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?

fi crew "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"

Rather find your attitude to passengers to be less than nice. Criticize the papers for reporting stupid stuff as it is their job to be responsible, but it is not a passenger's job to even know what is normal. Who knows, the passenger may have even been mis-quoted.

Are yes Akali, glad to see you're having a laugh too. That photo in PEK is going to make for a very interesting story as to why the pilots continued when it looks as though the tailstrike is so obvious.

For those that haven't seen it look here:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Austrian-Airlines/Boeing-767-3Z9-ER/1646611/M/

Here's another interesting point. If an aircraft tailstrikes whilst taking off in a strong crosswind could the damage be greater because the tail's experienced sideways movement during the skid (i.e. aircraft commences a yaw as the nose comes up and the tail gets scraped along the tarmac and a little sideways at the same time)? :uhoh:

No but some of them had nose strikes :)

FWIW the rotate between the GE 767 and RR 767 feels fairly different.

The GE's generally leap of the ground, whilst the RRs feel like your dragging the thing off.

No one can explain why definitively - other than the RRs appear to come closer to tailstrikes than the GE because of this strange difference.

The best guess they can come up with is that for an equivalent (calculated) thrust/derate the 76GEs are generally pushing out more thrust (other thoughts include rigging differences, slower engine response, engine weight). Many guys add a few extra degrees thrust derate (thats poorly worded - but they add thrust) to the RR to help compensate - especially in gusty conditions - as most have a tendency in x- strong winds to want to get the thing off the ground quickly.

Taildragger67
I think your question is impossible to answer - in the tailstrike arena Airbus will still be in Direct law. I suggest it depends entirely on pilot skill.

The 767 is prone to a tailstrike if you rotate too quickly which is why it has a little skid gizmo fitted at the back. You dont damage the actual skin of the aircraft.

Where has a passenger said something stupid in this case? She simply said the cabin crew were in their seats when it happened, ie. that it happened very early in the flight.

That stupid passenger probably also knows the difference between "their" and "there".

The 'feel' differs greatly depending on how accurate the trim setting has been calculated. That can also change the initial rate of rotate as well as the response to it.

SASKATOON, when lightly loaded most CSMs make announcements regarding passengers remaining in assigned seating until after take off. It probably still occurs to a certain extent and as I said before, inaccurate trim can contribute to a tail strike. It may have been a factor but I'd be surprised if we ever had enough information to know.

Someone once said to me that tailstrikes on the 767 are a bit like gear up landings in lighties, those that have and those that will. I personally don't subscribe to that theory but I also acknowledge that aviation is a dynamic environment and that things like this can happen to the best of us even when we get most things right.

Just imagine the tone of this thread had it have been Jetstar that had struck a tail! All the usual suspects would be salivating.. Ultergra et al

Beat me to it titan. An Asian airline might have faired even worse.

I'm not 100% convinced that that answers IcePacks question. I can imagine how tailstrikes can occur to anyone under certain combinations of conditions, however, saying that "the feel differs greatly" is sort of making his argument......you can feel it. If you start a rotation with the normal backpressure and the nose leaps up quicker than normal you "feel it" and reduce the backpressure until the rate is what you want.....yeah?
I don't want to be seen as criticizing this crew in any way...who knows what went on, anyway, they did the right thing after the event and nobody is permanently worse off.

ps .......were there large gusts and crosswind at the time?

Yeah...and no. Sometimes the 'reduce the backpressure' is actually a 'forward check'. However, now you're in a situation where the 'normal' things like the 'normal' force you utilise, the 'normal' attitude you are for a given speed, etc is all different. You need to re-start the rate of change again and this time utilise a force that is 'less' than what was before and is decidely not normal. In these circumstances, like being in cloud, what you 'feel' may not be accurate.

I guess my point is that 'feeling' the rotate works under 'normal' circumstances. As soon as something is not normal (like the trim being out) then the subsequent feeling becomes more of a case of trial, error, and experience. EG: I recall flying a 767 more than a decade ago where the trim was so far out (rearward) that I needed forward pressure to keep the nose on the ground and maintained that forward pressure throughout the rotate until I could sort out the trim after becoming airborne. (Long boring story as to why and something that I won't go into on PPRUNE). Perhaps that makes the 'feel' case but given how different it felt to normal it could have easily resulted in a tail scrape.

Taildragger67,

I'm also not trying to start an Airbus/Boeing slagfest but modern Boeings do have tailstrike protection. The 777 will protect you, however, if you really want to leave your mark on the tarmac you can just keep pulling to over-ride it. The 767/747's are pretty old technology now. Correct me if I'm wrong but both were designed in the 70's/ early 80's. The 777 and no doubt the 787 offer full flight envelope protection but the pilot always has the option to over-ride it simply with control/thrust lever inputs.

Do Jetstar fly the 767? If Jetstar did strike a tail, particularly an A330, yes there would have been an uproar because no-one has ever had an A330 tailstrike.

There have been plenty with 767's however. Particularly in gusty crosswinds.

Too many naked agendas on PPRUNE these days.:mad:

Keg, I think we are on the same page. I flew medium size jets in Asia for a year or so and often the trim would be out....still in the band, but out. I often found myslef doing exactly as you decribed and "modifying" my rotation to get the correct rate.Basically what you described with your trim story is what IcePack is saying.....you "felt" that it was wrong, you flew the plane in a manner that produced the required result.
I think you make a good case for 'feeling' the rotate working under abnormal circumstances :)
Have a good one , Framer

Capt K. point of order with regards your statement There has been one that I know of at EDDF Air Canada 875

Tyro and Offcut,

Thanks gents.

They will have to start putting tail wheels on them!

Back Seat Driver

The Air Canada A330 was rotated 24 knots below Vr! That is a recipe for a tail strike on any aircraft and, at the time, was the first recorded A330 tail strike in over 700,000 take-offs.

Titan Urectum, QF have had the 767 for almost 25 years now. Hundreds of thousands of sectors into places like the US, Hong Kong including 12 years of operations into Kai Tak, Japan, India, Thailand........

I could count the tailstrikes in that times on the fingers of one hand. When Jetstar have the same amount of sectors on the A321, lets compare notes.

Until then, try and keep that chip on your shoulder balanced.