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

Sydney Morning Herald reporting a tailstrike.

Qantas plane drama after tail strike

The journo's reporting a "A Qantas spokeswoman told Fairfax Media a gust of wind lifted the nose of the plane as its front wheel had just left the ground, lifting the plane up more sharply than normal."

Anyone know what really happened?

What really happened was a tail strike on take off and a return to land as per QRH.

:ok: I think that sums it up nicely MAS. Next please!

Yes, those winds in Sydney can be very tricky. I've filed that one away just in case.:)

Sydney Morning Herald extract
 

Passenger Nicole Kearns, 33, who was flying with her one-year-old son, said she thought she detected the pilots throttling off to slow the engines while the plane was still climbing.

The captain then made his address just minutes into the flight, as the coastline was still in view.

"We were on ascent then the announcement came over that we'd have to turn around," she said. "
Ms Kearns, an experienced parachutist of 300 jumps, said that she felt no impact, or any unusual noise from the plane during take-off.

"I didn't hear anything or feel anything unusual," she said.

The plane turned and landed about 15 minutes later without incident, and was tailed by a ground vehicle with flashing lights as it taxied back to the terminal.

Passengers were kept on board for about 10 minutes while the plane was inspected on the ground, Ms Kearns said.


She said she believed the crew were still strapped in their seats when the incident occurred and were "extra courteous" to passengers when they were disembarked for replacement flights.

Especially those really tricky Sydney ones which lift the nose of the aircraft but leave the rest of it dragging along the runway.

I like the bit that the crew were still strapped into their seats when the incident happened.:D
Do you mean it is not normal practice for the crew to be out of their seats during take-off.:ugh:

Why do pilots rotate through the tail strike body angle whilst the main gear is still in contact with the earth, when there is still plenty of runway left.?

(Yep you may have to if you only have say 2000 ft left. but again surely the lack of acceleration would be noticeable)

Can't Pilots fly these days. Book called Cone of Silence by D Beatty touched on this subject eons ago.:hmm:

Is this another worldwide first for Big Q.

Can anyone else remember of a tailstrike that was not pilot error.


Love the tricky gust lifting the nose story.Where does Q find these people.


Assy

Perhaps she was shocked they weren't wearing parachutes and weren't bailing out ?

Because the taught technique is to rotate at a set rate. Some types might pause or slow the rotation - depends on type / training. A late / slow / delayed rotation has it's own issues when Performance is critical...

Anyway - who said the tail strike occurred with the main wheels still on the ground? On the 763, the vulnerable point for a tailstrike is some time after the mainwheels lift off :ooh:

NoD

Most tailstrikes happen after the main gear leaves the ground.

As for talking to pax after some kind of incidents happen. It should be banned. Most of them are to stupid to talk. There comments confirm that. Same thing goes for some of the reporters their knowledge is :mad:

Hmmm, but generally our grammar, spelling and punctuation are pretty good...:cool:

On one's really bad day it can be an embarrassing and career killing error. However this excuse : [QUOTE]Yes, those winds in Sydney can be very tricky. I've filed that one away just in case.[/QUOTE] really takes the cake!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

This kind of problem didn't occur with DC3s. Has aircraft design gone backwards?

BOAC is "having a laugh"
 

Hey Akali,

Not sure if you have or have not understood BOAC's sarastic comment. Clearly he/she is making a joke about the article's comment that a "Qantas spokeswoman('s)" told Fairfax Media that "a gust of wind lifted the nose of the plane as its front wheel had just left the ground, lifting the plane up more sharply than normal" not storing it away as a future "excuse".

regards

Ren

You have got to be kidding me with that last response?

Nod & fc
yep that will teach me to over simplify.

Correct rotation rates will work. Unless something else causes the lift off body angle to be incorrect. E. G. W/shear or wrong speeds. Still do not understand why pilots have no "feel" for what the a/c is doing & an awareness of tail strike body angles on & just after lift off. Sure if the end of the rwy is coming up, you'll need to see if the test pilots got minimum unstick right.
763 yeh lovely a/c to fly, some do not like the roll rate but I loved it.

RM, I am having a laugh too!
 

Hope to eat the cake too................but you preempted some of the fun to come:ok:

More gems to come with the footage on Austrian B767 ex PEK!

NOD, FC & IcePack,

DISCLAIMER - this is not to set off any A-vs-B arguments - it is just a bona fide question.

Right...

Let's consider 2 aircraft of the same type; one a/c has full Airbus-style FBW, the other has Boeing controls. All other things are equal and weights / speeds have been correctly determined and entered.

Both aircraft rotate simultaneously on parallel runways and, after the main wheels leave the concrete, are both simultaneously subject to a force which, all other things equal, would tend to cause an over-rotation.

Under 'normal' law, would the Airbus-FBW-equipped aircraft be more or less likely to strike its tail, compared to the Boeing?

The logic I'm using is this: should A's FBW computers be able to detect the nose-up force quickly enough and reduce the control surface input quickly enough to prevent a strike?