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.

From the QRH.

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.

My My Titan....Once again you seem to be a little, how do we say, touchy!

GB

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!:ugh:

I thought Qantas sold the tailskids to Jetstar. :}

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.

Jeeez Taildrager, Ya wonna run that by me again??:confused: