QF 787 Tailstrike LHR
Thread Starter
QF 787 Tailstrike LHR
Saw an article earlier today regarding a QF 787 Tailstrike at LHR. A search later today brings up a dearth of news results, the most pertinent from Simple Flying (not the most authoritative source I know). Was there or wasn't there an actual strike, or was this just a false positive? Crappy wx around the UK today. Either way disruptive for the pax.
Pax who were onboard report being told “engine issue”
Didn’t dump, apparently it landed at 248T, 6T below MTOW.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wasn’t a strike. Just possibility of one. No damage as it didn’t make contact.
There’s a 787 bulletin that raises the possibility of spurious tail strike EICAS messages appearing in the cruise. Just speculating but maybe one of those.
There’s a 787 bulletin that raises the possibility of spurious tail strike EICAS messages appearing in the cruise. Just speculating but maybe one of those.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to a wayward virgin baggage can at Tullamarine a hole was punched under a 787.
I believe tooling and expertise has to be flown out from Boeing. It was repaired though.
I guess it depends on the extent of the damage whether a repair would be cost effective or not.
I believe tooling and expertise has to be flown out from Boeing. It was repaired though.
I guess it depends on the extent of the damage whether a repair would be cost effective or not.
Last edited by IsDon01; 13th Feb 2020 at 11:01.
Now if Boeing could manufacture that piece individually or would have to sacrifice a complete barrel from production would be an interesting question.
Beyond that small punctures have indeed been repaired by scarf type composite repairs to skin damage.
Also as the 787 is basically made up of of a few major parts, it is almost impossible to get a stringer or other part that is part of the barrel construction process separately.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken from AvHerald "The B787 has a bulletin out on nuisance Tailstrike warnings due to corrosion issues with the sensors however the bulletin indicates a Tailstrike message shown during take-off will be real Tailstrike, a indication later in flight might be a nuisance warning."
Reports in that the blade was shortened as a result of the ground contact, fuselage spared.
Last edited by got_wheel; 12th Feb 2020 at 23:12. Reason: More info
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your wording of the bulletin is correct. However, a nuisance warning can occur at any time, including takeoff. It’s just that at takeoff it’s possible that the warning is real and is to be treated as such.
If you say the sensors were scraped, then I can’t say you’re wrong as I’m not intimately involved in what happened. If so, the sensors did their job correctly.
What will be interesting, if this was a close call as you allege, did the tail strike protection system activate to protect the aircraft.
If you say the sensors were scraped, then I can’t say you’re wrong as I’m not intimately involved in what happened. If so, the sensors did their job correctly.
What will be interesting, if this was a close call as you allege, did the tail strike protection system activate to protect the aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I'm not 100% sure as I was not directly involved but I have it on good authority that there was contact. Watch this space I guess.
Whats also interesting is that I understand the conditions at the time were absolutely heinous (gusts etc.) leading to said (near?) tail-strike. Taking these conditions into account I'd be interested as to why they landed ~55T over MLW when dumping fuel would have reduced the risk of any heavy landing.
Whats also interesting is that I understand the conditions at the time were absolutely heinous (gusts etc.) leading to said (near?) tail-strike. Taking these conditions into account I'd be interested as to why they landed ~55T over MLW when dumping fuel would have reduced the risk of any heavy landing.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Again, I'm not 100% sure as I was not directly involved but I have it on good authority that there was contact. “
Aircraft apparently u/s in Melbourne with damage to a component near the area in question.
Just coincidence, I guess
Aircraft apparently u/s in Melbourne with damage to a component near the area in question.
Just coincidence, I guess
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I'm not 100% sure as I was not directly involved but I have it on good authority that there was contact. Watch this space I guess.
Whats also interesting is that I understand the conditions at the time were absolutely heinous (gusts etc.) leading to said (near?) tail-strike. Taking these conditions into account I'd be interested as to why they landed ~55T over MLW when dumping fuel would have reduced the risk of any heavy landing.
Whats also interesting is that I understand the conditions at the time were absolutely heinous (gusts etc.) leading to said (near?) tail-strike. Taking these conditions into account I'd be interested as to why they landed ~55T over MLW when dumping fuel would have reduced the risk of any heavy landing.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: spain
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least in my airline, tailstrike NNC at t/off as the bulleting mentioned says, should be considered as real, so chklist tells you to land at the nearest suitable airport. But if no other non normals involved, jettison till MLM or nearby ( maintenance could tell you it’s ok for them to land above MLM up to a certain weight they calculate, so the after landing inspection is ( apart of tailstrike issue) minimal
