Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Qantas QF453 SYD-MEL Boeing 767 tailstrike on Mon 1-Feb-10

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Qantas QF453 SYD-MEL Boeing 767 tailstrike on Mon 1-Feb-10

Old 4th Feb 2010, 11:28
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,864
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
The aircraft was a RR powered B767 and, as has been previously reported, they are more prone to tailstrikes than the GE powered aircraft. There was a quartering tailwind (NE) at the time (using RWY 16R) which is the optimum conditions for a tailstrike. The controllers in the tower observed the strike and reported it to the aircraft - the crew may have already been aware as they most probably got a "Tailskid" EICAS message. The subsequent runway inspection found the impact point but no debris so it's probable that the Tailskid touched (as it's designed to do) but the fuselage remained undamaged. The aircraft landed back on 16R approx 15 mins later, just after the inspection was completed.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2010, 16:32
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East side of OZ
Posts: 624
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the QRH.

Message: TAILSKID

Condition: The TAILSKID light illuminated indicates the tailskid position disagrees with landing gear lever position.
The message doesn't indicate that you've had a tailstrike just that the skid isn't where it should be.

The only indications of a tailstrike are reports, internal from the c/c or external from ATC. I doubt you'd notice it from the flight deck as it is well over 100ft away from the arse end.

Regards,
BH.
Bullethead is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 00:49
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My My Titan....Once again you seem to be a little, how do we say, touchy!

GB
Gas Bags is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 01:41
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: On a date with destiny.
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Geez... Three pages!

I'm more surprised that nobody has yet brought up the fact that it's obvious from the secret footage that the flugel valves were open and the ascetchets are retracted, when in fact they should have been extended!

Details experts, details!
assasin8 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 03:16
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: (insert funny location here)
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought Qantas sold the tailskids to Jetstar.
ules is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 08:30
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,864
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Bullethead, thanks for the clarification. I thought that a strike may cause the Tailskid actuator to compress slightly, giving a disagreement with the Landing Gear position and thus an EICAS message. It's been a number of years since I flew the B767 so my memory may not be correct.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2010, 09:51
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Jeeez Taildrager, Ya wonna run that by me again??
Arnold E is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.