China Airlines 744F tail strike

[domani]

China Airlines B744 at Anchorage on Mar 4th 2010, severe tail strike on takeoff, airplane continues across Pacific

A China Airlines Boeing 747-400 freighter, registration B-18723 performing freight flight CI-11 from Anchorage,AK (USA) to Taipei (Taiwan) with 3 crew, struck its tail onto the departure runway in Anchorage at about 03:39L (12:39Z), but continued to Taipei, where the airplane landed safely.

The NTSB reported on Mar 23rd 2010, that the airplane received substantial damage in the tail strike and classified the occurrence an accident. Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council is investigating, the NTSB have assigned an accredited representative.

[Callsign Kilo]

China Airlines...747s....tailstrikes. I hope this one is repaired in accordance to the structural repair manual. Was it not a poor repair to a tailstrike that caused a structural brake up to one of their 747s in 2002? - some 12 years after the initial incident?

I agree though, there are serious implications to continuing after a tailstrike has been discovered/reported. You have to ask the question why?

[Old Fella]

Don't know about a China Airlines aircraft structural failure after improper rear pressure bulkhead repair following a tailscrape, however a Japan Airlines B747 (12Aug1985) did with loss of all hydraulics following destruction of part of the vertical stab. All aboard but 4 pax perished. China Airlines are based in Taiwan and have had their share of incidents. The same year one of their B747SP's suffered major structural damage after stalling at FL410 and descended out of control to below 10,000 before conrol was regained. Significant portions of the horizontal stabilizer (left and right) were shed and one of the body gear was forced open as well as both wings being bent 2" up. This all happened due to trying to maintain FL410 on three engines.

[herkman]

Total lack of airmanship, total lack of a professional attitude.

They were lucky and proberly influenced by how much cheaper the aircraft will be to repair in China.

If one keeps putting ones head in the mouth of the tiger, one cannot be surprised when it get chomped off.

Regards

Col

[DJ77]

Why first replies on a new thread must systematically be an indictment ?

Is the 747-400F equiped with a tail strike sensor ? (older 747 I knew weren't). Is it not possible that the crew was unaware of the strike ?

[TWN PPL]

Don't know about a China Airlines aircraft structural failure after improper rear pressure bulkhead repair following a tailscrape

China Airlines Flight 611 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611)

YouTube - Air Crash Investigation Shattered In Seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpN1iWefJxs)

[Pontius]

DJ77,

From what I've heard, the crew were VERY aware of the incident, since ATC witnessed it and let them know in no uncertain terms.

This, from two mates of mine who fly for China Airlines but just can't wait to escape, once their contracts are up.

[marchino61]

They were lucky and proberly influenced by how much cheaper the aircraft will be to repair in China.Actually, China Airlines is a Taiwanese airline, known for having one of the worst safety records in Asia (though it has improved greatly in the last decade).

[DJ77]

Pontius:

the crew were VERY aware of the incident


Thanks for clalrifying this point. It was not so obvious before your post.

In such a large plane, especially a cargo plane, surprisingly severe problems can develop in the rear and remain unnoticed in the FD, unless you have some intel coming in.

[Old Fella]

DJ77. Thanks for the links re the China Airlines aircraft breaking up. It seems it was as a result of an incorrect repair, just as was the Japan Airlines B747. Apologies DJ77, it was TWN PPL who gave the links. Old age is a worry.

[DJ77]

Old Fella:

DJ77. Thanks for the links re the China Airlines aircraft breaking up.


Was not me.
However I agree with your remarks. Engineers usually become very nervous and suspicious if they discover a scratch on the rear pressure bulkhead.

[sunbird123]

Some things never change,what an outfit.:mad:

[er340790]

The same year one of their B747SP's suffered major structural damage after stalling at FL410 and descended out of control to below 10,000 before conrol was regained. Significant portions of the horizontal stabilizer (left and right) were shed and one of the body gear was forced open as well as both wings being bent 2" up. This all happened due to trying to maintain FL410 on three engines.

Recall speaking to the 747SP crew at CYQT in 2005 when its private owners jumped across the border to avoid US grounding / seizure. Apparently it went supersonic in its dive with China Airlines. :eek: Despite repairs the a/c 'never flew straight again'.

In its last guise it was labelled 'Global Peace Ambassador' for some US religious sect. Last I heard, it was flown (VFR!) from Canada to Mexico for more repairs.

Anyone know if it is still out there???

[GlueBall]

Pontius just can't wait to escape, once their contracts are up

Are you implying that contractors are virtual prisoners who can't break their contract or otherwise just walk off the job? I doubt that any airline anywhere would be ripping off your shirt to drag you into the cockpit to make you fly.

[cpt777]

I think China Airlines may have penalty for breaking a contract signed? I was told it could be a bank bond or something to that effect.
Back to the topic, am truly wondering the present work atmosphere in CAL has any implication on this tailstrike incident. Many blokes ( local or foreign ) are apparently seeking alternative employment. If they don't watch this, something more seriously may just be round the corner.

[etops777]

In an interview, the 3 pilots never realized that they had a tail strike, therefore the flight was continued to Taipei.

Mistakes can happened to anyone of "US" and we all just do our job as methodically as possibe and keeping in line with SOP. But mistakes do happen! Looked at EK 340-500 in MEL last year..

If any pilots that felt their life are threaten, shouldnt you just walk away from the job rather than put your life in it for the duratio of the contract??

[Callsign Kilo]

An Interview reveals the crew didn't realise they had a tail strike yet conflicting reports reveal that Anchorage ATC witnessed the event and reported it to the crew. Considering it may have been a fully laden freighter, then give benefit of the doubt to the crew. No pax or cc to witness any unusual noises or sensations on rotation. Cargo can't report anything unusual! However if they were informed by ATC then they should all be handed the Taiwanese equivalent of the P45! There is no excuse for that kind of sh1t....cargo aircraft or not!

[stilton]

With the very real possibility that crews can fail to realise they have had a tailstrike it does seem to be time that all Jet transport Aircraft be fiited with a Tailstrike sensor.


As on other types this sensor should be designed to detect a minor 'touch' or a serious strike with appropriate warnings for each.


This could allow the crew to make an educated decision to continue or make an immediate return.

[Heracles]

FWIW,,,,, CI-011 would be a PAX!!!!! flight. CI 011 and 012 are the TPE-ANC-JFK and back route. CI cargo flights are 4 digit flight numbers all begining in 5. ex CI-5XXX,,Dynasty 5384.
Yet a little research shows B-18723 to be a 744F,, interesting.
--heracles

[leewan]

Is the 747-400F equiped with a tail strike sensor ? (older 747 I knew weren't). Is it not possible that the crew was unaware of the strike ?

Nope, the 744s are not fitted wif a tail strike sensor. The 773s, 737 and 763s have tail strike sensors. Not sure about 748 though. Just wondering, is it possible to "feel" a tail strike from the cockpit ?

[Nightfire]

Are you implying that contractors are virtual prisoners who can't break their contract or otherwise just walk off the job? I doubt that any airline anywhere would be ripping off your shirt to drag you into the cockpit to make you fly.

At Dynasty's competitor, EVA, certainly. They have a very high training bond. You can make a runner of course, but then you won't have any papers.
So unless you're lucky enough to find another job somewhere where they don't require a letter from your previous employer, you can only put up with all the sh1t and wait for EVA to let you go. China Airlines will probably be similar.

[lowvaeater]

Just to clearify a few things, the crew didn't know there was a tail strike, however, due to late lift off, the crew suspected the gear might have damaged some runway lighting or equipment, hence asked ANC to check the runway. ANC replied that no damage nor debris were found.

The feeling of a tail strike depends on the magnitude of which, a lighter one can not be felt, this one felt exactly the same as a landing (thus crew suspected a second wheel contact), the damage so far is only a few panel replacement. Not sure what it felt like on SQ flight in AKL 2003.

By the way, does anyone know what happened to the crew on SQ and CX flights that had tail strike in AKL?

[Kal Niranjan]

sunbird wrote :
Some things never change,what an outfit.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif


Well, we all can say the same for Fedex.........accident in Subic, Narita, US and stalling in the holding pattern! Don't try make it seem that it only happen in Asian carriers.:=

[Guava Tree]

China Airlines Pilots know no fear except one and that one is the fear of being invited to Disciplinary Review Board where there is always tea but no biscuits.
Every flight is a "mission" and most important is to complete the mission.

[Old Fella]

The SQ tailscrape in AKL was very similar to the A340 in Tullamarine. In both instances the TOW was entered incorrectly, 100 tonnes incorrectly. The SQ dragged its empenage for 500 metres and got airborne just above the stall. Cx was not anywhere near as disasterous.

[Guava Tree]

I would further explain the remarks by Old Fella as I see it:
The significance of incorrect entry of take off weight is that there will be too much thrust reduction for the entire take off. This will result in the far runway fence appearing to get nearer faster than it will appear possible to rise above it, resulting in dramatic action by the sensible pilot at the last moment to avoid crashing through ground obstacles at the far end of the runway.

[sunbird123]

Kal,
Comparing China with Fedex is false.
Fedex has 672 aircraft China 62, of which china wrote of nearly 10% of their fleet, 2 A300s,3 b737s,3 B747s, 1 MD11.:\

[Old Fella]

Guava Tree, the A340 Crew at least increased thrust when they realised all was not well, unlike the SQ crew whom, as I understand it, did not. I seem to recall that the CX crew over-rotated rather than the cause being an incorrect data entry.

[Slats One]

In most of the cases being discussed here, the crew elected to return due suspicion of damage. However, does anyone recall the China Southern A340 that staggered off a certain LHR runway with a tailstrike about five years ago? The crew were informed of suspected tail strike by ATC (runway lights damaged) and yet elected to pressuriase the hull and continue on an 11 hour sector to home base.

A creeping structural failure could have led to airframe failure at any stage- and Nevil Shute and Ernie Gann would have been proven correct all over again...

Surely, if there is any suspicion of very late rotation with possible tail strike, the aircraft should be de-weighted in the hold and then landed at the nearest runway - possibly the departure point.

So the multi million dollar (repair) question in this case, is, did the crew have any knowledge of the event or an event that might suggest such?

If they did, why did they not make a fuel dump and precautionary landing, and if they did not, are they not lucky it did not pop a plate or a pressure bulkhead way out over the Pacific....

As usual, it has all happened before. Have we learned anything yet ?

[leewan]

Still remember the SQ tailstrike a/c's registration. 9V-SMT
Scrape My Tail :)

The SQ's tailstrike incident could have turned out more disastrous as the a/c took off 30 knots below its actual take off speed and the stickshaker activated just seconds after it took off. It almost stalled a few metres above the runway ! And I do remember that the pilots had no idea that they had a tail strike until the fire services informed them after they landed.

[domani]

in this case the mistake was that they set the landing weight instead of the Take off weight, but even setting the Take off weight is not CAL's SOP, you should set ZFW to avoid this kind of incorrect data.
Both guys on seat were fired and the third was supended for 2 months

[lowvaeater]

All the FMC entries were done correctly, including the ZFW, it was the ACARS RAS data that was incorrect.
They did apply full TO thrust at the end.
EK crew were all sacked.. but how about the SQ case?.. what happened to the crew after the incident?

[podaca]

C 11 Is Passanger Flight Jfk Anc Tpe !

[B747SF]

If B18723 is the correct registration, This is a freighter aircraft regardless of the flight number.:ok:

[Guava Tree]

Sure seems to be a freighter:

http://www.asc.gov.tw/downfile/preliminary_CI5233_eng.pdf

I find it interesting that the flightcrew have reported stick shaker stall warning occurred “during take off roll”, instead of reporting that stick shaker occurred on rotation. We know that take off roll includes rotation, but if the stick shaker occurred on rotation then saying that it occurred on take off roll, rather than saying that it occurred on rotation, would be perceived as a deliberate ambiguity.
Therefore we should charitably assume that the stick shaker occurred on the take off roll before rotation. Before rotation the nosewheel is on the ground so the stickshaker has no business to be operating and the conclusion would reasonably be that the stickshaker was in error and a false warning.

[lomapaseo]

I find it interesting that the flightcrew have reported stick shaker stall warning occurred “during take off roll”, instead of reporting that stick shaker occurred on rotation. We know that take off roll includes rotation, but if the stick shaker occurred on rotation then saying that it occurred on take off roll, rather than saying that it occurred on rotation, would be perceived as a deliberate ambiguity.
Therefore we should charitably assume that the stick shaker occurred on the take off roll before rotation. Before rotation the nosewheel is on the ground so the stickshaker has no business to be operating and the conclusion would reasonably be that the stickshaker was in error and a false warning.

:confused:

you could be right, but then again I may have misread this:}