Jet2 Tailstrike @ FNC

[AIRWAY]

Greetings,
Does anyone know how serious the tailstrike of the Jet2 @ Funchal/Madeira earlier today was?
Very few details available at present.

[Going Nowhere]

Incident: Jet2.com B738 at Funchal on Feb 17th 2014, tail strike on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=47025f64&opt=0)

[LNIDA]

Special training required for FNC and rather more demanding than CMF or SZG, crew have to be approved to operate into FNC, it is often two Captain's (worst combination!) often training Capt's, a lot of diverts into TFS from FNC this week.

Porto Santo is ok for a fuel stop or waiting out a thunderstorm but not much else.

Wind limits for sector 300 - 010 is 15 knts gusting 25 knts, these are mandatory.

FNC is not practical or sensible for medical divert to/from Europe/TFS/LPA

[Gordomac]

Gosh, nothing much changed there eh ? Trap for all of us unsespecting. Way back in '83, FNC was a 'Captains only' and having just got my first Command, was being checked out there by our CP. Usual, talk through the downwind and special procedure (looking for the banana shed ) and a constant highly supportive and complimentary commentary stopped when we agreed that we were ' in the slot'. Thrust levers closed, ready for the upslope and then down-slope off the end of a cliff. B A N G . A touchdown any Navy pilot would have been proud of, taking the first wire. B u r t. CP seemed to have lost his voice as we taxid in. I meekly asked, after the autonomon clean-ups, " Did you get the landing time ? ". 'Well', said he,
'MY watch stopped at 06...................so, I guess, that's it !'. Rotter !

Years later, in trouble for some other offence (think I was laying a senior Trainer's girlfriend ), at check in for a night BAH, Crew Rostering Chief ran up, gave me a hug(yuk) and told me that the ' Heat's off you'. When pushed, he told me that some other bod had just bent the nosewheel of a 757 into the front toilet at FNC ! I blasted off to BAH and after the normal, SOP, crew party, changed into a Hosty uniform and dived into the hotel pool.

Later, Manch to FNC, forecast wx just on limits but actuals well within, taking TFS fuel, took an approach to FNC, didn't like it, went to PSO which then went below limits, by then, not enough fuel for TFS. Now, here's a good Command interview question................."What would YOU do ? " !!!

Point of all this. Watch for the traps. FNC is a big "gotcha" if you are not careful.

[Old King Coal]

Gordomac, I remember the (AE) B757 nose wheel landing incident almost as if it was yesterday (uhm, wasn't the aircraft reg 'RM'?) and that it tied-up a valuable parking space on FNC's ramp for quite a number of days whilst an engineering team (from Boeing?) patched it up good enough for it to be ferry-flown out of there for repairs. Oh halcyon days. ;) :)

[DaveReidUK]

Gordomac, I remember the (AE) B757 nose wheel landing incident almost as if it was yesterday (uhm, wasn't the aircraft reg 'RM'?) and that it tied-up a valuable parking space on FNC's ramp for quite a number of days whilst an engineering team (from Boeing?) patched it up good enough for it to be ferry-flown out of there for repairs.September 1987:

1987 | 2083 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1987/1987%20-%202083.html)

[small_dog]

Thanks for the link, was an accident report published? I've tried searching the AAIB website under G-BLVH but nothing is appearing (and it's a similar case when I've tried yahoo).

[DaveReidUK]

Thanks for the link, was an accident report published? I've tried searching the AAIB website under G-BLVH but nothing is appearing (and it's a similar case when I've tried yahoo).If a report was published, it would have been by the GPIAA (Portuguese AIB), but there's nothing on their website for the incident, in fact very few reports from the 1980s as a whole.

Apparently the aircraftt spent a couple of months at Funchal being repaired by Boeing, was then ferried back to Gatwick at the end of October 1987 and went back into service shortly afterwards.

[RAT 5]

Back to the original post: what info over the sate of the a/c and what happened with the outbound pax etc? I wonder how long the winds remained and thus the delay for the rescue a/c.

[DaveReidUK]

I can't see any evidence on the flight-tracking websites of the aircraft's return to the UK, so it could well still be at FNC.

I suspect that the "minor damage" reported by AvHerald may have turned out not to be quite so "minor".

[Flying Wild]

Likely to have resulted in skin damage, so hardly a quick repair. I believe it is still out there.

[AIRWAY]

Indeed, the aircraft is still parked @ FNC.

[brakedwell]

Looks like another pleasant stay for the Boeing team :D

[A and C]

While tail strikes on landing with the B738 are usually more serious than ones on take off it has to be remembered that the aircraft is fitted with a tail skid and compressable cartridge to absorb the impact.

The result of this is that a minor scrape of the tail skid will not automatically damage the aircraft and may well not take it outside the maintenance manual limits.

So to instantly assume that major damage will be the result of putting the tail skid on the floor it a gross distortion of the facts.............. But it makes good reading on here and a cheap and lazy way for the newspapers to print more misinformed rubbish dressed up as fact.

[brakedwell]

Doom merchants? The incident occurred seven days ago. Surely, if the damage is not serious the aircraft could have been recovered by now. I got away over 100 landings at Funchal in the 757 and was able to follow the progress of the repairs on G-BLVH. Not only was the nose gear pushed up and back, the creases in the fuselage looked very serious. I think Boeng replaced the front fuselage, but I could be wrong. Anyway, VH handled normally after we got it back.

[Thrush]

When the windsocks on the airfield point in different directions and the winds all have names, this must raise an eyebrow…. Tailstrikes on take off are the more common of the two here and usually caused by an increase in tailwind, just on rotate…

But things happen in everyday flying, usually due to the holes lining up in the cheese due to several factors, and risk limitation is what we do every day, only to be caught out occasionally and I'm sure Jet2 management will have assessed the risks in depth and written their Cat C Airfield Brief accordingly, i.e. bleeds off, flaps 15 maybe, no assumed or derate etc etc, and the crew worked to these SOPs to avoid a tailstrike. I know FNC tarmac is much longer than it used to be but the hill is still there, as are the winds so we must get our ducks in a row and get the gods on our side to the maximum extent.

I hope Jet2 don't blame the crew and instigate one of their famous kangaroo courts under the guise of HR procedures. Sh1t happens, and as A and C says the 800 has a sexy tail bumper which probably (I hope…) did what it said on the tin.

[brakedwell]

But things happen in everyday flying, usually due to the holes lining up in the cheese due to several factors, and risk limitation is what we do every day, only to be caught out occasionally and I'm sure Jet2 management will have assessed the risks in depth and written their Cat C Airfield Brief accordingly, i.e. bleeds off, flaps 15 maybe, no assumed or derate etc etc, and the crew worked to these SOPs to avoid a tailstrike. I know FNC tarmac is much longer than it used to be but the hill is still there, as are the winds so we must get our ducks in a row and get the gods on our side to the maximum extent.

It happened on landing, which could result in more serious damage to the fuselage.

[DaveReidUK]

So to instantly assume that major damage will be the result of putting the tail skid on the floor it a gross distortion of the factsI don't think anybody is assuming that.

But the fact that the aircraft has been at FNC for a week now, following the incident, would suggest that we're not simply talking about replacing the crushable cartridge.

[BALLSOUT]

the 800 has a sexy tail bumper which probably (I hope…) did what it said on the tin.It's not really there to protect anything, it's just an indicator to show if there has been a scrape. It therefore gives you an easy indication without having to check the belly of the aircraft on a walk round. If it shows evidence of a scrape, you notify eng and they inspect the aircraft for damage.

[ast83]

The tail skid doesn't even come into it with a tailstrike on landing. During take off the a/c rotates around the main gear therefore, the point on the fuselage which would contact the runway is fixed. That is where the tail skid is positioned. During landing before the gear touches, the a/c is rotating around the c of g which is not in a fixed position. Even if the tail touches after main gear touchdown, the compression of the struts then also makes a big difference. Tailstrikes on landing are much more common a than takeoff on the 738. I found this v surprising as I only ever hear about tailstrikes on takeoff in my company. However it seems that most takeoff tailstrikes are subsequently re classified as tail scrapes when the only action required is replacement if the tail skid assembly.

[A and C]

I have to disagree with you, the tailskid is vital for protecting the aircraft from damage, without it a minor inccident involving an inspection and a quick splash of paint would turn into a very expensive engineering exercise.

FNC is a very demanding place to fly from and my biggest fear is that the Jet 2 blame culture will have kicked in.

With the operating conditions at FNC you have to expect to occasionally have problems, airlines need to except this fact or not go to FNC.

I doubt that the Jet 2 HR department will see it in this philosophical way when a witch hunt is far more fun.

[Thrush]

Ah. On landing. That's different then if it didn't scrape on takeoff and return to FNC. And if it's more common on landing, it's odd, but I stand corrected!

But surely the cartridge is there to absorb some impact? It's not just a green/red indicator. Also, the SP ones have a longer and bigger skid usually. Maybe it was an SP doing it's job?

Was it an SP with the nice SP kit?

[A and C]

I was thinking that was an unusual statment ! Having flown the aircraft since 2000 ( with a brief brake in the all electric French thing) almost all the tail contact inccidents that I have seen have been on take off.

I am sure that about 60% of the incidents on take off were partly due to low oil level in the MLG shock struts.

[DaveReidUK]

Good article from Boeing on tailstrikes here (pp6-13):

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_1_07/AERO_Q107.pdf

which makes the points, already mentioned above, that tailstrikes are more common on landing than on takeoff, and it's the former that tend to do more damage.

[BOAC]

That's different then if it didn't scrape on takeoff and return to FNC - hmm! Not sure many folk would do that:D

[ast83]

Thanks for the link DaveReidUk. I've flown the type for several years also and too was extremely surprised to learn that tail strikes were more common on landing than take off. I'm assuming that is because the vast majority of tail strikes are actually classified as tail scrapes when only the tail skid assembly is damaged.

[no sponsor]

Well, if there is a blame culture now in Jet2, there certainly wasn't one a few years ago; hardly a culture which fosters flight safety IMHO.

[Thrush]

BOAC.. Duh! I'll put my brain in gear. On a day off…! I suppose it would depend on the weight/fuel/weather/winds etc on the day, but unpressurized after a thump you'd not get far.

And thanks to DaveReidUK for that info. I'll have a read on the next long flight.

[AIRWAY]

Some pictures can be seen here at the GPIAA report:

http://www.gpiaa.gov.pt/upload/membro.id/ficheiros/i006379.pdf

[DaveReidUK]

As well as the skin damage shown in the photos, the report mentions cracked stringers.

[jaja]

I really feel with the unfortunate J2 crew.

The wind seems to have been within limits, so they just were unlucky to be approaching at that time.

I guess we who fly into FNC, know we have a higher risk of "bending" an aircraft

Makes me wonder, why I keep flying there.

The company does not pay me more for flying there..........so why take the risk ?

I guess most of us like the challenge

[Thrush]

Good pics airway… Looks like a fair bit of damage that even the longer SP bumper would not have helped. I notice it was from LBA…. Management pilots on a day out…? I wonder.
More used to the -300 and holding off for a smooth touchdown, maybe, instead of thumping it on as per FCTM, but A and C makes a good point regarding the oleos not being up to pressure correctly.

I feel for the crew whoever it was. But if it was a management day out, the umbrellas will be up, and if not, the kangaroo court will be getting convened.

[LBIA]

I see there has been a further update regarding last weeks Jet2's Boeing 737-800WL tail-strike incident in Funchal.

Accident: Jet2.com B738 at Funchal on Feb 17th 2014, tail strike on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=47025f64&opt=0)

[fokker1000]

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of posters (responders) here don't fly commercially, and [or] if they do, haven't operated into this airfield, or anything similar.

FNC, KOS, INN, SZG etc, have far more challenges than any regular airfield re runway length, topography, MLWs, MTOWs, MSA's and local weather conditions etc.

LHR, STN, LGW etc are busy but very well controlled and straight forward.. So if you ain't been in the hot seat don't be too quick to criticise.

[Elephant and Castle]

I do fly jets and I have flown to all those places (except LHR). I really feel for the crew concerned and here for the grace of God...... however, if true, a bounce that takes you another 1000' to touch down again is a pretty big bounce to continue to land with. I say that not as a criticism of the crew, I might have done worse, but as something to avoid if it contributed to the event.

[IcePack]

Had a similar approach a few years back. Windy but not much turbulence. BUT dramatic speed loss in the flair. Touch down fairly hard but went around, trouble was we nearly hit the ground again. If we had it would have been very hard. I believe ground effect saved the day. Didn't have any more attitude available or I would have hit the tail. Speed loss if I remember was in excess of 25 knots.
I have much sympathy for the crew.

[brakedwell]

I didn't realise the runway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira_Airport) had been extended from 1,800m to 2781m in 2000. It may remove TOW restrictions, but the fickle winds on the approach to 05 are still waiting to trap the unwary. The runway length was only 1600m when I flew the 737/200, so we always had to refuel at Porto Santo on the return leg. The 757, although more of a handful to land there, had the performance to fly non stop to the UK, and for the first time F/O's were allowed to carry out take-offs from FNC.


I just hope the crew are not pilloried for something that could easily happen to anyone operating into Funchal.

[Midland63]

Hope you don't mind a quick comment from an SLF but in the GPIIA note, does the scrape not look to be a bit off-centre to port suggesting the a/c was also banked a little bit when it touched? (If so, that's just an observation on the challenging circs, not a criticism of anyone!)

[Thrush]

Having operated there for many years, I can report the winds are, indeed, "fickle". But give me FNC any day over any of the Alpine airports with the go-round towards the mountains.

And if you look at the actuals in the Av Herald reporthttp://avherald.com/h?article=47025f64&opt=0 you will see the Rosario wind is very different to the 05 etc etc…. As I said previously, when all the windsocks point in different directions, it's time to tread very carefully.

I have to say though ATC are usually very good at letting you know they think you should bugger off, and in my experience, the wind is never on the dividing line on the chart diagram and they make it clear when it's out of limits.

[A and C]

The critical thing about the shock strut in the oil quantity as it is hard to check and gets mis-remembered, it is quite hard to get the shock strut pressure wrong but small errors in pressure are less critical than the oil quantity as this has a very important effect on the rising rate suspention to use a motor racing term?

[JLSF]

According to a local newspaper a tent will start to be erected today to serve the repairs.

Emergency exit doors have been sealed with some silver tape.

[Aluminium shuffler]

I feel sorry for this crew. The 73-8 is way too long; the 200 was the original length, which was stretched to the 3, then the 4 and now the 8 and 900s. OK, the taller gear of the NG helps a little, but these aircraft have been stretched way beyond reasonable limits. Fitting a tail skid/indicator is an indication that you have an aircraft that is likely to bump its tail at some point. In other words, it's a badly designed aircraft. I'd hate to fly the 900.

Wind shear can be an absolute pig. I've never been to Funchal, but there are a few places dotted around the south of Europe where big rocks cause bad shear when the wind is blowing from that direction. It's not unknown for their ATC to tell porkies when the wind is beyond limits just to keep things moving. I had that when landing on an island "in the south east corner of the EU" with a limit of 13kts with SE winds. 45kts all the way down the approach and over 30 in the flare, but there was a steady stream of arrivals... Sometimes ATC are your friend, and sometimes not. I hope that wasn't the case here. Still, even when inside of prescribed limits, you can get a combination of sink rate from shear and pitch rate from turbulence that will bang the tail regardless of how good the pilot is.

[LNIDA]

It's been stated before that the tail skid is to protect against over rotation rather than the landing case. This aircraft didn't **** it's arse on the first landing, which appears to have been bounced and then travelled another 300m metres before the second contact, the pitch attitude and speed of which resulted in significant damage.

If as some have stated that the infamous Jet2 ( can't organise a p**s up in a brewery) HR dept get involved they will likely conclude that the crew should have gone around after the first bounce following WS or diverted to TFS in the first place,all very easy after the event and I'm sure the crew would probably agree, again with the benefit of hindsight.

I'm in no way criticising the crew actions, far from it.

I assume the UK AAIB are involved ? They always seem very fair and transparent in these matter and we who fly long arse'd aircraft can learn from this.

[JW411]

Aluminium shuffler:

"The 200 was the original length"

At the risk of being pedantic, the 100 was the original length at 94 feet. The 200 was stretched to 100 feet 2 inches.

[JLSF]

Thanks for the link, was an accident report published? I've tried searching the AAIB website under G-BLVH but nothing is appearing (and it's a similar case when I've tried yahoo).
If a report was published, it would have been by the GPIAA (Portuguese AIB), but there's nothing on their website for the incident, in fact very few reports from the 1980s as a whole.

Apparently the aircraftt spent a couple of months at Funchal being repaired by Boeing, was then ferried back to Gatwick at the end of October 1987 and went back into service shortly afterwards.

Part of the reason why no report was ever published was because Air Europe took home the FDR and "forgot" to hand it over to INAC (no GPIAA back then).

It was Boeing people doing the repairs, yes, I met a "Mr Hammer" back then.
It was a Cpt Smith the unfortunate PF that day, fortunately no one was hurt.

The fuselage, beneath the door was bent upward. I think the avionics bay had to be taken out, I remember lots of wires hanging around, when I went inside the plane.

I have pictures of the damage, if anyone is interested just send me a pm.

[DaveReidUK]

At the risk of being pedantic, the 100 was the original length at 94 feet. The 200 was stretched to 100 feet 2 inches.

Ah, the good old days when aircraft manufacturers started with a -100 Series and progressed from there. :O

[Lord Spandex Masher]

The wind was in limits at the last wind check. The wind went out of limits subsequently but that fact wasn't passed on by ATC. :=

[Facelookbovvered]

Bounced Landing Recovery

If the airplane should bounce, hold or re-establish a normal landing attitude and
add thrust as necessary to control the rate of descent. Thrust need not be added for
a shallow bounce or skip. When a high, hard bounce occurs, initiate a go-around.
Apply go-around thrust and use normal go-around procedures. Do not retract the
landing gear until a positive rate of climb is established because a second
touchdown may occur during the go-around.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Linda

If as some have stated that the infamous Jet2 ( can't organise a p**s up in a brewery) HR dept get involved they will likely conclude that the crew should have gone around after the first bounce following WS or diverted to TFS in the first place,all very easy after the event and I'm sure the crew would probably agree, again with the benefit of hindsight.


Surely any SMS would have a safety investigation which depending on recomendation may go Flight Operations. Nothing to do with HR unless Flight Ops ask them to get involved :\

[LNIDA]

Mr Angry


Not sure if that was a tongue in cheek reply or serious?

My experience of working for a good number of airlines in and around Europe is that they are either very good or very bad in this area, the common thread in my experience is financial ownership/management, by that i mean PLC's tend to have distance between ownership (shareholders) and executive management, whilst owner/managers just can't let go and the flight management basically in fear of their own jobs agreeing to what ever the owner wants.

I have never worked for Jet2 or likely to with retirement coming up, but most seem happy, but a number have commented about knee jerk management, on 121.5 a couple of days ago two J2 asked to go to 123.45, listening in they were agreeing on what delay code they should use for late out of XXX "just so we keep our story the same, late crew transport? yes?"

An SMS system should not be punitive of human error, provided that it is not an intentional breech of SOP's

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Not sure if that was a tongue in cheek reply or serious?


Serious
The safety department investigate the tail strike and collate the facts. The investigation could end there and then.

If not your words
An SMS system should not be punitive of human error, provided that it is not an intentional breech of SOP's

If it was a intentional breach of SOP then Flight Ops Management get involved and therefore possibly HR.

The rest is a load of trivia, th accusation was HR were running the investigation which is bollix.

[LNIDA]

Mr A

True enough but it isn't always like that, ask the crew who had a tail strike at Chambrey in a 300 in early 2012, the F/o was gone in short order, the Captain demoted, the trainer who had sim checked the F/o asked to take some responsibility, months later they introduced new performance training for the hand held performance computer after the AAIB pointed out that procedure's weren't clear, following the aircrafts return to service a balance spring in the elevator feel was found broken, test established that it was broken before the tail strike and may have been a contributing factor. So the idea that a company will merrily pay salaries whilst the investigation is on going isn't alway so, hopefully Jet2 as a PLC's will deal with it correctly

[mach79]

Then of course there was the other incident a few years back at the same place-inbound when they got the whoop whoop pull up-an extremely close call.

One problem the company has is the ex military old boy network-don't get me wrong-there are great ex service people here-but unfortunately the company sadly has more than a few less than savoury members holding senior positions-which given their attitude to CRM and training is unfortunate, and perhaps is one reason the ever pervasive "blame" culture exists now.

[bean]

To avoid confusion it should be pointed out that the tail strike at Chambery involved a Titan aircraft and I presume crew and not Jet2

[JLSF]

Just droped in to say that:
- the plane has been towed to the beginning of the apron, parked at 90degs
- three tents have been erected around the tail
- fixes will be made so it can be ferried to Spain for full repair

[bluepilot]

Quite correct, the tailstrike in chambrey was Titan, nothing to do with Jet2.

Another point, the crew of the FNC tailstrike were found to have followed procedures correctly, they are back on line.

[LBIA]

Good news.

The aircraft involved in the indecent at the start of this thread, Jet2 Boeing 737-800WL, G-GDFC was flown back to the UK flying from Funchal to Norwich this past weekend where it had some final remedial maintenance work completed. It was then flown to Bournemouth on Monday to touch up silver paint finish before it was positioned back home into Leeds/Bradford this evening.

[A and C]

The ATC at Funchal don't tell porkys, they know the hazards of the place and are very good at giving reports of the wind.

The criticism of the B738 length leaves me speechless, the tail strike rate is low and to protect the aircraft a skid and shock absorber are fitted need we say more.

I was pleased to see the crew who were the victims of a unusual wind gradient at FNC returned to flying very quickly, some Jet 2 insiders have commented that the speed of this return was influenced by the level of criticism of previous action taken again crews and the debate the company policy has generated within the industry.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

The ATC at Funchal don't tell porkys, they know the hazards of the place and are very good at giving reports of the wind.

Not in this case. Ok they didn't tell a porky they just didn't say anything once the wind had gone out of limits. Bit naughty especially as they know the hazards of the place etc.

[A and C]

Without the exact timing of the wind report from ATC and the change in the direction/speed relative to the aircraft position it is very hard to say that any errors have been made, the problem being that the wind situation at FNC can change very rapidly and a wind report at a very late stage in a turbulent approach may well only serve to distract the pilot at a critical stage of flight.

The fact of the matter is that there is always a reaction time in passing wind information and it could well be that conditions changed faster than ATC could react.

I can only judge the FNC ATC on my 40 or so visits and they have always been first class in passing weather information.

Due to the hazards of FNC there will always be the risk of this sort of incident and it just has to be accepted as part of the risk flying into this airfield........... I know that this fact will not sit well within any company that has a strong blame culture but this seems to me to be a perfect example of a no blame incident.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Without the exact timing of the wind report from ATC and the change in the direction/speed relative to the aircraft position

I've seen all of that info. Without being too specific as it was from an internal memo the wind was in limits when they were cleared to land, it then went out of limits shortly after and stayed out of limits.

ATC had approximately two minutes to inform the crew of the wind change but didn't.

[A and C]

You have the advantage of me with all the info in front of you and if it as you say the ball is in ATC's court...........but I have to say that I am surprised.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

You're not the only one!