PDA

View Full Version : SingCargo Pod/Wing/Tailstrike at YMML today?


RAD_ALT_ALIVE
9th Oct 2016, 05:52
This is the only info that I've seen about this.

Anyone able to share the result of the runway inspection, i.e. did it happen, or was there no evidence of it?

https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/32843696/violent-winds-close-melbourne-airport-runway-after-singapore-airline-plane-clips-tar-mac/#page1

LeeJoyce
9th Oct 2016, 06:15
I missed it

But I heard about it

Yes the runway was closed for an inspection

And the plane didn't return


I also heard there were empty baggage containers doing about 80km/h on rwy34 with car 2 and 3 in hot pursuit

logansi
9th Oct 2016, 07:10
here was the container with car 2 trapping it against the fence on operations rd

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuTWGuQUsAAHf9g.jpg

Also the last aircraft do depart prior to the closure was SIA238, a pax flight not a cargo flight

itsnotthatbloodyhard
9th Oct 2016, 10:27
ATC advised at one point that there was debris on the runway. (But who knows, it could've been blown there from a nearby suburb.)

whiteb
9th Oct 2016, 12:09
That was some hell of a wind.

did you see the QF plane do some serious crabbing at YMML ?

(Stolen from Facebook)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/29911591440/in/dateposted-public/

Turnleft080
9th Oct 2016, 12:45
If this was a tail strike are you not suppose to depressurise the a/c and plan to land at the nearest suitable airport.

aviator's_anonymous
9th Oct 2016, 17:16
Singapore Airlines tail strike suspected as Melbourne airport lashed
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/singapore-airlines-tail-strike-suspected-as-melbourne-airport-lashed/news-story/70c8471aa5df85f68b92cc8ee4ed11d1

RAD_ALT_ALIVE
9th Oct 2016, 19:40
Thanks very much folks.

AA - I'd love to read the article, but the Australian's website tells me I have to be a subscriber.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
9th Oct 2016, 20:38
That was some hell of a wind.

did you see the QF plane do some serious crabbing at YMML ?

(Stolen from Facebook)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/29911591440/in/dateposted-public/

That wasn't from yesterday, although for some reason it keeps getting posted as if it was.

spinex
9th Oct 2016, 23:55
I managed to persuade the Australian to let me read it sans subscription - just google the story and follow that link instead of clicking on the one above. I think you get 1 or 2 freebies a day from them. Not much more than already disclosed, except that ATC saw what they thought was a tailstrike and notified the aircraft. Pilots were unaware and decided to press on to Singapore, being of the opinion that the aircraft sensors would have picked up if the strike had occurred. Runway closed to check for damage/debris but none found.

1a sound asleep
10th Oct 2016, 00:50
SQ now admits skid made contact. A/c now in SIN for repair

mates rates
10th Oct 2016, 04:35
tick tock tick tock !!!

BuzzBox
10th Oct 2016, 05:33
SQ now admits skid made contact. A/c now in SIN for repair

Where did you read that?

1a sound asleep
10th Oct 2016, 05:54
Quote:
SQ now admits skid made contact. A/c now in SIN for repair
Where did you read that?


Response from SQ on facebook page .....we understand that the inspections confirmed there had been contact with the tail skid system, but there was no contact with the fuselage. The affected component is being repaired and the aircraft is expected to return to service by tomorrow. Thank you".

https://www.facebook.com/AIRLINESECRETS/

blow.n.gasket
10th Oct 2016, 06:04
Repaired tailskid.

Would that be with high speed tape or staples?:hmm:

Judd
10th Oct 2016, 06:41
Sir Humphrey of "Yes Minister' would have praised the Singapore 777 captain with "A courageous decision, Captain." :sad:

Metro man
10th Oct 2016, 22:33
The tailskid obviously did its job in protecting the airframe if it can be returned to service so quickly.

millionaire
11th Oct 2016, 04:20
Boeing 777 QRH states as follows.
Tail strike message ( Eicas message ) is not shown :
Continue to operate normally. Fuselage contact without activation of the tail strike message indicates structural integrity is intact. The aircraft can pressurize normally.

They continued in accordance with laid down procedures, but of course the tail strike should not have happened in the first place... It was not a courageous decision..but an expected decision... maybe they could have explained in clearer terms to atc so as not to be perceived as reckless...

CurtainTwitcher
11th Oct 2016, 05:28
but of course the tail strike should not have happened in the first place...
Yes but in the real world things do happen for any one of a thousand different reasons: incorrect weight & balance, airspeed stagnation, windshear, turbulence, and shock horror even "pilot error", the list goes on.

Lets wait for the report. Nobody goes to work to have an incident or accident, perhaps we all may be able to learn something when the facts are eventually revealed.

MACH082
11th Oct 2016, 07:38
I tell you what. If ATC says there was sparks and smoke and the tail contacted the runway, I don't care what QRH says, I'd be returning to land weather permitting at the departure point or a suitable alternate with engineering support.

The safest thing to do is to get it on the ground and inspected. If you continued and something was amiss constituting some form or emergency, the first question the investigators and company will ask, is why didn't you return to land....

Coupled with the recent wing BBQ and not punching the slides out I wonder what is going on. Yes both events went their way, but what if it didn't?

millionaire
11th Oct 2016, 09:21
I tell you what. You should ask Boeing why they are so dumb and brave as to publish this stupid QRH checklist for that particular aircraft type and model ; which could result in lawsuits against them if the pilot should follow their stupid checklist and subsequently crash.
I hope you have operated the B 773 or the B 773-ER before to be such an expert.
The first question the investigators and company will ask is why did you not comply with the QRH checklist... unless you know something that the Boeing engineers and designers don't.
Then you should tell them the checklist is flawed and rubbish...

chuboy
11th Oct 2016, 10:27
And if you turn back and there's nothing wrong with the airframe and the QRH says you could have continued, the first question the company is going to ask is... why did you turn back.

Sparks and smoke don't mean much if you are seeing the purpose-designed tail skid contacting the runway...

C441
11th Oct 2016, 11:22
Lets wait for the report. Nobody goes to work to have an incident or accident, perhaps we all may be able to learn something when the facts are eventually revealed.

Report? What report? You might be waiting a while.

keepitrealok
11th Oct 2016, 11:50
MACH082.

The 777-300 has a tailskid whose very design is to absorb the impact. If the tail crushes this and hits the fuselage it triggers an EICAS. If it doesn't, then the it has done precisely as designed, prevents the fuselage from striking the surface, and it is safe to continue the flight. Exactly as per Boeing instructions and checklist design.

And exactly what the crew did correctly here. This has been proven by the inspection of the aircraft in Singapore.

It seems that you think you are smarter than the thousands of Boeing engineers who designed the aircraft. Here is your problem: they have been proven right, and you have been proven wrong.

You have displayed arrogance and ignorance; a very scary pair of traits for any pilot. :=

logansi
11th Oct 2016, 12:19
From what I heard of atc, it appears they alll based it on the fact nothing other than a mark was found on the runway, no debris.

aussie1234
11th Oct 2016, 18:56
And why did you dump 70T of fuel against QRH instructions?

wheels_down
12th Oct 2016, 04:14
Singapore have cornered QF recently with new A350s, Canberra and more A380 services to Australia. Scoot has killed of Jetstar's chances in Asia.

No doubt this beat up is a result of QF picking up the phone to their ever loyal journos and telling their version of how (un)serious this is.

Can't beat them on frequency, service, aircraft, product but more than happy to rip them apart shall a PR issue arise....

Ken Borough
12th Oct 2016, 06:44
No doubt this beat up is a result of QF picking up the phone to their ever loyal journos and telling their version of how (un)serious this is.


I would have thought that the good folk at Qantas would have better things to do than cast aspersions on the safety of a competitor! :ugh:

C441
12th Oct 2016, 08:11
No doubt this beat up is a result of QF picking up the phone to their ever loyal journos and telling their version of how (un)serious this is.

Of course if this had been a Qantas aircraft in Singapore, the Straits Times would have ignored it……..

Like Ken, I doubt Qantas had any part in the notification to journos. They have there own "Sensational story" sources……scanners…..twitter…..faceplant…..