CX Tailstrike
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a enlighten me,
Quote "according to most there, they can do know wrong"
How many people are 'most' people?
If youre going to make damning comments you'd be best to state your facts lest you think you have some sort of 'parlimentary privilege' on this forum.
My biggest gripe is that you have some quite valid points but your delivery is spiteful, vindictive and entirely unconstructive.
Objectivity and subjectivity are vastly different skills.
Quote "according to most there, they can do know wrong"
How many people are 'most' people?
If youre going to make damning comments you'd be best to state your facts lest you think you have some sort of 'parlimentary privilege' on this forum.
My biggest gripe is that you have some quite valid points but your delivery is spiteful, vindictive and entirely unconstructive.
Objectivity and subjectivity are vastly different skills.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't stand it anymore. This person 411A is despicable.
He professes to be a highly experienced, semi-retired former L1011 captain. Yet, he is highly opinionated, xenophobic, bigoted, thick-skinned and a fraud – all the traits I do not associate with a captain of any sort.
He claims to be on the threshold of starting an airline - just how long have we had to endure this lie - and yet when challenged on it he hides behind a veil of anonymity that only the internet can offer.
He threatens legal action against this BBS when someone calls his bluff - how long will this post stand, I wonder? I am sure that he will continue unabated with his litany of lies and disinformation because (in the opinion of some) he lends a "unique" flavour to the BBS.
Who is he? Is he really what he claims to be? For all we know, he could be a wannabe geek with a computer and lots of time. For an airline tycoon, he sure has a lot of time on his hands, doesn't he? Yes, I have read the disclaimer on the bottom of the page.
Blue Eagle and others - please tell this fool to stop. Had Joseph Goebels been alive today, despite all the ACLU efforts to defend freedom of speech (in the style of Voltaire) he would have been muzzled pdq. Like Goebels, this man is spreading a litany of hatred and lies, untruths and just plain, first-class snake-oil hokum.
To paraphrase:
"I disapprove of what you say, and I will defend to the utmost my right not to have the whole experience of this BBS spoiled by your lies."
He professes to be a highly experienced, semi-retired former L1011 captain. Yet, he is highly opinionated, xenophobic, bigoted, thick-skinned and a fraud – all the traits I do not associate with a captain of any sort.
He claims to be on the threshold of starting an airline - just how long have we had to endure this lie - and yet when challenged on it he hides behind a veil of anonymity that only the internet can offer.
He threatens legal action against this BBS when someone calls his bluff - how long will this post stand, I wonder? I am sure that he will continue unabated with his litany of lies and disinformation because (in the opinion of some) he lends a "unique" flavour to the BBS.
Who is he? Is he really what he claims to be? For all we know, he could be a wannabe geek with a computer and lots of time. For an airline tycoon, he sure has a lot of time on his hands, doesn't he? Yes, I have read the disclaimer on the bottom of the page.
Blue Eagle and others - please tell this fool to stop. Had Joseph Goebels been alive today, despite all the ACLU efforts to defend freedom of speech (in the style of Voltaire) he would have been muzzled pdq. Like Goebels, this man is spreading a litany of hatred and lies, untruths and just plain, first-class snake-oil hokum.
To paraphrase:
"I disapprove of what you say, and I will defend to the utmost my right not to have the whole experience of this BBS spoiled by your lies."
Last edited by Cpt. Underpants; 1st Feb 2004 at 17:01.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think about it in a logical manner, then it is a binary outcome decision, i.e. it is either a 0 or a 1 (Y or N).
Did I suffer a tailstrike
Y=Do not pressurise, and return
N=Continue
Neither of these lead themselves to calling company, they (Ops Duty Manager) are not going to be able to give you any more info than what you have at hand. This information is what you must make your decision on. Calling company implies that you have some doubt in your mind as to whether a tailstrike occured. If you think it may have happened, even the slightest possibility, then there is only one course of action.
Feel sorry for the individual concerned, but they pay you the $ to make the decisions.
And off topic, haven't you people learned to ignore 411 yet?
Did I suffer a tailstrike
Y=Do not pressurise, and return
N=Continue
Neither of these lead themselves to calling company, they (Ops Duty Manager) are not going to be able to give you any more info than what you have at hand. This information is what you must make your decision on. Calling company implies that you have some doubt in your mind as to whether a tailstrike occured. If you think it may have happened, even the slightest possibility, then there is only one course of action.
Feel sorry for the individual concerned, but they pay you the $ to make the decisions.
And off topic, haven't you people learned to ignore 411 yet?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I don't agree with much of what 411A has said in this thread he hasn't attacked any individuals, only CX in general and it's pilots, again, in general. Naturally enough the majority on this forum disagree strongly with 411A and you are free to go ahead and say so, without using abusive language please!
It is very easy to over moderate and that is something we wish to avoid whilst, at the same time, giving everyone a fair go.
When one takes the heat out of the various posts it still remains an interesting debate, nevertheless, it might help to bear in mind the facts as they are known and treat with caution what is, at this stage, just supposition.
regards to all,
BlueEagle - Moderator.
It is very easy to over moderate and that is something we wish to avoid whilst, at the same time, giving everyone a fair go.
When one takes the heat out of the various posts it still remains an interesting debate, nevertheless, it might help to bear in mind the facts as they are known and treat with caution what is, at this stage, just supposition.
regards to all,
BlueEagle - Moderator.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Felix Lighter,
JTR has mentioned some very valid points, ie: if there is the slightest doubt that a tailstrike has occured, limit pressurizing the aircraft, and return for landing.
There have been in the past several accidents where the aft pressure bulkhead has been compromised, resulting in rapid pressure loss...JAL 747 being the most severe (yes, I know poor/improper repair...nonetheless) and if it were me, would positively not want to continue the flight to destination, at planned altitudes.
In addition, many aircraft have in the AFM target pitch attitudes expected for various weight/trim conditions. Commanders (and indeed First Officers) should have an intimate knowledge of this data, to KNOW what the target pitch attitude should be for the weight anticipated,, and operate accordingly.
It would also follow that the crew should double check the loadsheet figures, and expect them to be in rough agreement with the planned payload and fuel uplift.
And this double check includes vee speeds as well, as the recent SQ tailstrike demonstrates....and not just rely on the FMC generated figures.
In short, know your aircraft and have a good idea of the planned weights/trim/vee speeds for the planned flight and ask yourself....does the generated loadsheet data seem reasonable.
I can think of no valid reason (other than mechanical failure) that a transport jet would be over-rotated during takeoff.
Even freighters that are badly misloaded generally have the control capability available for pilots to stop over-rotation.
In nearly all instances where tailstrikes have occured, the pilot(s) have stuffed it up.
JTR has mentioned some very valid points, ie: if there is the slightest doubt that a tailstrike has occured, limit pressurizing the aircraft, and return for landing.
There have been in the past several accidents where the aft pressure bulkhead has been compromised, resulting in rapid pressure loss...JAL 747 being the most severe (yes, I know poor/improper repair...nonetheless) and if it were me, would positively not want to continue the flight to destination, at planned altitudes.
In addition, many aircraft have in the AFM target pitch attitudes expected for various weight/trim conditions. Commanders (and indeed First Officers) should have an intimate knowledge of this data, to KNOW what the target pitch attitude should be for the weight anticipated,, and operate accordingly.
It would also follow that the crew should double check the loadsheet figures, and expect them to be in rough agreement with the planned payload and fuel uplift.
And this double check includes vee speeds as well, as the recent SQ tailstrike demonstrates....and not just rely on the FMC generated figures.
In short, know your aircraft and have a good idea of the planned weights/trim/vee speeds for the planned flight and ask yourself....does the generated loadsheet data seem reasonable.
I can think of no valid reason (other than mechanical failure) that a transport jet would be over-rotated during takeoff.
Even freighters that are badly misloaded generally have the control capability available for pilots to stop over-rotation.
In nearly all instances where tailstrikes have occured, the pilot(s) have stuffed it up.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In nearly all instances where tailstrikes have occured, the pilot(s) have stuffed it up.
I can't stand it anymore. This person 411A is despicable.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All above are possible but the list is significantly longer still.....esp in Airbus.
eg:
In the airbus the inputs from both side-sticks are added by the computer....ie: they are cumulative.
So, consider the option that one pilot is rotating the aircraft and the other accidentally knocks his side-stick aft.
Inputs are added by the computer, resulting in rapid pitch-up.
Pausible and possible......albeit unlikely?
Lets not second guess the inquiry, it will all come out in the wash.
411a - If you read all my posts on this thread you will see that I am uncompromising in my opinion that IF they knew they had had (or even suspected they had had) a TailStrike.........they should have returned to AKL, without question!
However with the evidence at hand so far.....we dont know if any of the above is true (sorry old boy, I just dont believe anything from the mouths of politicians or the press). Until then I'd prefer that we didnt hang the crew first and ask questions later.
There is a process, lets let it sort facts from fiction.
eg:
In the airbus the inputs from both side-sticks are added by the computer....ie: they are cumulative.
So, consider the option that one pilot is rotating the aircraft and the other accidentally knocks his side-stick aft.
Inputs are added by the computer, resulting in rapid pitch-up.
Pausible and possible......albeit unlikely?
Lets not second guess the inquiry, it will all come out in the wash.
411a - If you read all my posts on this thread you will see that I am uncompromising in my opinion that IF they knew they had had (or even suspected they had had) a TailStrike.........they should have returned to AKL, without question!
However with the evidence at hand so far.....we dont know if any of the above is true (sorry old boy, I just dont believe anything from the mouths of politicians or the press). Until then I'd prefer that we didnt hang the crew first and ask questions later.
There is a process, lets let it sort facts from fiction.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is of course one other avenue of consideration. As the aircraft in question is a FBW type, it would be possible for a software glitch to have compromised the flying pilots' input...now having said this, the design is rather mature, so this is unlikely, but still possible.
The DFDR information is surely available, whether CX releases same is a horse of a different color.
-----
Interesting info ~~~^~~~, but hardly relevant to heavy jet ops discussions.
Afraid you have duff gen, but do keep trying old boy.
----
Felix Lighter
We must have been posting at the same time.
Have never personally liked the Airbus FBW system. I do recall the problems with reduced pilot control authority with full flaps selected, in gusty wind conditions.
Cannot be pleasant for the handling pilot.
Yes indeed, the facts will come out in due time.
Perhaps all can learn from same.
The DFDR information is surely available, whether CX releases same is a horse of a different color.
-----
Interesting info ~~~^~~~, but hardly relevant to heavy jet ops discussions.
Afraid you have duff gen, but do keep trying old boy.
----
Felix Lighter
We must have been posting at the same time.
Have never personally liked the Airbus FBW system. I do recall the problems with reduced pilot control authority with full flaps selected, in gusty wind conditions.
Cannot be pleasant for the handling pilot.
Yes indeed, the facts will come out in due time.
Perhaps all can learn from same.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: In a box
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is also worth considering the chances of a fair and unbiased report from the HK CAD on its biggest customer........what with the filthy pollution problem in Hong Kong, SARS, bird flu, and Jeremy Clarkson saying he would rather eat his own head rather than ever come here again, is there the possibility of government pressure for the 'right' result..............? 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cpt. Underpants
You will (probably) recall that this BBS has previously endured a character of similar reputation to that which you describe above. One can only hope for a similar result... 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
OK, I agree - maybe that was too much. Had fun though.
Azure Raptor, thanks for not deleting it.
Azure Raptor, thanks for not deleting it.
Last edited by Cpt. Underpants; 3rd Feb 2004 at 05:56.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, that's enough!.
411A has made some remarks that you obviously don't like, (but avoided attacking any individual, please note), whilst some of you have thrown barely disguised insults at 411A. There are obviously some very fragile egos out there.
Anymore posts in that vein will be deleted and, if necessary, the thread closed.
Closing this thread would be a pity as there is still some reasoned debate to be had, let us all try and stick to that shall we? I don't propose to enter into a debate on 411A v. CX so any attempt at that will be unsuccessful, (deleted!).
Normally you guys and gals can moderate yourselves pretty well, let's see if we can get back there please!
Thanks.
BlueEagle - Moderator.
411A has made some remarks that you obviously don't like, (but avoided attacking any individual, please note), whilst some of you have thrown barely disguised insults at 411A. There are obviously some very fragile egos out there.
Anymore posts in that vein will be deleted and, if necessary, the thread closed.
Closing this thread would be a pity as there is still some reasoned debate to be had, let us all try and stick to that shall we? I don't propose to enter into a debate on 411A v. CX so any attempt at that will be unsuccessful, (deleted!).
Normally you guys and gals can moderate yourselves pretty well, let's see if we can get back there please!
Thanks.
BlueEagle - Moderator.
Last edited by BlueEagle; 3rd Feb 2004 at 12:51.
All entertaining stuff, but back to the tailstrike/scrape/buffing etc.
The incident will hopefully be appropriately investigated and handled by CX...
I would avoid taking any spin-doctoring of the press as being actual flight ops policy.
However some interesting observations/suppositions have been made:
CREW REST: Possible. AKL flight patterns do not necessarily provide practical adequate rest [yes I know it is LEGAL rest] especially with some other roster combinations
OPERATIONAL FACTORS: Possible. I'll let someone else come up with all the possible factors affecting tailstrike, I'm bound to miss one! Airbus maintain that a mistrimmed takeoff can be adequately controlled.
TRAINING FACTORS: Possible. Although training emphasis is given during CCQ training. Continuation [albeit engine inop] training is covered during recurrent sim sessions - in particular A330 with high flex setting. The different rotation targets and control response has evolved through a combination of operating various types [remember trying to smoothly rotate the A340-200 anyone?] and reduction of A330 V speeds. Suffice to say that the takeoff rotation response variation at TOGA thrust between a light A330 and max AUW A340 300/600 is broad and probably greater than the differences experienced, for example, between L1011 100/500 series. Nomination of AFM Pitch targets would not address the controllability variance.
MANAGEMENT FACTORS: Possible, however if there is no relevent information to be gleaned from operations management, all training emphasis is on making a Command decision, then tell 'em what you are doing/ have done.
HUMAN FACTORS: Possible. The natural get-home-itis has to be tempered.
In this case, everything is pure conjecture, but the thread is interesting.
The incident will hopefully be appropriately investigated and handled by CX...
I would avoid taking any spin-doctoring of the press as being actual flight ops policy.
However some interesting observations/suppositions have been made:
CREW REST: Possible. AKL flight patterns do not necessarily provide practical adequate rest [yes I know it is LEGAL rest] especially with some other roster combinations
OPERATIONAL FACTORS: Possible. I'll let someone else come up with all the possible factors affecting tailstrike, I'm bound to miss one! Airbus maintain that a mistrimmed takeoff can be adequately controlled.
TRAINING FACTORS: Possible. Although training emphasis is given during CCQ training. Continuation [albeit engine inop] training is covered during recurrent sim sessions - in particular A330 with high flex setting. The different rotation targets and control response has evolved through a combination of operating various types [remember trying to smoothly rotate the A340-200 anyone?] and reduction of A330 V speeds. Suffice to say that the takeoff rotation response variation at TOGA thrust between a light A330 and max AUW A340 300/600 is broad and probably greater than the differences experienced, for example, between L1011 100/500 series. Nomination of AFM Pitch targets would not address the controllability variance.
MANAGEMENT FACTORS: Possible, however if there is no relevent information to be gleaned from operations management, all training emphasis is on making a Command decision, then tell 'em what you are doing/ have done.
HUMAN FACTORS: Possible. The natural get-home-itis has to be tempered.
In this case, everything is pure conjecture, but the thread is interesting.