should be treated as an immediate RTB with the trucks rolling. The only parts of an aircraft that should contact the ground should be circular and made of rubber, skid or no skid.

[Bearcat]

snatch rotation? incorrect loadsheet? wrong v speeds? any of these can lead to a tail scrape plus I'm sure a few more.

[ped90]

Scenic.

On the date in question (Mon 19th) FR296 left Dublin on time and then returned back reporting a technical problem. The same aircraft (EI-DHA) then left 3.5 hours later and arrived at STN around 8.15pm and operated the delayed FR295 back to Dublin.

No confirmation that it was a tailstrike but something, obviously, was up.