Pacific Blue Tail Scrape in Sydney
 

Blue Bird VG93 departed Sydney today and had a tail scrape.
Big deal you say, can happen to anyone.
What does the QRH say ?
Why would you continue climbing to FL380 after being told a taxying aircraft saw what appeared to be a tail scrape on rotate.
Why would you continue climbing after ATC told you the Safety Officer found a heavy piece of metal 5 by 3 inches that appeared to be a tail guard.
After all this GRADEing a comprimise of F280 was made.

I thought you Virgin guys and gals were on the ball.
Please tell me my source was wrong.:bored:

I don't know what the 737 QRH says, but the 767 one would not allow the a/c to be pressurised until inspected... I really hope that your sources are wrong.
The greatest single accident in terms of fatalities in aviation (JAL) was as a consequence of a similar oversight.

With the current state of pilot shortages seeing people moving to the right hand seat of an airline with a fraction of the experience and minimal training( 'cause they have to pay for it) compared to before "lowcosts", a similar thing is happening with movements to the left seat. This is what you get.
I was going to say.....if you pay peanuts...you get.....but, these days it appears that VB is the better payer therefore, where are the monkeys going ?To the lower paying lowcosts? Lowest of the low?
You know there were reasons for having expensive training departments and all the overheads of a "traditional" ( was going to say "real") airline.They needed them to produce the standards and the service. Even if there was wastage.

That was with fewer duty hours.What happens to standards when workload increases?

The JAL accident
 

The JAL 747SR accident was caused by the failure of the rear pressure bulkhead, itself of poor maintenance procedures. The bulkhead failed and caused the problems - it was not a tail strike that caused the initial sequence of events.

scraping home
 

Does anyone recall the China Southern A340 that had a big tailscrape at LHR and despite warnings from ATC, was pressurised and flown on to Shanghai with the innocent pax sat there oblivious (although some heard the tail scrape).

During that 11 hour flight the risk of a creeping consequential structural failure and or explosive decompression were not minimal in my view -or that of others.

I guess the same questions could apply to this incident reported here today.

Who took the decision to continue and to pressurise?
Even if the QRF says 'ok to go' what about the circumstantial evidence from ATC reprots?

Its simple guys - tailscrape of note- with additional ATC comments - return for inspection soonest - no arguements, no commanders discretion- get it down.

Go on- tell me I am wrong someone....

Pb had a tail scrape taking off ex NAN as well, not very long ago.

I beg to differ Kwaj mate, the initial tail scrape was the initiating factor, but I take your point that the incorrect repair of the rear pressure bulkhead ultimately led to the demise of JAL 123.

Like all aircraft accidents the end result is usually the final hole of the cheese lining up. Brilliant man DR reason. So what created the mindset that felt it acceptable to continue and to pressurise the aircraft? Notwithstanding the QRH, where is the basic concept of common sense, or even self preservation? Perhaps the answer can be found in an individuals shortcomings, or more than likely an overall shortcoming somewhere in an organisation.

Some of the rises in careers we are now seeing are meteoric when compared to years gone by. The eagerness to please and determination to get the job done, (a trait not easily tempered by some inexperienced pilots) may sometimes cloud one's better judgement. I'm not saying that this is what necessarily happened here, but food for thought nonetheless.

When I look at some of the goings on in aviation today, I keep coming back to a tried and true old saying, be it operationally or industrially.

"Those that do not learn from the mistakes of the past, are doomed to repeat them."

QRH says in nice big bold Letters. CAUTION: Do not pressurise airplane due to possible structural damage
As always this is for the authority to investigate. One problem may have been that they were unaware of a non normal checklist for it.:uhoh:

Question: Is there any cockpit indication of a tail scrape on rotation?

Some more 'facts' from another source: the crew said they may have "left something behind" on the rwy. After that, a taxiing acft said they noticed a "puff of smoke on rotation". PB was above 10,000 at that point. The safety officer found debris which was reported as a rectangular piece of metal, and was being sent to engineers for further analysis. PB was above 20,000. Crew was informed the debris was identified as a 737-type tail skid. PB levelled off 28,000, made a u-turn, descended to below 10,000 and burned fuel before returning.

Now apart from the actual tail scrape, IF they didn't suspect this being the cause of having "left something behind", GIVEN the sequence of events in the climb-out, THEN they probably did all the right things?

Question: Is there any cockpit indication of a tail scrape on rotation?
 

SSSSSCCCCCCCCRRRRRAAAAPPPEEEEE!!

:sad:

Settle lads; the aircraft held below A100 for just under an hour NE of SY, burning off fuel to get to landing weight, then landed safely back at YSSY.

F/D Indication
 

:D :D :D :D

QRH says for 738,

Condition: Airplane tail has contacted the ground during takeoff.

CAUTION: Do not pressurize airplane due to possible structural damage.

PRESSURIZATION MODE selector.....................MAN
OUTFLOW VALVE switch................................Open
Hold outflow valve switch in the OPEN position until outflow VALVE
position indicator shows valve full open.

Plan to land at nearest suitable airport.:confused:

Hi Krusty (and a happy New Year to all)

My understanding regarding JAL 123 is that the repair job done by Boeing was indeed not up to scratch however as part of the deal Boeing required ongoing periodic inspections to be carried out by JAL; for whatever reasons they were not carried out or else (hopefully) the faulty repairs would have been identified and tragedy averted.

For this reason one of the senior JAL engineering managers topped himself thereby "accepting blame" on behalf of JAL and of course in the Japanese psyche any problem or negligence that might have existed, ceased with this action.

was this a zk- registered pb aircraft or just one of the few in pb colours but operated by vb

The ZK drivers have aussie licences so they can operate either ZK or VH but not the other way round. Therefore there are no VB drivers operating ZK aircraft.

Gidday galdian,

And a happy new year to you too.

You gotta' give it to the Japanese, when they take responsibility for something, they certainly don't believe in half measures!

A whistleblowing New Zealand pilot has claimed Pacific Blue's rapid expansion means it is "only a matter of time before something really bad happens" with the discount airline.

The allegation is vehemently denied by the airline.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau confirmed it is investigating an incident in which a Christchurch-bound Pacific Blue flight veered off the runway during an attempted take-off from Kingsford Smith International Airport in Sydney.

The bureau this week released preliminary findings from an unrelated investigation into a Jetstar flight from Christchurch on July 21 that came within 13m of the ground because the pilots used the wrong throttle settings when attempting to abort a landing at fog-bound Melbourne Airport.

The investigations into the two cut-price airlines have raised concerns that fierce competition in the sector is combining with a worldwide shortage of qualified and experienced pilots to affect safety and training.
The Pacific Blue pilot, who fears his career will be over if he identifies himself, said the airline's expansion this month into domestic flights between Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland was exceeding the airline's ability to maintain standards.

"Pacific Blue is far worse than any other airline. The airline is rushing ahead too fast," he said.
"Pilots are having less and less experience, and obviously the training system isn't keeping up. It's only a matter of time before something really bad happens.

"We haven't gone to the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) because we know if we do, within an hour it will be back to Pacific Blue and our careers will be over. Anyone going to the CAA would be seen as a traitor to the airline.
"I'm prepared to do that. I think it's important for things to be said."
Pacific Blue-Virgin Blue public affairs general manager Heather Jeffery said safety was paramount and the airline rejected allegations it was "rushing" or its pilots were inexperienced. "What a coincidence – just as we are to start domestic operations in New Zealand, a mischievious and woefully incorrect anonymous source emerges," she said.

"Pacific Blue has an outstanding operational record. We are very proud of our pilots and of the regard we have worked hard to achieve with regulators on both sides of the Tasman."
She said the airline culture encouraged open reporting of the most minor incidences and the "operational incident at Sydney Airport with DJ74 and a minor tail scrape" were fully reported to regulators and led to internal briefings.

"We are growing fast, just as Virgin Blue grew fast, but we are certainly not rushing," Jeffery said.
"We have a unique culture and we have no problem attracting highly experienced New Zealand pilots."
Aviation commentator Peter Clark said all airlines were struggling to find qualified pilots and some were lowering their minimum standards to attract recruits.

"They're finding it hard to get people and particularly in the right-hand (co-pilot) seat. I've been seeing in the last few years the minimum requirements for the right-hand seat have started to lower marginally," he said.
"That's not necessarily a bad thing, so long as training and infrastructure are maintained."
T
he Pacific Blue pilot said the Sydney incident on July 14 was "absolutely horrific" and involved fundamental failures.
Combined with an unrelated incident in which another aircraft from the group scraped its tail on take-off from Fiji last month, it was symptomatic of failing standards.

"I think it was sheer luck they didn't have injuries in Sydney. It was a major, major incident. The aircraft was heavy with fuel," he said. "They were very, very lucky. If they'd done that in Wellington, they would have been in the water.
"This pilot came around the corner fast and didn't wait until he was lined up with the runway before pushing automatic thrust.
"He veered off the runway and made absolutely no attempt to abort the take-off. He was at full power and with a full fuel load on board.
"He froze. They didn't do anything. There was no braking, no reverse thrust, no attempt to abort."
He said it was "only a matter of time before something really, really bad happens".
The CAA did not respond to calls from The Press.

When is that article from? I am pretty sure that was posted around the time PB started domestic ops in NZ... there is no reference in it at all to the Syd tailstrike a few days ago.

Perhaps no Ref to the tail making contact with the RWY - but a serious incident none the less , 6 mths earlier - Do we see a trend developing.

thread drift (sorry)
 

Indeed.

Ozzies have had 10 years of looking over the ditch at that shambles and yet they still voted for a rosy future of over zealous legislation, do-gooders with no idea of what "good" actually is & pc-ism gone mad.

Maybe it's the new immigration reversal policy in anticipation of aunty and her cronies getting the shaft next year.

This chap Reason has a lot to answer for. As soon as the smallest incident occurs someone quotes his hole in the bloody cheese thingie which has become the worst repetitive cliche apart from mumbled condolences whenever someone gets knocked off..:ugh:

...... but is he wrong????

Of course he is not wrong though I do agree with the cliche comments. Like the word "Safety", quotations of Reason often get used for the wrong reasons, for political purposes to win a debate or to polish the outside for public perception. Cry or decree safety to the public eye and you will have all your nay sayers silenced. Managers of airlines, especialy the cheap budget type ones, hate the Reason model as it lays a fair bit of personal responsibility directly at their feet. In the current pilot skills shortage climate, they need to sharpen up and review their responsibilities, perhaps put their hands a little deeper into their pockets as the cracks in their wonderful little, shiney on the outside, airlines are definatly starting to show.

My point exactly!

Having used the HGS in QF 73ngs for some time I can imho give creedance to the impending tail scrape warning which I have seen several times on rotate. We didn't have a tail scrape but it did occur at heavier weights with derated power set. We were told that tail scrapes can cost about 1/2 mill if serious to check. Perhaps the business case was valid after all. Any QF drivers care to comment on similar experiences?

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have a tail scrape! This mindless need to maintain a constant rate of rotation from 0 to 15-18 degrees nose up that is drummed into us is the cause of these tailscrapes and is completely unnecessary.

My understanding is that as the tailplane descends towards the runway surface as the nose rises from 0 to 10 degrees nose up, the downward force from the tailplane is reduced due to ground effect (pressure between the runway and the underside of the tailplane increases). The pilot feels this as a pause in the rotation at about the 10 degree mark and is countered by pulling back even further on the control column.

As I said this mindless yanking back of the control column to maintain this rate of rotation at any cost is completely unnecessary. Rather than maintaining the rate of rotation at 3 degree per second through the whole manoeuvre, simply reduce the rate while the the attitude is passing through 10 - 12 degrees. It will only increase the time taken to reach the take-off attitude by a second or two. Big deal. It will also prevent a tail scrape.
Remember, the take-off (go) performance is predicated on an engine failure at V1! The fact that you are continuing the take-off on two engines means you have that much more margin over the minimum performance and therefore it is not critical if you reduce the rotation while the aircraft is passing though that point where the aircraft is most vulnerable to runway contact. And the all engine take-off performance has a factor of 15% does it not?

Remember also that:
1. Most runways are longer than required.
2. Most take-off's are done with reduced thrust which have margins built in.
3. Also in my experience, we always enter the take-off charts with NIL wind, regardless of the fact that there is always some headwind available. If there was tailwind, we would enter the take-off charts with a tailwind component much greater than the actual tailwind. For example if there was 3 kts tailwind reported, we would enter the charts with 5 kts tailwind. Again there is extra margin built in over the existing 50% headwind/150% tailwind margin already built in to the take-off performance charts!

I can tell you, if I was flying and my wheels were still on the ground while the attitude was rotating through 11 degrees nose up, I would relieve the pressure on the control column and reduce the rate of rotation to very little until the bird was airbourne. If I was to continue to pull back on the control wheel, I would simply be driving the tail into the ground.

Check out the picture on page 27 of the Singapore Airlines B744 in Auckland. I bet he was mindlessly trying to maintain the 3 degree per second rate of rotation through 11 degrees nose up. In fact I bet when the rotation stopped at that point, he pulled back even harder!

http://www.taic.org.nz/Portals/0/Ann...rt_2003-04.pdf

<sigh>

If you are still on the ground rotating through 11 deg in an -800, its too late - you would have had your tail strike.

Obviously a short haul pilot! :eek: :ok: :cool: :E

I agree that a lot of times a mindless rotate is the reason for tail scrapes but I disagree with the rationale that the solution in avoiding them is to use a poor technique simply because the runways are longer than required and there is fat built into the 'p' charts. I'd prefer for the right technique to be trained and flown so that when you are confronted with the worst case scenario (and goodness knows it's always the worst situation when it occurs) it all works as advertised. Flying the incorrect way in QF on the 767 or 737 will do the F/O or Captain no good when they transition to the A330, 744 or A380 and are often taking off at MTOW and max thrust and anything less than the right technique in the event of a mishap can mean the difference between flying away and augering in.

All the docs I've read indicate that the overwhelming majority of tail scrapes happen due to a fast rotate from the very start (poor technique) rather than from a 'snatch' through the dead spot at about 8-10 degrees with decreased elevator effectiveness. The tail scrape with SQ happened because they rotated 30 knots too slow. Using the SQ example is somewhat mischievous as it's a far more complex issue than simply the rotate method.

Further, I use the full headwind component to calculate my derate- as you say there is fat built into it- to go easy on the engines. I also tend to not over extend the downwind limit unless it's a 'flukey' wind or light and variable. Don't read into my comments that I'm in any way relying on the 'fat' to get my way out of trouble I've spoken at some length to performance engineers (who happen to be pilots as well) and so I'm comfortable with not having to add extra layers to what is an already multi layered defence.

So Boeing got it wrong eh? What ever happened to just doing it the way the manufacturer tells us how to do it?

Now Hear This - Boeing NEVER, EVER EVER get it wrong!!

Now if we were talking about that OTHER plane builder........:E

All the manufacturers can do is predicate information which can probably be utilised with no problems (or more to the point without having to use any thinking or commonsense) 99.9% of the time in the benign training environment of the SIM where the current trend seems to be to dumb it down to the maximum amount and minimise "the big picture."

All well and good until you throw them out in the real world of real weather and you have little more than trained monkeys to work the flaps/gear and talk on the radio.

OK here's one from FCTM for 73-8: Boeing recommend "avoid rotating during a gust", so there we are at V1+1 and get a decent old gust of wind.
What to do - abort?? Well no, we're above V1 so some explaining to do.
Hold it on the runway until the gust passes?? Well no, not if we want to maintain obstacle clearance if EFATO (assuming high weights.)

"..but Boeing says.." :ugh:

If you're in the left hand seat and you've tried to do the "normal" rotate but ambient conditions mean you're approaching 11 degrees with the mains still on the deck and you DON'T modify the body angle - well you're in the wrong game however you'd probably be a stunning success as a public servant! :ok:

Blipe wrote:There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have a tail scrape!
 

I agree with alot of your post. I trust you are also a good operator. One thing to remember though, never say never. Especially when relating to aviation.