Qantas QF453 SYD-MEL Boeing 767 tailstrike on Mon 1-Feb-10
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas QF453 SYD-MEL Boeing 767 tailstrike on Mon 1-Feb-10
Sydney Morning Herald reporting a tailstrike.
Qantas plane drama after tail strike
The journo's reporting a "A Qantas spokeswoman told Fairfax Media a gust of wind lifted the nose of the plane as its front wheel had just left the ground, lifting the plane up more sharply than normal."
Anyone know what really happened?
Qantas plane drama after tail strike
The journo's reporting a "A Qantas spokeswoman told Fairfax Media a gust of wind lifted the nose of the plane as its front wheel had just left the ground, lifting the plane up more sharply than normal."
Anyone know what really happened?
I think that sums it up nicely MAS. Next please!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hong kong
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sydney Morning Herald extract
Passenger Nicole Kearns, 33, who was flying with her one-year-old son, said she thought she detected the pilots throttling off to slow the engines while the plane was still climbing.
The captain then made his address just minutes into the flight, as the coastline was still in view.
"We were on ascent then the announcement came over that we'd have to turn around," she said. "
Ms Kearns, an experienced parachutist of 300 jumps, said that she felt no impact, or any unusual noise from the plane during take-off.
"I didn't hear anything or feel anything unusual," she said.
The plane turned and landed about 15 minutes later without incident, and was tailed by a ground vehicle with flashing lights as it taxied back to the terminal.
Passengers were kept on board for about 10 minutes while the plane was inspected on the ground, Ms Kearns said.
She said she believed the crew were still strapped in their seats when the incident occurred and were "extra courteous" to passengers when they were disembarked for replacement flights.
The captain then made his address just minutes into the flight, as the coastline was still in view.
"We were on ascent then the announcement came over that we'd have to turn around," she said. "
Ms Kearns, an experienced parachutist of 300 jumps, said that she felt no impact, or any unusual noise from the plane during take-off.
"I didn't hear anything or feel anything unusual," she said.
The plane turned and landed about 15 minutes later without incident, and was tailed by a ground vehicle with flashing lights as it taxied back to the terminal.
Passengers were kept on board for about 10 minutes while the plane was inspected on the ground, Ms Kearns said.
She said she believed the crew were still strapped in their seats when the incident occurred and were "extra courteous" to passengers when they were disembarked for replacement flights.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Outback Queensland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, those winds in Sydney can be very tricky.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the bit that the crew were still strapped into their seats when the incident happened.
Do you mean it is not normal practice for the crew to be out of their seats during take-off.
Do you mean it is not normal practice for the crew to be out of their seats during take-off.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do pilots rotate through the tail strike body angle whilst the main gear is still in contact with the earth, when there is still plenty of runway left.?
(Yep you may have to if you only have say 2000 ft left. but again surely the lack of acceleration would be noticeable)
Can't Pilots fly these days. Book called Cone of Silence by D Beatty touched on this subject eons ago.
(Yep you may have to if you only have say 2000 ft left. but again surely the lack of acceleration would be noticeable)
Can't Pilots fly these days. Book called Cone of Silence by D Beatty touched on this subject eons ago.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this another worldwide first for Big Q.
Can anyone else remember of a tailstrike that was not pilot error.
Love the tricky gust lifting the nose story.Where does Q find these people.
Assy
Can anyone else remember of a tailstrike that was not pilot error.
Love the tricky gust lifting the nose story.Where does Q find these people.
Assy
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: U and K
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She said she believed the crew were still strapped in their seats when the incident occurred ...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do pilots rotate through the tail strike body angle whilst the main gear is still in contact with the earth, when there is still plenty of runway left.?
Anyway - who said the tail strike occurred with the main wheels still on the ground? On the 763, the vulnerable point for a tailstrike is some time after the mainwheels lift off
NoD
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Iceland
Age: 46
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do pilots rotate through the tail strike body angle whilst the main gear is still in contact with the earth, when there is still plenty of runway left.?
As for talking to pax after some kind of incidents happen. It should be banned. Most of them are to stupid to talk. There comments confirm that. Same thing goes for some of the reporters their knowledge is
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: India
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On one's really bad day it can be an embarrassing and career killing error. However this excuse : [QUOTE]Yes, those winds in Sydney can be very tricky. I've filed that one away just in case.[/QUOTE] really takes the cake!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC is "having a laugh"
Hey Akali,
Not sure if you have or have not understood BOAC's sarastic comment. Clearly he/she is making a joke about the article's comment that a "Qantas spokeswoman('s)" told Fairfax Media that "a gust of wind lifted the nose of the plane as its front wheel had just left the ground, lifting the plane up more sharply than normal" not storing it away as a future "excuse".
regards
Ren
Not sure if you have or have not understood BOAC's sarastic comment. Clearly he/she is making a joke about the article's comment that a "Qantas spokeswoman('s)" told Fairfax Media that "a gust of wind lifted the nose of the plane as its front wheel had just left the ground, lifting the plane up more sharply than normal" not storing it away as a future "excuse".
regards
Ren
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nod & fc
yep that will teach me to over simplify.
Correct rotation rates will work. Unless something else causes the lift off body angle to be incorrect. E. G. W/shear or wrong speeds. Still do not understand why pilots have no "feel" for what the a/c is doing & an awareness of tail strike body angles on & just after lift off. Sure if the end of the rwy is coming up, you'll need to see if the test pilots got minimum unstick right.
763 yeh lovely a/c to fly, some do not like the roll rate but I loved it.
yep that will teach me to over simplify.
Correct rotation rates will work. Unless something else causes the lift off body angle to be incorrect. E. G. W/shear or wrong speeds. Still do not understand why pilots have no "feel" for what the a/c is doing & an awareness of tail strike body angles on & just after lift off. Sure if the end of the rwy is coming up, you'll need to see if the test pilots got minimum unstick right.
763 yeh lovely a/c to fly, some do not like the roll rate but I loved it.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
NOD, FC & IcePack,
DISCLAIMER - this is not to set off any A-vs-B arguments - it is just a bona fide question.
Right...
Let's consider 2 aircraft of the same type; one a/c has full Airbus-style FBW, the other has Boeing controls. All other things are equal and weights / speeds have been correctly determined and entered.
Both aircraft rotate simultaneously on parallel runways and, after the main wheels leave the concrete, are both simultaneously subject to a force which, all other things equal, would tend to cause an over-rotation.
Under 'normal' law, would the Airbus-FBW-equipped aircraft be more or less likely to strike its tail, compared to the Boeing?
The logic I'm using is this: should A's FBW computers be able to detect the nose-up force quickly enough and reduce the control surface input quickly enough to prevent a strike?
DISCLAIMER - this is not to set off any A-vs-B arguments - it is just a bona fide question.
Right...
Let's consider 2 aircraft of the same type; one a/c has full Airbus-style FBW, the other has Boeing controls. All other things are equal and weights / speeds have been correctly determined and entered.
Both aircraft rotate simultaneously on parallel runways and, after the main wheels leave the concrete, are both simultaneously subject to a force which, all other things equal, would tend to cause an over-rotation.
Under 'normal' law, would the Airbus-FBW-equipped aircraft be more or less likely to strike its tail, compared to the Boeing?
The logic I'm using is this: should A's FBW computers be able to detect the nose-up force quickly enough and reduce the control surface input quickly enough to prevent a strike?