CX Tailstrike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX Tailstrike
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Cathay grounds pilot, officer after incident
SIMON PARRY
A Cathay Pacific captain and first officer have been grounded after the tail end of an Airbus carrying 145 passengers hit the runway as it took off from Auckland on a flight to Hong Kong.
The "tail strike" happened as the Airbus A340-300 aircraft left the ground too steeply in takeoff last Tuesday.
The incident is being investigated by Cathay and New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority.
Cabin crew and passengers alerted the pilot after they felt the plane shudder as the bottom of the tail scraped along the runway.
The pilot checked with air traffic controllers in Auckland who said they had not seen the plane touch the runway.
He then contacted Hong Kong to seek guidance on whether to continue with the flight or return to Auckland airport.
Upon consultation with management, a decision was taken to continue with the flight as the plane had only made light contact with the ground and there did not appear to be any damage.
Cathay Pacific spokeswoman Lisa Wong stressed that the contact between the tail and the ground had been "minor" and "more a scrape than a strike". "During the whole takeoff and landing process, the aircraft was safe and there was no safety issue involved," she said.
The captain and the first pilot had been suspended from flying while the investigation into the incident was being carried out, Ms Wong said.
Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department (CAD) said it had been informed about "a tail-scrape incident".
"The CAD has conducted an inspection of the aircraft in Hong Kong," it said.
"The damage, which consisted of some scratches on the skin, is considered not significant and the incident is not classified as a reportable accident in accordance with the Hong Kong Civil Aviation [Investigation of Accidents] Regulations."
Dragging arse of a/c along tarmac at 300 kmh = 'minor' and 'no safety issues involved' WTF?
Cathay grounds pilot, officer after incident
SIMON PARRY
A Cathay Pacific captain and first officer have been grounded after the tail end of an Airbus carrying 145 passengers hit the runway as it took off from Auckland on a flight to Hong Kong.
The "tail strike" happened as the Airbus A340-300 aircraft left the ground too steeply in takeoff last Tuesday.
The incident is being investigated by Cathay and New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority.
Cabin crew and passengers alerted the pilot after they felt the plane shudder as the bottom of the tail scraped along the runway.
The pilot checked with air traffic controllers in Auckland who said they had not seen the plane touch the runway.
He then contacted Hong Kong to seek guidance on whether to continue with the flight or return to Auckland airport.
Upon consultation with management, a decision was taken to continue with the flight as the plane had only made light contact with the ground and there did not appear to be any damage.
Cathay Pacific spokeswoman Lisa Wong stressed that the contact between the tail and the ground had been "minor" and "more a scrape than a strike". "During the whole takeoff and landing process, the aircraft was safe and there was no safety issue involved," she said.
The captain and the first pilot had been suspended from flying while the investigation into the incident was being carried out, Ms Wong said.
Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department (CAD) said it had been informed about "a tail-scrape incident".
"The CAD has conducted an inspection of the aircraft in Hong Kong," it said.
"The damage, which consisted of some scratches on the skin, is considered not significant and the incident is not classified as a reportable accident in accordance with the Hong Kong Civil Aviation [Investigation of Accidents] Regulations."
Dragging arse of a/c along tarmac at 300 kmh = 'minor' and 'no safety issues involved' WTF?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, 411A...my favourite idiot. Your predictability is astonishing.
Here's (click here >)something (<click here) just for you. Enjoy.
Here's (click here >)something (<click here) just for you. Enjoy.
Last edited by Cpt. Underpants; 28th Jan 2004 at 05:40.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ Herald
Pilots suspended after tail strike at Auckland
28.01.2004
11.45am
Two pilots have been grounded after the tail of a plane carrying 145 passengers hit the runway at Auckland International Airport on takeoff last week.
The tail of the Cathay Pacific Airbus A340-300 hit the runway surface as it took off last week on its way to Hong Kong, the Dominion Post reported today.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was investigating the incident, the paper reported. CAA spokesman Bill Sommer was not immediately available for comment this morning.
The newspaper said cabin crew and passengers felt the plane shudder as the bottom of the tail scraped along the runway. Crew members alerted the pilot, a junior captain and one of the airline's first Chinese pilots to be promoted to captain.
The paper said the captain checked with air traffic controllers in Auckland, who said they had not seen the plane touch the runway. He radioed ahead to Hong Kong for guidance on whether to continue the flight or return to Auckland.
After consultation with a management pilot, the decision was made to continue to Hong Kong because it was not believed the damage was serious, the paper reported.
The incident is the second of its type within 10 months at Auckland Airport. A Singapore Airlines Boeing 747 with 369 passengers aboard made an emergency landing after a tail-strike in March.
Cathay Pacific spokeswoman Lisa Wong said during the takeoff and landing, the aircraft was safe and there was no safety issue.
The paper said the captain and the first officer were suspended from flying while the investigation was carried out.
The Singapore Airlines pilot and first officer were found to be at fault for the 747 tail strike.
The pilot took off at too low a speed and the first officer entered an aircraft weight figure 100 tonnes lighter than it should have been.
The captain was demoted.
Civil Aviation spokesman Bill Sommer said the incident was being investigated by the airline and it would be monitored by the authority.
"That is normal under our rules. If there is an accident or incident the operator is required to investigate it.
"We will monitor it. If we are satisfied we will accept the findings. If not we will take it further."
Mr Sommer said the CAA was not made aware of the incident until the aircraft had landed at Hong Kong and had been inspected.
He said the CAA was not concerned that the aircraft continued to Hong Kong rather than return to Auckland for inspection.
"That is up to the operator. It is not up to us. They will operate in what they believe is a safe manner and if they decide that is a safe manner that is what they will do," Mr Sommer said.
He said aircraft occasionally scraped their tails on runways and some were fitted with a pad to minimise damage.
"They are very long, some of these aircraft. It doesn't happen very often but it has happened," Mr Sommer said.
- NZPA
Pilots suspended after tail strike at Auckland
28.01.2004
11.45am
Two pilots have been grounded after the tail of a plane carrying 145 passengers hit the runway at Auckland International Airport on takeoff last week.
The tail of the Cathay Pacific Airbus A340-300 hit the runway surface as it took off last week on its way to Hong Kong, the Dominion Post reported today.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was investigating the incident, the paper reported. CAA spokesman Bill Sommer was not immediately available for comment this morning.
The newspaper said cabin crew and passengers felt the plane shudder as the bottom of the tail scraped along the runway. Crew members alerted the pilot, a junior captain and one of the airline's first Chinese pilots to be promoted to captain.
The paper said the captain checked with air traffic controllers in Auckland, who said they had not seen the plane touch the runway. He radioed ahead to Hong Kong for guidance on whether to continue the flight or return to Auckland.
After consultation with a management pilot, the decision was made to continue to Hong Kong because it was not believed the damage was serious, the paper reported.
The incident is the second of its type within 10 months at Auckland Airport. A Singapore Airlines Boeing 747 with 369 passengers aboard made an emergency landing after a tail-strike in March.
Cathay Pacific spokeswoman Lisa Wong said during the takeoff and landing, the aircraft was safe and there was no safety issue.
The paper said the captain and the first officer were suspended from flying while the investigation was carried out.
The Singapore Airlines pilot and first officer were found to be at fault for the 747 tail strike.
The pilot took off at too low a speed and the first officer entered an aircraft weight figure 100 tonnes lighter than it should have been.
The captain was demoted.
Civil Aviation spokesman Bill Sommer said the incident was being investigated by the airline and it would be monitored by the authority.
"That is normal under our rules. If there is an accident or incident the operator is required to investigate it.
"We will monitor it. If we are satisfied we will accept the findings. If not we will take it further."
Mr Sommer said the CAA was not made aware of the incident until the aircraft had landed at Hong Kong and had been inspected.
He said the CAA was not concerned that the aircraft continued to Hong Kong rather than return to Auckland for inspection.
"That is up to the operator. It is not up to us. They will operate in what they believe is a safe manner and if they decide that is a safe manner that is what they will do," Mr Sommer said.
He said aircraft occasionally scraped their tails on runways and some were fitted with a pad to minimise damage.
"They are very long, some of these aircraft. It doesn't happen very often but it has happened," Mr Sommer said.
- NZPA
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! Make sure it doesn't happen to you when you start up that great "Airline" of yours. Better stick to L1011s rather than the DC-10. The Tristar has a donkey dick.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a you are a knob of the highest order. you speak with forked tongue and are in embarrassment to pilots globally.
now...............
I sure would like to know who the "management pilot" who ordered the rtn to HK was? airbus, i hope not?- the fcom is very clear and very black and white for the airbus!
1. do not pressurise,
2. return to land.
the cause of the incident will be something pilots globally can learn from.........sadly the actions after the event SEEM (at this stage) far more vague.
we wait with baited breath.
i have to say the skipper is a very very nice chap, my heart goes out to him - as should all pilots lest they throw stones in a very small glasshouse - 411a? (good thing youve never made any mistakes.....whats it like on your planet!)
now...............
I sure would like to know who the "management pilot" who ordered the rtn to HK was? airbus, i hope not?- the fcom is very clear and very black and white for the airbus!
1. do not pressurise,
2. return to land.
the cause of the incident will be something pilots globally can learn from.........sadly the actions after the event SEEM (at this stage) far more vague.
we wait with baited breath.
i have to say the skipper is a very very nice chap, my heart goes out to him - as should all pilots lest they throw stones in a very small glasshouse - 411a? (good thing youve never made any mistakes.....whats it like on your planet!)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is difficult to say what they should have done.
The ECAM warning was not triggered.
The only indication that they had of a possible tail strike was a report from a couple of cabin crew at the back. (have they ever been right before? Well in this case they were.)
The tower did not see it, the vehicle next to the runway did not see it and the runway inspection revealed nothing.
So do you go on the word only of the cabin crew? Hard call.
The ECAM warning was not triggered.
The only indication that they had of a possible tail strike was a report from a couple of cabin crew at the back. (have they ever been right before? Well in this case they were.)
The tower did not see it, the vehicle next to the runway did not see it and the runway inspection revealed nothing.
So do you go on the word only of the cabin crew? Hard call.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over the show like a madwomans crap
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECAM
B787, please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand there is no ECAM warning for a tailstrike on the A340-300. I believe they have now installed them on the 600 model. But like you said, a hard call to make.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FCOM3.04.27P14
The A340-600, being longer than the A333/A343 has a higher risk of tailstrike...........several new features have been added.......[including a] warning display.
NB: The 333/343 do not have tail strike (Ms Wong "scrape") warning systems.
FCOM3.02.31P9, as stated above refers to the 346 indicating system/ECAM message.
P9, for example, does not exist in the A333 FCOM.
However: FCOM3.03.12P3 which is applicable to 333,343 and 346 states:
"If a tailstrike occurs, avoid flying at an altitude requiring a pressurized cabin and return to the originating airport for damage assessment"
**B787: YES! You go on the advice of the cabin crew......would you be willing to take the chance that structural integrity has not been compromised.
Im only going on the press articles but if pax and cabin crew said they heard/felt a tail strike.......you dont take the risk?
With all humble deferance to Ms Wong sense of safety how does she equate "there was no safety issue involved" to LAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?
As stated previously the tailstrike itself is an unfortunate incident that could, under the varying circumstances happen to any of us, so I cast no stones and feel for the chaps involved. Not a great year of the monkey for them...........
The A340-600, being longer than the A333/A343 has a higher risk of tailstrike...........several new features have been added.......[including a] warning display.
NB: The 333/343 do not have tail strike (Ms Wong "scrape") warning systems.
FCOM3.02.31P9, as stated above refers to the 346 indicating system/ECAM message.
P9, for example, does not exist in the A333 FCOM.
However: FCOM3.03.12P3 which is applicable to 333,343 and 346 states:
"If a tailstrike occurs, avoid flying at an altitude requiring a pressurized cabin and return to the originating airport for damage assessment"
**B787: YES! You go on the advice of the cabin crew......would you be willing to take the chance that structural integrity has not been compromised.
Im only going on the press articles but if pax and cabin crew said they heard/felt a tail strike.......you dont take the risk?
With all humble deferance to Ms Wong sense of safety how does she equate "there was no safety issue involved" to LAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?
As stated previously the tailstrike itself is an unfortunate incident that could, under the varying circumstances happen to any of us, so I cast no stones and feel for the chaps involved. Not a great year of the monkey for them...........
Last edited by Felix Lighter; 30th Jan 2004 at 10:34.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: In a box
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remembering the trijet, perhaps its also worth remembering the depressurisation on the way past ELATO as an orange segment shaped piece of the aft bukhead peeled back due to an 'old injury' sustained before CX obtained the L1011 from the outer darkness........a certain loud flengineer still with CX freighters was on that flight)
There is no such thing as no damage in this sort of incident if you consider the force vectors involved.......
There is no such thing as no damage in this sort of incident if you consider the force vectors involved.......
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's a bit unfair and unprofessional to play armchair quarterback on this issue.
Lets wait until all the facts have been accessed before throwing stones and pilot bashing:
Were there any factors (technical) which contributed to the tailstrike?
What lessons can be learned about the management culture, and decision making in this case...
Lets wait until all the facts have been accessed before throwing stones and pilot bashing:
Were there any factors (technical) which contributed to the tailstrike?
What lessons can be learned about the management culture, and decision making in this case...
Last edited by Plastique; 2nd Feb 2004 at 21:01.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aust
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plastic
A similar symptom of the culture could be the B744 flight to SYD on 19/12/03, where the commander opted to fly on for over 9 hours with NO toilets, again after buy-in from those on the ground. I bet those PAX had a 'memorable' flight.
Looks like you are a great mis-leader of the facts. The flight you mention was arriving on christmas eve, the problem was being trouble-shooted by a fully qualified ground engineer who was PX on the plane. It took over 4 hrs to realise the whole system was
U/S.
Divert I would like your very informed comment? Darwin had a cyclone front,manilla out ?? back to Hong Kong same time as continuing to Syd (no input from the grd)
As it worked out the Cabin Crew did a great job, the Capt made the best choice that was availible at the time and 300+ passengers were extremely pleased that they were home for Christmas.
aussietruckdriver - please read my message about personal attacks and abuse at the front of this forum and comply. Many thanks. BlueEagle - Moderator.
A similar symptom of the culture could be the B744 flight to SYD on 19/12/03, where the commander opted to fly on for over 9 hours with NO toilets, again after buy-in from those on the ground. I bet those PAX had a 'memorable' flight.
Looks like you are a great mis-leader of the facts. The flight you mention was arriving on christmas eve, the problem was being trouble-shooted by a fully qualified ground engineer who was PX on the plane. It took over 4 hrs to realise the whole system was
U/S.
Divert I would like your very informed comment? Darwin had a cyclone front,manilla out ?? back to Hong Kong same time as continuing to Syd (no input from the grd)
As it worked out the Cabin Crew did a great job, the Capt made the best choice that was availible at the time and 300+ passengers were extremely pleased that they were home for Christmas.
aussietruckdriver - please read my message about personal attacks and abuse at the front of this forum and comply. Many thanks. BlueEagle - Moderator.
Last edited by BlueEagle; 31st Jan 2004 at 04:49.
SC
That was the old Court Line jobbie and Tug did the right thing as he always did operationally....but the back end of the 1011 is built like a brick sh.. house.
The jury's out on who gave the OK to continue on to HK but under no circumstances do you pressurize an airframe that has scraped terra firma on departure.
I feel for the Captain as he is a nice guy and totally competent. A really tough call given the evidence to hand. A call made more difficult by the fact he felt he couldn't make his own call.
Where is aviation heading??
Last time I looked the a/c was till down the other end of the field...
That was the old Court Line jobbie and Tug did the right thing as he always did operationally....but the back end of the 1011 is built like a brick sh.. house.
The jury's out on who gave the OK to continue on to HK but under no circumstances do you pressurize an airframe that has scraped terra firma on departure.
I feel for the Captain as he is a nice guy and totally competent. A really tough call given the evidence to hand. A call made more difficult by the fact he felt he couldn't make his own call.
Where is aviation heading??
Last time I looked the a/c was till down the other end of the field...
Last edited by VR-HFX; 30th Jan 2004 at 22:55.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that CX has very poor operational control of their enroute aircraft, especially allowing the Captain to continue a flight where the fuselage was damaged.
Better question...why would the Captain even consider continuing, as he had absolutely no knowledge of the potential damage?
If this is an indication of the type of Commanders that CX has, would suspect that an audit of CX flight operations are urgently needed, by an unbiased outside authority, not a white-wash by the HK DCA.
Better question...why would the Captain even consider continuing, as he had absolutely no knowledge of the potential damage?
If this is an indication of the type of Commanders that CX has, would suspect that an audit of CX flight operations are urgently needed, by an unbiased outside authority, not a white-wash by the HK DCA.
411A
As usual you are talking out of your a**e. If you don't know the facts could you please refrain from posting as you are embarrassing yourself sunshine.
Just as a matter of clarification, the flight crew wasn’t informed of a possible tail strike until passing FL180. The brief scraping noise was only heard by one junior flight attendant who had only been in the company for six months and a frequent flyer passenger who when questioned by the captain said he did hear a scraping noise but wasn’t concerned as the airbus always seems to make strange noises up the back. The captain then contacted the tower and they said they saw no tail strike occur and neither did an airport patrol office who was near the runway at the time chasing birds away. An inspection was conducted of the runway and no evidence was found of any tail strike. The captain then contacted the company via satcom who in turn phoned the tower at Auckland to confirm the information the captain was told. Armed with this information it was decided to proceed onto Hong Kong. Personally I would still have returned to Auckland as per the “recommendations" of the FCOM Bulletin 05/3 but I can imagine it was a very hard call for the captain at the time. As a matter of interest the aircraft was returned to service on the 28th after Haeco completed repairs.
As usual you are talking out of your a**e. If you don't know the facts could you please refrain from posting as you are embarrassing yourself sunshine.
Just as a matter of clarification, the flight crew wasn’t informed of a possible tail strike until passing FL180. The brief scraping noise was only heard by one junior flight attendant who had only been in the company for six months and a frequent flyer passenger who when questioned by the captain said he did hear a scraping noise but wasn’t concerned as the airbus always seems to make strange noises up the back. The captain then contacted the tower and they said they saw no tail strike occur and neither did an airport patrol office who was near the runway at the time chasing birds away. An inspection was conducted of the runway and no evidence was found of any tail strike. The captain then contacted the company via satcom who in turn phoned the tower at Auckland to confirm the information the captain was told. Armed with this information it was decided to proceed onto Hong Kong. Personally I would still have returned to Auckland as per the “recommendations" of the FCOM Bulletin 05/3 but I can imagine it was a very hard call for the captain at the time. As a matter of interest the aircraft was returned to service on the 28th after Haeco completed repairs.