CX Tailstrike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plaz, irrespective of where it is hidden, thinking INSIDE the box would lead you to believe there is probably a reasonable amount of stress placed on the a/c when a 250 odd ton frame "brush"es the ground at 300 kmh. I just hope the duty ops manager gets hung out to dry. It is pumped into these guys to call ops, eng etc. If this had ended in 4000 pieces of aluminium, jet fuel, and body parts fluttering down from 350 over PNG I am pretty sure I know who would have been blamed. The figures for a overweight landing are known, why not send it back, autoland it (haven't been there for a few years, but surely you can) , if its ok, send it off again? Surely there must be some suspicion when you dont feel the "thug" of the gear leaving the ground by 11 deg? Ever seen the pattern the 340 doing AKL does? have a look and you will may begin to get an idea why the decision was made, particularly on the busiest 5 days in the history of CX.
IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT, THERE IS NO DOUBT
IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT, THERE IS NO DOUBT
Last edited by jtr; 31st Jan 2004 at 00:12.
Gosh BlueEagle perhaps it doesn't apply to 411A after all.
I recall 411A taking off knowing an engine wasn't working correctly, perhaps Blueeagle didn't know that 411A operates on a different level to us mere mortals.
"Wasn't working correctly" - well that does leave the door wide open, was it a minor deferred defect or a Major no-go item? And I don't classify his post here as abuse or personal attack, do you BusyB? More a strongly expressed opinion that is not likely to be too popular amongst CX pilots! Take the topic on, start a new thread, discuss!
BlueEagle - Moderator.
I recall 411A taking off knowing an engine wasn't working correctly, perhaps Blueeagle didn't know that 411A operates on a different level to us mere mortals.
"Wasn't working correctly" - well that does leave the door wide open, was it a minor deferred defect or a Major no-go item? And I don't classify his post here as abuse or personal attack, do you BusyB? More a strongly expressed opinion that is not likely to be too popular amongst CX pilots! Take the topic on, start a new thread, discuss!
BlueEagle - Moderator.
Last edited by BlueEagle; 31st Jan 2004 at 04:56.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lapbandland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The press do not provide FACTS, they provide rumour and pure
speculation.How anyone could quote the press as being the only
source of real information available is WRONG. Most of the facts
have been posted in this discussion.
What should be discussed is the dilemma faced by the Captain, the definition of a tailstrike, the companies involvement, cabin crew training for such events and so on. CX does need an audit and these issues need to be resolved. People, aviation is a very
dynamic constantly evolving business.
What its developed into is not always SAFE. Blind adherance to
SOPS cannot fix every possible problem.
Commonsense and airmanship also need to be discussed on this
forum, command of any aircraft is not about total reliance on the
BOOKS.
Every trip made on an older aircraft is still a trip to MARS, after all
no-one has done it before. I mean that seriously!
Who knows what will happen to a tired older AIRBUS particularly
on a flight sometime in the future.
None of us have been there yet.
speculation.How anyone could quote the press as being the only
source of real information available is WRONG. Most of the facts
have been posted in this discussion.
What should be discussed is the dilemma faced by the Captain, the definition of a tailstrike, the companies involvement, cabin crew training for such events and so on. CX does need an audit and these issues need to be resolved. People, aviation is a very
dynamic constantly evolving business.
What its developed into is not always SAFE. Blind adherance to
SOPS cannot fix every possible problem.
Commonsense and airmanship also need to be discussed on this
forum, command of any aircraft is not about total reliance on the
BOOKS.
Every trip made on an older aircraft is still a trip to MARS, after all
no-one has done it before. I mean that seriously!
Who knows what will happen to a tired older AIRBUS particularly
on a flight sometime in the future.
None of us have been there yet.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, tail goes bang, hostie notifies the flight deck, they call the company...and the company says...carry on regardless.
Seems to me...the Commander of the concerned flight, without knowing the damage done, contacts the company, who...has no idea either, decides to do as the duty officer suggests.
Tail wagging the dog here, it would appear.
Clearly CX operational control is substandard, in a rather large way.
Could it be that the Captain has no say in the matter...ie: commercial considerations always prevail?
My, how the mighty have fallen.
Seems to me if the pressure vessel has been (or suspected to be) compromised, a return/diversion to the nearest suitable would be advised.
If those in the left seat do not understand this, perhaps a change is needed...in the left seat OR (supposing the Commander has no say in the matter) the management that allows this nonsense to be the norm.
Hello...ICAO audit.
Korean and Asiana found out...big time.
Seems to me...the Commander of the concerned flight, without knowing the damage done, contacts the company, who...has no idea either, decides to do as the duty officer suggests.
Tail wagging the dog here, it would appear.
Clearly CX operational control is substandard, in a rather large way.
Could it be that the Captain has no say in the matter...ie: commercial considerations always prevail?
My, how the mighty have fallen.
Seems to me if the pressure vessel has been (or suspected to be) compromised, a return/diversion to the nearest suitable would be advised.
If those in the left seat do not understand this, perhaps a change is needed...in the left seat OR (supposing the Commander has no say in the matter) the management that allows this nonsense to be the norm.
Hello...ICAO audit.
Korean and Asiana found out...big time.
Last edited by 411A; 31st Jan 2004 at 10:46.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
411A, you. my "friend" are a hypocrite of the first order by writing, "Seems to me...the Commander of the concerned flight, without knowing the damage done, contacts the company, who...has no idea either, decides to do as the duty officer suggests."
Your self-confession on the main R&N forum some months back (as BusyB alludes to) of KNOWINGLY taking off - as PIC - in an aircraft that had a defective engine, delivering an unreliable output, with the intention of diverting to have it fixed PRIOR to take off, damned any bona fides you might have thought you could claim forever and a day, in my book and that of most who read that thread.
From 411A in September of last year:-
Here is a link.
http://pprune.org/forums/showthread....5&pagenumber=3
Sorry for the deviation again, Blue Eagle, however if respondents to this discussion wish to debate the ISSUES raised by other contributors - namely 411A - then his comments need to be read in the light of HIS self-confessed, past practices ("antics", might be more apt terminology).
Your self-confession on the main R&N forum some months back (as BusyB alludes to) of KNOWINGLY taking off - as PIC - in an aircraft that had a defective engine, delivering an unreliable output, with the intention of diverting to have it fixed PRIOR to take off, damned any bona fides you might have thought you could claim forever and a day, in my book and that of most who read that thread.
From 411A in September of last year:-
Likewise, a year later, same company...#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust. After many complaints and no action, uplifted the pax, departed at a lighter weight, and diverted enroute for more fuel.
After just one of these diversions, they fixed the engine.
After just one of these diversions, they fixed the engine.
http://pprune.org/forums/showthread....5&pagenumber=3
Sorry for the deviation again, Blue Eagle, however if respondents to this discussion wish to debate the ISSUES raised by other contributors - namely 411A - then his comments need to be read in the light of HIS self-confessed, past practices ("antics", might be more apt terminology).
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M,
As usual, you do seem to have the propensity of barking up the wrong tree.
My personal actions with regard to my flight in question were in full conformity with the AFM, someting that you seem to have conveniently forgotten...or choose to ignore.
Now on the other hand, the CX Airbus tailstrike in question on this forum would seem to indicate a rather irresponsible action on the part of the flight deck crew, considering that damage to the airframe was (is) a distinct possibility. This was certainly compounded by the poor operational control from HKG.
Can't imagine a tailstrike to be in conformity with the Airbus AFM, unless of course you personally have knowledge to the contrary.
Perhaps CX management and/or its Commanders have the opinion that commercial considerations outweigh safety, when structural damage to the airframe is a consideration.
Perhaps also they think the opinions of trained cabin crew, who report that scraping noises from the aft end should be ignored.
Certainly does not inspire confidence of the traveling public who after all expect better performance from CX, a respected aircarrier which has been around a rather long time.
Could it be that CX Commanders are as poorly trained and operational control is as deficient as this incident indicates?
As usual, you do seem to have the propensity of barking up the wrong tree.
My personal actions with regard to my flight in question were in full conformity with the AFM, someting that you seem to have conveniently forgotten...or choose to ignore.
Now on the other hand, the CX Airbus tailstrike in question on this forum would seem to indicate a rather irresponsible action on the part of the flight deck crew, considering that damage to the airframe was (is) a distinct possibility. This was certainly compounded by the poor operational control from HKG.
Can't imagine a tailstrike to be in conformity with the Airbus AFM, unless of course you personally have knowledge to the contrary.
Perhaps CX management and/or its Commanders have the opinion that commercial considerations outweigh safety, when structural damage to the airframe is a consideration.
Perhaps also they think the opinions of trained cabin crew, who report that scraping noises from the aft end should be ignored.
Certainly does not inspire confidence of the traveling public who after all expect better performance from CX, a respected aircarrier which has been around a rather long time.
Could it be that CX Commanders are as poorly trained and operational control is as deficient as this incident indicates?
411A
You propensity to mouth off garbage ceases to amaze me. You don’t know the facts so I suggest you shut it before you make yourself look even more stupid.
I have already explained to you the sequence of events, as they are publicly known. Only one junior flight attendant who had been with the company six months and one passenger heard anything. Nothing was heard by anyone else. From all the evidence that was before the crew, the company and Auckland airport, it was concluded that a tail strike didn’t occur. With hindsight this was wrong and systems will need to be put in place to guide crews and IOC and engineering staff if this isn’t to be repeated in the future.
In reference to your last question:
Answer: No & No.
You propensity to mouth off garbage ceases to amaze me. You don’t know the facts so I suggest you shut it before you make yourself look even more stupid.
I have already explained to you the sequence of events, as they are publicly known. Only one junior flight attendant who had been with the company six months and one passenger heard anything. Nothing was heard by anyone else. From all the evidence that was before the crew, the company and Auckland airport, it was concluded that a tail strike didn’t occur. With hindsight this was wrong and systems will need to be put in place to guide crews and IOC and engineering staff if this isn’t to be repeated in the future.
In reference to your last question:
Could it be that CX Commanders are as poorly trained and operational control is as deficient as this incident indicates?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueEagle,
Would it be OK for me to post 411A's home address and phone#, so the boys could communicate more directly with 411A, instead of wasting space on this forum?
Sharkman
Definitely Not!!! regards, BlueEagle
Would it be OK for me to post 411A's home address and phone#, so the boys could communicate more directly with 411A, instead of wasting space on this forum?
Sharkman
Definitely Not!!! regards, BlueEagle
Last edited by BlueEagle; 1st Feb 2004 at 05:45.
Tail wagging the dog here, it would appear.
I've worked for people like you, and feel sorry for those who work for you now (ASSUMING they exist...Website up yet?).
Jizzmonkey
What you say is very true but what I have been told is that the DFDR doesn’t support this theory. It must be pointed out though the limitations in the DFDR to accurately record this phase of flight in any great detail. Auckland airport also has cameras that record all arrivals and departures from both ends of the runway. These photos don’t show anything untoward though the resolution I believe doesn’t make it definitive either. Other areas being looked at are the load sheet and how the loading of the aircraft was accomplished. I won’t make any assumptions about this though until that side of the investigation is complete and in the public arena.
What you say is very true but what I have been told is that the DFDR doesn’t support this theory. It must be pointed out though the limitations in the DFDR to accurately record this phase of flight in any great detail. Auckland airport also has cameras that record all arrivals and departures from both ends of the runway. These photos don’t show anything untoward though the resolution I believe doesn’t make it definitive either. Other areas being looked at are the load sheet and how the loading of the aircraft was accomplished. I won’t make any assumptions about this though until that side of the investigation is complete and in the public arena.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Looks as though Jizzmonkey's got the whole subject sussed
So we can dispense with superficial stuff like stab trim setting, actual loading in accordance with the W&B, security of cargo loading, correct oleo inflation, and windshear, to name a few.
Great - hang 'em fast, and hang 'em high.
When a tail strike occurrs:
1. Rotation too fast/high
2. Rotated early
3. Wrong Vee speeds calculated
1. Rotation too fast/high
2. Rotated early
3. Wrong Vee speeds calculated
Great - hang 'em fast, and hang 'em high.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404Titan,
No and No?
Aircraft on takeoff has a tailstrike, crew and pax in the back end report scraping noises....yet the Captain decides to continue the flight to destination, with the concurance of HKG ops.
Not a very pretty picture.
Wrong vee speeds? FMC problem? Trim sheet incorrect?
All easily noticed by a competent crew, with the possible exception of the trim sheet, but usually these are quite accurtate, if computer generated.
Looks to me like a major stuff up by the handling pilot, and rather poor advice from the concerned HKG duty officer.
No & No?......hardly.
No and No?
Aircraft on takeoff has a tailstrike, crew and pax in the back end report scraping noises....yet the Captain decides to continue the flight to destination, with the concurance of HKG ops.
Not a very pretty picture.
Wrong vee speeds? FMC problem? Trim sheet incorrect?
All easily noticed by a competent crew, with the possible exception of the trim sheet, but usually these are quite accurtate, if computer generated.
Looks to me like a major stuff up by the handling pilot, and rather poor advice from the concerned HKG duty officer.
No & No?......hardly.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: EDDF
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, everyone makes mistakes. 411A, did you ever make one? Why would CX fire the local captain since they spent so much money training him. May be a letter of reprimand on his file and make the guy a CRM instructor.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following link is to an Australian Transport Safety Bureau report (Occurrence Number: 200003037) involving a tail scrape incident at Melbourne airport on 21 July 2000.
The opening paragraph states:
'The crew of an aircraft waiting for clearance to taxi across an active runway observed a departing Boeing 767-300 scrape its hydraulic tail bumper during rotation. This information was then relayed to the pilot in command of the departing aircraft who elected to continue the flight in accordance with the non-normal checklist. Maintenance personnel inspected the aircraft when it arrived in Sydney and determined the strike was minor. A repaint of the skid was all that was required for the aircraft to continue in service.'
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...tail.cfm?ID=79
The opening paragraph states:
'The crew of an aircraft waiting for clearance to taxi across an active runway observed a departing Boeing 767-300 scrape its hydraulic tail bumper during rotation. This information was then relayed to the pilot in command of the departing aircraft who elected to continue the flight in accordance with the non-normal checklist. Maintenance personnel inspected the aircraft when it arrived in Sydney and determined the strike was minor. A repaint of the skid was all that was required for the aircraft to continue in service.'
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...tail.cfm?ID=79
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hart744,
Did not personally mention anywhere about 'firing' the Commander, indeed this would seem to be counterproductive, as others would then try to cover up future mistakes.
Overrotation is more common now with modern types than before, by guys who simply think that to...'point it up, period' is the right way.
Retraining, or to be more provocative....PROPER TRAINING is required...in the first place.
CX would do well to examine their training procedures, and act accordingly.
Many CX pilots think they can do no wrong...sadly they are quite mistaken, as the statistics prove.
Did not personally mention anywhere about 'firing' the Commander, indeed this would seem to be counterproductive, as others would then try to cover up future mistakes.
Overrotation is more common now with modern types than before, by guys who simply think that to...'point it up, period' is the right way.
Retraining, or to be more provocative....PROPER TRAINING is required...in the first place.
CX would do well to examine their training procedures, and act accordingly.
Many CX pilots think they can do no wrong...sadly they are quite mistaken, as the statistics prove.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A shame this is turning into 411a bashing, although he is being a little harsh before the facts are all in.
I was told a while ago that you make a decision before you call the company.
If the cc had only 6 months of experience, if he/she heard a scrape on rotation, then it's still a scrape, if he/she isnt fit to report a problem to the fltcrew, he/she shouldn't be there otherwise.
Let the lawyers figure out the difference between scrape and strike but I think I would have turned back.
I hope the facts will be different than what they seem, but if they are not, the people upstairs should make some changes to the system.
Especially in these vague cases it is important that the captain makes the right call.
I was told a while ago that you make a decision before you call the company.
If the cc had only 6 months of experience, if he/she heard a scrape on rotation, then it's still a scrape, if he/she isnt fit to report a problem to the fltcrew, he/she shouldn't be there otherwise.
Let the lawyers figure out the difference between scrape and strike but I think I would have turned back.
I hope the facts will be different than what they seem, but if they are not, the people upstairs should make some changes to the system.
Especially in these vague cases it is important that the captain makes the right call.
411A, your comments are slanderous and extremely offensive. As you seem to be a bit slow to get the point, I'll spell it out for you one more time - the crew used all the resources available to them and DECIDED THAT A TAIL STRIKE HAD NOT IN FACT OCCURRED. In hindsight, that decision was obviously flawed. Had there been any doubt at the time, I am quite sure the captain would have elected to return to AKL. I am also quite sure the CX investigation of this incident will examine ALL the relevant factors. Perhaps you should keep your bigoted views to yourself until that investigation is complete.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 1st Feb 2004 at 16:10.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buzzbox,
Your phrase..."in hindsight, that decision was obviously flawed" is right on the mark, IMO.
Clearly it was, and will CX learn from this....more than likely not as, according to most there, they can do no wrong. 
Your phrase..."in hindsight, that decision was obviously flawed" is right on the mark, IMO.
Clearly it was, and will CX learn from this....more than likely not as, according to most there, they can do no wrong.