I tell you what. You should ask Boeing why they are so dumb and brave as to publish this stupid QRH checklist for that particular aircraft type and model ; which could result in lawsuits against them if the pilot should follow their stupid checklist and subsequently crash.
I hope you have operated the B 773 or the B 773-ER before to be such an expert.
The first question the investigators and company will ask is why did you not comply with the QRH checklist... unless you know something that the Boeing engineers and designers don't.
Then you should tell them the checklist is flawed and rubbish...

And if you turn back and there's nothing wrong with the airframe and the QRH says you could have continued, the first question the company is going to ask is... why did you turn back.

Sparks and smoke don't mean much if you are seeing the purpose-designed tail skid contacting the runway...

Report? What report? You might be waiting a while.

MACH082.

The 777-300 has a tailskid whose very design is to absorb the impact. If the tail crushes this and hits the fuselage it triggers an EICAS. If it doesn't, then the it has done precisely as designed, prevents the fuselage from striking the surface, and it is safe to continue the flight. Exactly as per Boeing instructions and checklist design.

And exactly what the crew did correctly here. This has been proven by the inspection of the aircraft in Singapore.

It seems that you think you are smarter than the thousands of Boeing engineers who designed the aircraft. Here is your problem: they have been proven right, and you have been proven wrong.

You have displayed arrogance and ignorance; a very scary pair of traits for any pilot. :=

From what I heard of atc, it appears they alll based it on the fact nothing other than a mark was found on the runway, no debris.

And why did you dump 70T of fuel against QRH instructions?

Singapore have cornered QF recently with new A350s, Canberra and more A380 services to Australia. Scoot has killed of Jetstar's chances in Asia.

No doubt this beat up is a result of QF picking up the phone to their ever loyal journos and telling their version of how (un)serious this is.

Can't beat them on frequency, service, aircraft, product but more than happy to rip them apart shall a PR issue arise....

I would have thought that the good folk at Qantas would have better things to do than cast aspersions on the safety of a competitor! :ugh:

Of course if this had been a Qantas aircraft in Singapore, the Straits Times would have ignored it……..

Like Ken, I doubt Qantas had any part in the notification to journos. They have there own "Sensational story" sources……scanners…..twitter…..faceplant…..