Reported tail strike ex BNE
Bottums Up
Thread Starter
Reported tail strike ex BNE
Reported in today's Courier Mail
CourierMail
Flight turns back after tail hits runway
From: CourierMail
February 01, 2013
A PLANE full of passengers headed to Sydney from Brisbane were turned around mid-air after the tail of the aircraft struck the runway on take-off.
Alternatively, you can copy and paste this link into your browser:
Qantas flight turns back after tail hits runway | The Courier-Mail
Flight turns back after tail hits runway
From: CourierMail
February 01, 2013
A PLANE full of passengers headed to Sydney from Brisbane were turned around mid-air after the tail of the aircraft struck the runway on take-off.
Alternatively, you can copy and paste this link into your browser:
Qantas flight turns back after tail hits runway | The Courier-Mail
Last edited by Going Nowhere; 31st Jan 2013 at 22:03.
Love your work Jack!
Avherald covered this with zero fanfare and zilch overdramatization
:
Ben also puts an interesting spin on this event:
Qantas tail strike, no safety action, Virgin slide, inquiry! | Plane Talking
I assume the Red Rat has reported the incident to the ATSB?? So what gives?
Avherald covered this with zero fanfare and zilch overdramatization
:
Incident: Qantas B763 at Brisbane on Jan 31st 2013, tail scrape on takeoff
By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Feb 1st 2013 21:45Z, last updated Friday, Feb 1st 2013 21:45Z
A Qantas Boeing 767-300, registration VH-ZXF performing flight QF-545 from Brisbane,QL to Sydney,NS (Australia), was rotating for takeoff from Brisbane's runway 01 when the tail of the aircraft contacted the runway surface. The crew continued the takeoff, stopped the climb at 3000 feet and returned to Brisbane for a safe landing 01 about 15 minutes after departure.
The airline confirmed a very minor tail strike. All passengers were rebooked onto other flights.
Following checks the aircraft departed Brisbane about 3 hours after landing as flight QF-6124 to Sydney and resumed service the following morning.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA545/history/20130131/0625Z/YBBN/YSSY
By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Feb 1st 2013 21:45Z, last updated Friday, Feb 1st 2013 21:45Z
A Qantas Boeing 767-300, registration VH-ZXF performing flight QF-545 from Brisbane,QL to Sydney,NS (Australia), was rotating for takeoff from Brisbane's runway 01 when the tail of the aircraft contacted the runway surface. The crew continued the takeoff, stopped the climb at 3000 feet and returned to Brisbane for a safe landing 01 about 15 minutes after departure.
The airline confirmed a very minor tail strike. All passengers were rebooked onto other flights.
Following checks the aircraft departed Brisbane about 3 hours after landing as flight QF-6124 to Sydney and resumed service the following morning.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA545/history/20130131/0625Z/YBBN/YSSY
ATSB doesn’t list Qantas tail strike, lists Virgin incident
A Qantas jet has a scary takeoff, kissing runway with tail, ATSB does nothing. A Virgin Australia jet has scary landing at Gold Coast, acquaplanes down runway, ATSB investigates. Huh!
In an election year it’s quite clear no-one in government or opposition really gives a damn about questionable standards in air safety investigations in this country.
And this is not about the we-are-safe piffle that comes out of both sides, which is part of the not-giving-a-damn ritual.
It is about the ATSB failing to list a tail strike by a Qantas 767 departing Brisbane airport on 31 January, but notifying an inquiry into a Virgin Australia wind shear and acquaplaning incident on landing at the Gold Coast airport in atrocious weather on 28 January.
Both incidents are referenced with more detail on the Aviation Herald site under its entries for 1 February.
In the Virgin Australia incident the pilot regained control of the 737 after it slid briefly out of control down the runway. In the Qantas incident the detail in the Aviation Herald report suggests this was a minor, non damaging incident handled correctly by the airline.
Which while reassuring is beside the point. When any airliner makes contact with the runway with its tail during take off, that is, metal touches tarmac at significant velocity, it’s charter requires it to statistically record and notify of the incident, because statistics, patterns, and associations of various elements of flight is a key part of its role in support of air safety in Australia.
It says so in its own material.
For an organisation whose integrity and trustworthiness is up for attention by a Senate Committee inquiry into its allegedly dishonest, deceitful and inappropriate final report into the Pel-Air crash of an air ambulance near Norfolk Island in 2009 leaving out a scary takeoff incident by one Australian airline while investigating a scary landing by another isn’t right.
The short odds would be on the ATSB also investigating the Qantas incident, and blaming administrative lag for not listing it, which in itself, is unacceptable.
A Qantas jet has a scary takeoff, kissing runway with tail, ATSB does nothing. A Virgin Australia jet has scary landing at Gold Coast, acquaplanes down runway, ATSB investigates. Huh!
In an election year it’s quite clear no-one in government or opposition really gives a damn about questionable standards in air safety investigations in this country.
And this is not about the we-are-safe piffle that comes out of both sides, which is part of the not-giving-a-damn ritual.
It is about the ATSB failing to list a tail strike by a Qantas 767 departing Brisbane airport on 31 January, but notifying an inquiry into a Virgin Australia wind shear and acquaplaning incident on landing at the Gold Coast airport in atrocious weather on 28 January.
Both incidents are referenced with more detail on the Aviation Herald site under its entries for 1 February.
In the Virgin Australia incident the pilot regained control of the 737 after it slid briefly out of control down the runway. In the Qantas incident the detail in the Aviation Herald report suggests this was a minor, non damaging incident handled correctly by the airline.
Which while reassuring is beside the point. When any airliner makes contact with the runway with its tail during take off, that is, metal touches tarmac at significant velocity, it’s charter requires it to statistically record and notify of the incident, because statistics, patterns, and associations of various elements of flight is a key part of its role in support of air safety in Australia.
It says so in its own material.
For an organisation whose integrity and trustworthiness is up for attention by a Senate Committee inquiry into its allegedly dishonest, deceitful and inappropriate final report into the Pel-Air crash of an air ambulance near Norfolk Island in 2009 leaving out a scary takeoff incident by one Australian airline while investigating a scary landing by another isn’t right.
The short odds would be on the ATSB also investigating the Qantas incident, and blaming administrative lag for not listing it, which in itself, is unacceptable.
I assume the Red Rat has reported the incident to the ATSB?? So what gives?
Nunc est bibendum
I don't know the exact stats but we have a couple a year I think. I agree Bloggs although I'm sure the ASIR would have been submitted.
Last edited by Keg; 2nd Feb 2013 at 08:00.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the ATSB only investigates certain incidents and ignores others. I was trying to get some details regarding a turbulence encounter in 2006 that involved a Skywest F50 aircraft where a FA, known to me, suffered a broken leg. The ATSB website has no record of the event.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw it happen, non-event really. Burnt through the outer skin, one of the ****ters fell out onto the runway. Had been emptied prior to take off so no **** on the runway
They must have been tankering ****ter rolls though cause they were flying out like streamers. From what I understand, losing one ****ter on takeoff is ok? CAAP 104.3, para 6, part 2(a), subsection 4 (losing a ****ter on T/O)
They must have been tankering ****ter rolls though cause they were flying out like streamers. From what I understand, losing one ****ter on takeoff is ok? CAAP 104.3, para 6, part 2(a), subsection 4 (losing a ****ter on T/O)
So what happened to the rest of the posts??
Agree Bloggs and Keg this is probably an over reaction from Ben and the incident doesn't fall into the category of 'immediately reportable matters' but more than likely is classified as a 'routine reportable matter', which only requires a report to be submitted within 72 hours which could explain the lag.
However there is no question that this incident should be reported, here's an example from the past:
Investigation: 200500382 - Tail strike, Boeing B737-838 aircraft, VH-VXH:
Ben's article also lets the relevant authorities know that this event didn't go unnoticed and that Joe public will be monitoring their subsequent response with interest.
Agree Bloggs and Keg this is probably an over reaction from Ben and the incident doesn't fall into the category of 'immediately reportable matters' but more than likely is classified as a 'routine reportable matter', which only requires a report to be submitted within 72 hours which could explain the lag.
However there is no question that this incident should be reported, here's an example from the past:
Investigation: 200500382 - Tail strike, Boeing B737-838 aircraft, VH-VXH:
Ben's article also lets the relevant authorities know that this event didn't go unnoticed and that Joe public will be monitoring their subsequent response with interest.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B767 Tailstrike
Does not the B767-300 have a hydraulic ram which extends with gear extension and which acts as a tail scrape protection/notification device? If it has and the crew were given an advisory regarding having had a tail scrape surely their actions were correct. Just what would the ATSB investigate? I would think that Qantas Training and Operations Departments investigating and taking remedial action would suffice.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack - to paraphrase Oscar Wilde – To lose one ****ter may be regarded as misfortunate; to lose both looks like carelessness.
Sunny - A crushable skid plate on it's bum is a standard fitting for all who dabble in the official version of matters aeronautical, personal modifications must be approved.
Sunny - A crushable skid plate on it's bum is a standard fitting for all who dabble in the official version of matters aeronautical, personal modifications must be approved.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish.
Did you read post #10 ??
Did you read post #10 ??
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Few bits and pieces correct here and there;
OLD FELLA
Yup it does, but as NSEU mentions not so much of a notification device unless u manage to bend it, break it or collapse it.
SUNFISH
Yup it has this too - but this is on the end of the tail skid. (I am not sure if that's what u meant or actually a skid plate along its rear end) I am not sure what is made of but it is a white block on the end of the skid. It's in the Red area of the QF logo/paint scheme, so the red paint comes off and it should show through with white scrape marks.
... compared to say the 738 it has a crushable cartridge in its skid and a little green symbol showing status of it.
NSEU
I never knew about the 36s delay for the disagree to occur.
OLD FELLA
Does not the B767-300 have a hydraulic ram which extends with gear extension and which acts as a tail scrape protection/notification device?
SUNFISH
From memory the B767 has a crushable little sacrificial skid plate on its bum .
... compared to say the 738 it has a crushable cartridge in its skid and a little green symbol showing status of it.
NSEU
I never knew about the 36s delay for the disagree to occur.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail Scrape Protection
Thanks to NSEU and blueloo for clarifying the B767-300 system. Never having worked for Ansett and never having operated in a company with B767's in their fleet I am not up with the aircraft. Occasionally we can all learn from posts on this forum.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a tailstrike of very minor contact...
I observed the tailstrike incident and at the time I though the skid may have missed contact by millimetres as there was not sparks, smoke, dust etc coming off the skid.
It appeared to be just a slight over-rotation - as the takeoff appeared normal until the aircraft commence the initial lift-off after the standard rotation and rise of the front wheels.
However the aircraft did not lift-off the runway as per normal a second or so later, hence the pitch increased until just as the tailskid appeared to possibly just touch the runway the aircraft lifted off.
The thought crossed my mind as to whether the weights and measurements were correctly added to the FMS or if someone did not correctly list all the cargo...
Either way it was a very minor tailstrike and SOP's would have no doubt dictated the aircraft return for a safety check.
River
It appeared to be just a slight over-rotation - as the takeoff appeared normal until the aircraft commence the initial lift-off after the standard rotation and rise of the front wheels.
However the aircraft did not lift-off the runway as per normal a second or so later, hence the pitch increased until just as the tailskid appeared to possibly just touch the runway the aircraft lifted off.
The thought crossed my mind as to whether the weights and measurements were correctly added to the FMS or if someone did not correctly list all the cargo...
Either way it was a very minor tailstrike and SOP's would have no doubt dictated the aircraft return for a safety check.
River