Air2K A320 Tailstrike incident in Greece???

[Waldo]

Has anyone got details of an Air2 bob airbus incident in Greece. I'm told it was incorrectly loaded and tipped onto its tail when TO power was applied. Pax refused to fly with same crew again?

[Unwell_Raptor]

You mean to say there wasn't a single Sun reader on an Air2k flight?

[3db]

Correct, most people can't read the Sun, they just look at the pictures.

[Knold]

How bad is the loading if that happends!? :eek:

[Notso Fantastic]

It sounds somehow 'unconvincing'!

[Knold]

Feels like the floor strenght would give in post tipping

[kinsman]

I do not know if the Air2000 story is true. However, it is possible to get an A320 tip on application of TO power.

It happened a few years ago to an A320 at Gatwick, the aircraft had dropped off some passengers and bags and was continuing with a part load to it's final destination. Most of the remaining bags were in the rear!

[Notso Fantastic]

Loadsheet procedures should ensure this never happens. When the Captain signs for the loadsheet, he is effectively signing for the responsibility for correct aircraft loading and balance. Unless this was disastrously out and done by someone who didn't know what they were doing, then this could raise a manufacturer's issue. It doesn't sound credible.

[Ex Servant]

I used to fly down the back on ATR's. The 72 version has a tail prop in case of sagging shall we say! I often had to remind ground crews at not so regular destinations to empty the back hold first. As all of us were aware of the risk and talked to those at the front we never had a problem with loading on the way out. One advantage of internal holds, you can see what they're trying to put on board and where.
I seem to recall the story mentioned by kinsman from somewhere around 1995. If I remember correctly the MAN pax were not distributed evenly after the LGW pax got off. As the aircraft accelerated the nose started porpoising and the take off was rejected.

[Knold]

My point was that in a pax version (like Air2BoB has if my memory serves me right :rolleyes: ) I would imagin that it would take some serious miss-loading...

[mr.777]

This isn't as strange as it sounds.
Speaking as an ex-dispatcher who dealt with the A320/321 several times a day,I'm not surprised this happened.Used to work for AF and we certainly had a memo about possible A320 nosewheel extension i.e. nosewheel lifting off the ground when the a/c was stationary due to loading characteristics.......and this is not another bull**** story cos I've seen it happen!!
As for the person who said "loadsheet procedures would ensure that this NEVER happens",what utter nonsense!!!I know plenty of people who have made errors in loading,inputting data onto loadsheets etc. that could,in serious circumstances,have resulted in this outcome.

[red 5]

As an a/c engineer i've often seen the nosewheels off the ground during unloading of A320's. It normally happens at airports where they only have a airbridge at the forward door, consequently pax getting off the front make the already tail heavy 320 even heavier. First time i saw it, i nearly s**t myself, however i soon got used to it and just monitored the situation closely.

[744rules]

when pax are getting off the plane, the difference between the fwd and the aft hold may not exceed 2000kg , to prevent the a/c from tipping. As someone else pointed out, this has nothing to do with correct/incorrect loadsheet. :)

[IcePack]

While since I've flown the 320. But I seem to remember being taught to apply full forward side stick at the start of the takeoff run/applying power to help prevent this happening so I guess its happened before.:cool:

[PeePeerune]

Unless applying full forward to sidestick extends main gear oleos and retracts nose gear oleos,which i doubt,then there is no point applying an a/c nose down input to elevator control surfaces at such slow speeds to counteract the shift in cog............

[Bus14]

Almost right, Icepick. It's normally half forward stick to counter the effect of setting TO thrust.

However, that's to keep more weight on the nosewheels to help directional control, not to stop the beast tipping up. A correctly loaded A320 will not tip up even with neutral elevator. And, for what it's worth, it will also be controllable on rotation even if the stab trim is way out. To clarify that, as long as the stab trim is somewhere in the green sector, and the aircraft CofG is somewhere in the take off range, you will fly. The rotation may not be 'standard' but you'll get airborne safely. Not all aircraft have this luxury.

But, as the LGW incident appears to have proved some time ago, grossly mis-loading the aircraft certainly can lead to a tailstrike if the trim sheet does not reflect the actual loading (if the trim sheet reflected the actual loading, you would have the clue that the CofG was somewhere off the right hand side of the page!). That is also true on many other aircraft.

[direct chase]

Not sure about loading probs and tailstrikes, but the A320 family can be affected by to much into-wind sidestick during a crosswind takeoff.......if the spoilers pop up, it causes a nose up pitch.
There have been a few takeoff tailscrapes due above.

better to have no into wind stick than too much !!

Try pulling the speedbrake lever out without the AP engaged !!
and watch the little devil.

;)

[Greenfinch]

My company's FCOM (which is a VERY close copy of the Airbus Industrie FCOM) states in the SOP section for take off:

"To counter the nose-up effect of setting engine take-off thrust, apply half forward stick until the airspeed reaches 80 knots. Release the stick gradually to reach neutral at 100 knots"

GF :cool:

[Horatio]

Greenfinch, you are correct, but that SOP presupposes that the aircraft c of g is within the certified limits to start with.

I'm not sure, but if memory serves me correctly, an Excalibur A320 had an 'incident' on T/O years ago which transpired to have a c of g well aft of the certified range. Problem I believe was that they had transit pax on board, who had all been located in rear of acft, with the disembarking pax originally having been seated at the front of the aircraft. Some check in staff, ignorant of the effects of loading probably thought it easier to differentiate between those disembarking and those staying on board!Consequence was that when they then departed on the next sector, all the pax were at the rear of the aircraft, hence c of g well aft of limits. The cabin crew had not advised the flight deck of the abnormal seating, probably because no-one ever told the cabin crew that even distribution of pax was significant!

Due to someone else's misfortune, others benefit. As standard practice after this event we would always ask the No 1 to ensure the appropriate distribution of pax in the 3 zones that showed on our loadsheet, and if necessary reseat the pax to achieve that. They had to reseat pax quite frequently, because experience showed you could not rely on the check in personnel to ensure correct distribution.

On stand, there were explicit instructions. Loading always commenced with forward hold, then rear. Unloading was the reverse. This was especially important whilst boarding and deboarding of pax.

The A320 would experience significant changes of c of g when boarding/deboarding, loading and unloading of baggage and whilst refuelling. Add all 3 elements together at the same time, such as a quick turnround, then you have the potential problems. Easily manageable if you know what problems to look out for, as any seasoned 320 operator now knows very well.

[projectman]

The same incident happened to a B737-800 2 weeks ago in Germany. The effect of applying full nose down elevator will do abosultely nothing to help this type of incident as the movement of elevator does not change the CG.

If the loadsheet looks right then the Commander will sign it. It is impossible for the Commander to check every piece of luggage (position and weight), check the passengers are sitting where their boarding card says they should be, etc. This kind of problem is caused by inefficient training by the ground handling company.

When the tail stuck on the B737-800 the aircraft was doing about 5kts groundspeed and it was the fuselage that struck the ground, not the tailskid.
Something to keep in mind about the B737

[Groundloop]

Okay, let's get the physics right.

Applying thrust or applying elevator will not change the aircraft's C of G - the position of the C of G will not change. Problems will result, obviously, if the C of G is outside of specified limits.

Applying take-off thrust will produce an IMMEDIATE pitching-up force (because the engine thrustline is below the aircraft's C of G) which, if the aircraft is loaded properly, will not be sufficient to produce an actual pitch-up. However, applying forward stick WILL NOT apply a pitch-down force until there is sufficient airflow over the elevators to generate the required force.

Therefore in a badly loaded aircraft the aircraft will tend to pitch-up immediately take-off power is applied and forward elevator will not stop this until sufficient speed has built up - and the speed required will be higher the more the aircraft is out of balance - hence the report of the aircraft pitching up at the start of the take-off roll but the nose lowering again further into the roll (ie forward elevator finally became effective).

"To counter the nose-up effect of setting engine take-off thrust, apply half forward stick until the airspeed reaches 80 knots" is not actually correct - the elevators are not effective at the time you are setting take-off thrust!

One final thought, if you actually had a tailwind component at the moment of applying take-off thrust forward elevator could produce a very small DOWNWARD force on the tail and exacerbate the problem!

[Notso Fantastic]

Mr 777- <As for the person who said "loadsheet procedures would ensure that this NEVER happens",what utter nonsense!!!I know plenty of people who have made errors in loading,inputting data onto loadsheets etc. that could,in serious circumstances,have resulted in this outcome.>

Well that was me, and it was correct. Proper loadsheet procedures would ensure this never happens. When human idiots interfere and mess things up with incorrect data, it may happen, but if those loading staff adhered to procedures, it would not. So pray, where is the 'utter nonsense'?

[TightSlot]

Cabin Crew are trained about pax distribution for trim - but not to the level of detail that applies to flight crew. Any cabin crew member worth his/her salt should advise flight crew when the load is clearly, heavily unbalanced: This is part of our job, and should be in the ops or SEP manuals.

[Greenfinch]

Horatio - I agree with you completely, and an aft CofG can only exacerbate the problem.

Groundloop - I agree with your physics lesson, however you say that the statement "To counter the nose-up effect of setting engine take-off thrust, apply half forward stick until the airspeed reaches 80 knots"is not actually correct. Well, like I said this satement comes directly from Airbus Industrie !

GF

[Stratocaster]

I'd be quite surprised to hear Airbus say something like: "disregard, just pretend the problem isn't there, the computer will solve it for you later, and continue the takeoff roll. To keep yourself busy, just push the stick forward. It doesn't change anything when the problem initially appears and you're vulnerable, but you should feel better and at least you'll be able to say the CAA investigators that you did something about it. Oh, and don't even think about aborting and going back to the ramp to fix this, it looks bad in the stats."
:D

[ACE Dispatcher]

As a Load Controller & dispatcher ALL A320 aircraft should be loaded fwd hold first and unloaded aft hold first to avoid posibility of tipping.
Pax distribution is also a factor and if boarding from an airbridge the middle section of the a/c are boarded first.

just my 2 cents worth.

[Mister Slot]

Despite an interesting chat, we've wandered (slightly) away from Waldo's original question without a yea or ney.

So, true or not?

[MD11FAN]

I seem to remember a/c involved in past incident on t/o at LGW was Excalibur flight from Luxor.

[SANDBLASTER]

If the Dry Operating Index is incorrect, or input into a computer incorrectly, then your starting point is wrong. It is then relatively easy for this situation to occur. If you fly an aircraft that has fuel in the tail, even more so.

[A/P Disc]

It happend twice to me in Greece (same airport) that the loading
was incorrect. Ground staff told us how they loaded the airplane and how much baggage etc. and it turned out to be totally wrong.
Was quite a moment during t/o. Aircraft pitched up violently
during rotation. Fortunately no tailstrike.

So eventhough you sign for a loadsheet it is only as good as the
info that they gave you to make it. But you can hardly check all
the bags for yourself.

[Self Loading Freight]

This might be a silly question, but can't the a/'c tell if there's a dangerous CoG while it's sitting at the gate by measuring the differential loading on the gear? Why wait for aerodynamics to tell you?

R

[Groundloop]

Greenfinch - I did not mean your quote was incorrect. What I meant was that the statement from Airbus was not 100% correct.

Sorry if it came out wrong.