China Eastern Tailstrike LHR 31/03
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Farnham, UK
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China Eastern Tailstrike LHR 31/03
Anybody got some more info about what happened Thursday night?
Taxing out for 09R at LHR; I watched a China Eastern A340-??? depart from 09R about 2145 local and witnessed some of the scariest flying from a commercial jet that I've ever seen.
The 340 rotated normally at a normal point on the runway, but rather than continue the rotation and departure, the aircraft did a bunt to fly level at about 5' height and then rotated again in doing so smacking the tail back on to runway with a good show of sparks.
I could not believe what I had seen, but my observation was confirmed by Swiss reporting it to the tower. A runway inspection confirmed a tailstrike.
What happened next? Did the 340 return to LHR? Any word on the amount of damage.
Keep it safe out there boys and girls............
T'bug
Taxing out for 09R at LHR; I watched a China Eastern A340-??? depart from 09R about 2145 local and witnessed some of the scariest flying from a commercial jet that I've ever seen.
The 340 rotated normally at a normal point on the runway, but rather than continue the rotation and departure, the aircraft did a bunt to fly level at about 5' height and then rotated again in doing so smacking the tail back on to runway with a good show of sparks.
I could not believe what I had seen, but my observation was confirmed by Swiss reporting it to the tower. A runway inspection confirmed a tailstrike.
What happened next? Did the 340 return to LHR? Any word on the amount of damage.
Keep it safe out there boys and girls............
T'bug
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What........electing to continue after a reported tailstrike......
...Stupid to the point of insanity...%$@^&%*$%#
...If it's true, this is madness... and VERY dangerous!
FD
...Stupid to the point of insanity...%$@^&%*$%#
...If it's true, this is madness... and VERY dangerous!
FD
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that ghasted my flabber! Wow! And people grumbled about a 747 continuing on 3? They subsequently blew that aeroplane up tight like a balloon- about 8 psi. Aeroplanes burst apart like this.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SSE of smoki
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cannot comment on the bus procedure. On the 777 with a tail strike eicas message you follow the checklist. If notification of a tailstrike occurs but with NO correponding eicas message then it depends on which model you are flying. The 200 requires you to complete the checklist and land at the nearest suitable airport. In a 300 you should continue the flight as damage to the non pressurised aft fuselage without an eicas message is unlikely. Rgds
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malta
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am new to the industry but I would of thought that common sence should play a big part in this. If your aircraft is slightly damaged in any way you should land asap. Could the crew lose their licence for such actions as this could of easyily ended in disaster?
You are full of suprises Rainboe! I was sure you were going to continue..on 3 engines and no autopilot, regardless of the tailstrike. You are a softie after all! 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm really very surprised to hear this. It doesn't fill me with confidence that the next time I go on a commercial flight, it could end in disaster not because of "pilot error" but sheer and utter pilot stupidity. If the PAX are aware can they sue the airline?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: San Fran, Ca. USA
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we're seeing something of the oriental "loss of face" thing at work here. To return to the airport you first have admit the tail strike happened. That means admitting pilot error, that's a loss of face. Better to continue and pretend it never happened even if that risks the death of everyone on board. Funny culture!
Kirk out...
Kirk out...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would the CAA have any say in this, i.e. does it have the power to invesitgate if an airline is clearly disregarding the Manufacturer's abnormal prcoedures, and what sanctions can it impose if it had the will?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Esher
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Apparently the crew were informed"
Nothing like telling the Chinese (I am making the assumption the crew were Chinese) they have made a mistake for the loss of face syndrome to kick in. Please dont brand me with the racist tag - my wife is Chinese. If I make the same "mistake" with her the handbag - and the "rule book" - go out the window!
However....the rules of engagement for matrimonial strife and the safe flying of commercial jets with trusting PAX onboard should never get mixed up!
Presumably they will have to make a report of this incident but will it ever get publicised? It would be very interesting to know how they managed to "abort" the rotation.
Nothing like telling the Chinese (I am making the assumption the crew were Chinese) they have made a mistake for the loss of face syndrome to kick in. Please dont brand me with the racist tag - my wife is Chinese. If I make the same "mistake" with her the handbag - and the "rule book" - go out the window!
However....the rules of engagement for matrimonial strife and the safe flying of commercial jets with trusting PAX onboard should never get mixed up!
Presumably they will have to make a report of this incident but will it ever get publicised? It would be very interesting to know how they managed to "abort" the rotation.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt F! I guess I'm getting soft these days, but somehow a damaged fuselage might just make me admit better to go back! A surge ain't no 'damage'- if the firewire says nothing wrong, then no problem- you got 3 more where that one came from. As for dumping because of no autopilot? Lots of aeroplanes don't even have them in the first place! Handflying in cruise is still hard work, but that's what you're there for. But as for flying a jet with tail damge pressurised- I can think of 2 747s straight away, JAL and China, that burst themselves apart killing almost everybody because of poorly repaired tailstrike damage or fatigue. You don't mess with that!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Farnham, UK
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting decision................
Can someone with better knowledge tell me................if they had returned would they have been subject to an AAIB investigation?
My concern is that we don't know the cause and that any safety benefit that could have been gained is lost now that the aircraft is in the PRC. Does the AAIB / CAA have any right to inspect or investigate once an aircraft is overseas?
The A340 departure was not just a overcooked rotation with a scrape. It involved multiple large pitch changes at very low level with the tail being driven down on to the runway. They must have felt it and with coinfirming evidence from the tower - the continue / return decision was made for them.
Rainboe - yup agree with you there. The JAL & Air China aircraft both had had tail stikes prior to their demise - and they were repaired! Don't mess with tail damage - Not worth it.
T'bug
Can someone with better knowledge tell me................if they had returned would they have been subject to an AAIB investigation?
My concern is that we don't know the cause and that any safety benefit that could have been gained is lost now that the aircraft is in the PRC. Does the AAIB / CAA have any right to inspect or investigate once an aircraft is overseas?
The A340 departure was not just a overcooked rotation with a scrape. It involved multiple large pitch changes at very low level with the tail being driven down on to the runway. They must have felt it and with coinfirming evidence from the tower - the continue / return decision was made for them.
Rainboe - yup agree with you there. The JAL & Air China aircraft both had had tail stikes prior to their demise - and they were repaired! Don't mess with tail damage - Not worth it.
T'bug
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last! We all agree on something - that an aircraft should not be pressurised after a tailstrike.
I am not sure where the 'continuing on without an autopilot' issue was raised (I have done that myself in the past). Nowadays though, you would need to stay below RVSM thereby using more fuel than planned - which of course might culminate in an emergency having to be declared in order to make a landing at some distant airport that was not the original destination anyhow.
Oh well - at least if that were the case we could rely that Rainboe and his chums would use hundreds of posts to argue that our flight was 'safe'.
BS
I am not sure where the 'continuing on without an autopilot' issue was raised (I have done that myself in the past). Nowadays though, you would need to stay below RVSM thereby using more fuel than planned - which of course might culminate in an emergency having to be declared in order to make a landing at some distant airport that was not the original destination anyhow.
Oh well - at least if that were the case we could rely that Rainboe and his chums would use hundreds of posts to argue that our flight was 'safe'.
BS
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the the first time it happens?
What's the reason why the tail struck?
Perhaps because one more time 100T less than the real Zero fuel weight has been put in the FMC?
If this is the cause it could have been much more different than an almost (a "simple" overstress on the structure) uneventful flight.
Fly Safe
DOVE
What's the reason why the tail struck?
Perhaps because one more time 100T less than the real Zero fuel weight has been put in the FMC?
If this is the cause it could have been much more different than an almost (a "simple" overstress on the structure) uneventful flight.
Fly Safe
DOVE