Malaysian Tail Strike on take off at Zurich
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 5 photos of the incident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice weather no wind shear
As far as I know there was no wind shear reported at the time of the incident.
It was basically very nice weather as can be seen in the photo with a light breeze, so I think one could discount weather as a factor in this case.
Wind shear or sheer ?
It was basically very nice weather as can be seen in the photo with a light breeze, so I think one could discount weather as a factor in this case.
Wind shear or sheer ?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kagerplassen
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A...
I really disagree with you, just because you did not manage yourself to get a tailstrike in your supposedly huge career, that does not mean that such a situation could not arise, without the handling pilot making any huge mistakes.
We had one on the A343 due to a small, undetected and unforeseeable windshear during rotation. The flightcrew really could do nothing about it.
And the airplane was not misloaded, and there was no obstacle on the runway.
BTW The fact that your chief pilot agrees with you does not count as a valid argument to me.
P77
I really disagree with you, just because you did not manage yourself to get a tailstrike in your supposedly huge career, that does not mean that such a situation could not arise, without the handling pilot making any huge mistakes.
We had one on the A343 due to a small, undetected and unforeseeable windshear during rotation. The flightcrew really could do nothing about it.
And the airplane was not misloaded, and there was no obstacle on the runway.
BTW The fact that your chief pilot agrees with you does not count as a valid argument to me.
P77
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's ok P77, lots of folks don't agree with me.
Having said that, I have personally been around a very long time in heavy jets, and learned early on in some of the more limiting types (B707-300, JT4 powered, for example) that an overly ambitious takeoff rotation with longer body types was...and will always be, bad news.
Look at the DC-8 60 series for example. Now there was an aircraft that could scrape the tail on takeoff rather easily, yet a very few suffed this fate.
Why...because the pilots were aware of the problems involved, an operated accordingly.
And, they just didn't plug inaccurate figures into the FMS either.
It was 'get out the charts' time on these older types, and new(er) guys on more modern types had better learn to actually pay attention to details, otherwise their career may well be shorter than they thought.
Having said that, I have personally been around a very long time in heavy jets, and learned early on in some of the more limiting types (B707-300, JT4 powered, for example) that an overly ambitious takeoff rotation with longer body types was...and will always be, bad news.
Look at the DC-8 60 series for example. Now there was an aircraft that could scrape the tail on takeoff rather easily, yet a very few suffed this fate.
Why...because the pilots were aware of the problems involved, an operated accordingly.
And, they just didn't plug inaccurate figures into the FMS either.
It was 'get out the charts' time on these older types, and new(er) guys on more modern types had better learn to actually pay attention to details, otherwise their career may well be shorter than they thought.
Guest
Posts: n/a
after 40min Fuel Dumping, 70 tonnes, over the "Schwarzwald"
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not over the Vierwaldstädter See??????
because the Swiss do not like the consequenzes of the they produce dumped over their head.
because the Swiss do not like the consequenzes of the
they produce dumped over their head.
Last edited by B737NG; 31st Jul 2004 at 16:00.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are some procudures to fuel dunping. ICAO Fuel Dumping procedure is:-
1. Min. Alt 6000'
2.Clear Weather
3. ATC Approval
4. Assigned Area
Then there's individual company's procedures. I don't suppose they can just dump 70Ts of fuel on residents heads. At 6000' I'm sure the fuel would have evaporated before it can reach the earth. Just to enlighten you in case you don't know.
1. Min. Alt 6000'
2.Clear Weather
3. ATC Approval
4. Assigned Area
Then there's individual company's procedures. I don't suppose they can just dump 70Ts of fuel on residents heads. At 6000' I'm sure the fuel would have evaporated before it can reach the earth. Just to enlighten you in case you don't know.
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B737NG,
You call yourself a pilot? Highly unprofessional remarks you are making...
It is unfortunately pretty unsafe to drop fuel over the Vierwaldstättersee at FL100 (terrain), plus to do this in the vicinity of a TMA with high traffic load wouldn't be overly safe either, would it?
Usually there are two possibilities when dumping fuel, the swiss Jura (for departures to the west), and the Black Forest (for departures to the east).
Both areas are most suitable regarding terrain and traffic (you wouldn't wanna fly into the kerosene with your 737, would you?).
You call yourself a pilot? Highly unprofessional remarks you are making...
It is unfortunately pretty unsafe to drop fuel over the Vierwaldstättersee at FL100 (terrain), plus to do this in the vicinity of a TMA with high traffic load wouldn't be overly safe either, would it?
Usually there are two possibilities when dumping fuel, the swiss Jura (for departures to the west), and the Black Forest (for departures to the east).
Both areas are most suitable regarding terrain and traffic (you wouldn't wanna fly into the kerosene with your 737, would you?).
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets for a moment assume that the pilot did not over rotate, then why should the tail scrape occur?
Having flown the 777 for most of its life I never came near scraping the tail (bearing in mind 2-3 feet on a “normal” rotation seems very little but nevertheless is the “normal” figure).
From the pictures we can see that the aircraft at its “tail scrapping attitude” was going too slowly to get airborne, hence the scrape! As the speed built up it then gets airborne.
Why, therefore, was it going too slowly in the first place? ? After all the 777 calculates its own “V speeds” from pilot input of Zero Fuel or Take Off weights. But, If the “FMC” is given a weight less than the actual then it will compute lower speeds hence the probable result will be a scrape.
One 767 operator got very close to a scrape (the tail clearance on the 767 is not as critical as the 777) because the crew had input the “zero fuel weight” into the FMC take off weight box instead of the correct zero fuel weight box. The FMC obviously then calculated the V speeds around the incorrect weights (actual weight less the fuel load). The aircraft was rotated at the FMC computed speeds (for the incorrect weight) to the normal attitude but didn’t leave the runway until the speed had built up to the “correct” figure (just like Zurich). Luckily, as I said earlier, the 767 is not as critical and a tail scrape was avoided.
Lets wait and see with regard to the Zurich incident. It “could” have been pilot error with incorrect figures entered but it could just as easily have been the figures provided to the pilot via the loadsheet were in error!
Only time will tell!
Having flown the 777 for most of its life I never came near scraping the tail (bearing in mind 2-3 feet on a “normal” rotation seems very little but nevertheless is the “normal” figure).
From the pictures we can see that the aircraft at its “tail scrapping attitude” was going too slowly to get airborne, hence the scrape! As the speed built up it then gets airborne.
Why, therefore, was it going too slowly in the first place? ? After all the 777 calculates its own “V speeds” from pilot input of Zero Fuel or Take Off weights. But, If the “FMC” is given a weight less than the actual then it will compute lower speeds hence the probable result will be a scrape.
One 767 operator got very close to a scrape (the tail clearance on the 767 is not as critical as the 777) because the crew had input the “zero fuel weight” into the FMC take off weight box instead of the correct zero fuel weight box. The FMC obviously then calculated the V speeds around the incorrect weights (actual weight less the fuel load). The aircraft was rotated at the FMC computed speeds (for the incorrect weight) to the normal attitude but didn’t leave the runway until the speed had built up to the “correct” figure (just like Zurich). Luckily, as I said earlier, the 767 is not as critical and a tail scrape was avoided.
Lets wait and see with regard to the Zurich incident. It “could” have been pilot error with incorrect figures entered but it could just as easily have been the figures provided to the pilot via the loadsheet were in error!
Only time will tell!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought the 767(300) had a pretty narrow tail margin. At normal lift attitude of 7.5 degrees, there will be 61cm/24inchs of clearance, with tail strike occuring at 9.6 degrees,
2.1 degrees to play with isnt much.
Also many 767 operators dont use FMCs to compute V speeds.
2.1 degrees to play with isnt much.
Also many 767 operators dont use FMCs to compute V speeds.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Down Under
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like your style Woodpecker. - people are too quick to jump to conclusions in this game. It could have been a lot of things. Everyone likes to learn from other peoples mistakes - however this may or may not have been a forced error. Either way, no one was hurt.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spuds.....
I do not critique the action of the crew if you read that correct!
It is the way the swiss handle the traffic into Switzerland and the
consequences accordingly like noise and in emergency cases the
designated areas. It is a political problem since years over the
south part of the black wood forest. In the meantime I fly B777
but I kept my old Nick. So I might be one day the one who has to
dump as well........ who knows ?!?!
NG
It is the way the swiss handle the traffic into Switzerland and the
consequences accordingly like noise and in emergency cases the
designated areas. It is a political problem since years over the
south part of the black wood forest. In the meantime I fly B777
but I kept my old Nick. So I might be one day the one who has to
dump as well........ who knows ?!?!
NG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The certification of these aircraft is all about establishing the speed, known as Vr, at which, if the correct rotation rate is applied, the aircraft will become airborne without this sort of thiing happening. There is a margin below this to allow for some abuse. The correct rotation rate generally stipulated in Boeing training manuals is 2-3 degrees per second.
This incident would be caused by a too rapid rotation causing the aircraft to strike the tail before it became airborne. Simple.
This incident would be caused by a too rapid rotation causing the aircraft to strike the tail before it became airborne. Simple.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh...?
The Rage,
If true, where the hell was the Commander, out to lunch?
Good grief.
If it was a line training flight, doesn't say all that much for MAS training, does it?
Back to the sim for him...unless it might be 'out the door, don't come Monday'. Opps, forgot, MAS...don't come Saturday.
If true, where the hell was the Commander, out to lunch?
Good grief.
If it was a line training flight, doesn't say all that much for MAS training, does it?
Back to the sim for him...unless it might be 'out the door, don't come Monday'. Opps, forgot, MAS...don't come Saturday.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone tell me the URL of the Flight Data Recorder of this Malaysian flight!
With the data at hand we can see if the poor chap over-rotated or rotated too early (FMC/loadshhet error).... Until then this thread is becoming populated by experts who have never flown the machine and have no data to back up their wild guesses as to the cause.
With the data at hand we can see if the poor chap over-rotated or rotated too early (FMC/loadshhet error).... Until then this thread is becoming populated by experts who have never flown the machine and have no data to back up their wild guesses as to the cause.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi 411A, indeed `I did listen up'.
However I have to disagree with your firmly expressed, but rather limited view of tailstrike causes.
One possibility you have not considered is windshear.
During many years based in Kai Tak, I had a few experiences of ending up back on the ground a short time after liftoff, normally associated with heavy weights plus windshear etc. Presumably any whizzbang overrotation protections would be disarmed at this stage, so if the speed drops off, the aircraft could settle back).
ZRH, being mountainous, is a good place for this sort of fun event, so perhaps gross incompetence may not be the whole story.
`I know my bit, but if I listen to yours and learn, then I'll know more!'
However I have to disagree with your firmly expressed, but rather limited view of tailstrike causes.
One possibility you have not considered is windshear.
During many years based in Kai Tak, I had a few experiences of ending up back on the ground a short time after liftoff, normally associated with heavy weights plus windshear etc. Presumably any whizzbang overrotation protections would be disarmed at this stage, so if the speed drops off, the aircraft could settle back).
ZRH, being mountainous, is a good place for this sort of fun event, so perhaps gross incompetence may not be the whole story.
`I know my bit, but if I listen to yours and learn, then I'll know more!'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wind shear possibly NOT the cause
Fragmann 88 have you ever been to Zürich ? Because the mountians are not really close to the airport at all. There are some hills but nothing really that would cause this. Compared to the old Kai Tak which really did have some high ground around it the topography at Zürich is really quite taim. Unless you fly too low and hit something you shouldn't.
What Woodpecker says makes 100% sence.
If the figures are wrong or if one pulls back tooooo soon, tooooo much or tooooo quick then its scrapey, scrapey time.
I think you will find that wind shear or any abnormal weather effects was not a factor in this incident, because unless any wind shear was caused by a thermal lifting off the runway at the time of rotation, the weather on that day could best be discribed a "Peachy" ie. smooth, soft and nicely rounded. I know because I was there. Not in the aircraft but watching.
Lets be good boys and girls and wait for the report.
What Woodpecker says makes 100% sence.
If the figures are wrong or if one pulls back tooooo soon, tooooo much or tooooo quick then its scrapey, scrapey time.
I think you will find that wind shear or any abnormal weather effects was not a factor in this incident, because unless any wind shear was caused by a thermal lifting off the runway at the time of rotation, the weather on that day could best be discribed a "Peachy" ie. smooth, soft and nicely rounded. I know because I was there. Not in the aircraft but watching.
Lets be good boys and girls and wait for the report.