A Tailstrike that apparently went unnoticed on pprune
A Tailstrike that apparently went unnoticed on pprune
NTSB Identification: NYC05LA054
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of CONTINENTAL AIRLINES INC
Accident occurred Wednesday, March 02, 2005 in Newark, NJ
Aircraft: Boeing 777-200, registration: N78008
Injuries: 214 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On March 2, 2005, at 1550 eastern standard time, a Boeing 777-200, N78008, operated by Continental Airlines as flight 99, experienced a tail strike departing from the Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Newark, New Jersey. There were no injuries to the 2 certificated airline transport flight crewmembers, 2 relief flight crewmembers, 12 flight attendants, or 198 passengers. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan had been filed for the flight destined for Hong Kong, China. The flight was a scheduled international passenger flight, conducted under 14 CFR Part 121.
According to a representative of the operator, the airplane was departing from runway 4R, an 11,000 foot-long, 150 foot-wide, asphalt runway. As the airplane was rotated, it lifted off the runway, momentarily settled back to the ground, and lifted off a second time. Suspecting that the tail of the airplane struck the ground, the pilot elected to return to the airport, where it landed uneventfully.
A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector and representatives of Boeing and the operator examined the airplane after the accident. Scrape marks were observed on the underside of the airplane's tail section. Further examination revealed substantial damage to the aft pressure bulkhead.
The winds recorded at EWR, at 1551, were from 320 degrees, at 23 knots, gusting to 27 knots.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of CONTINENTAL AIRLINES INC
Accident occurred Wednesday, March 02, 2005 in Newark, NJ
Aircraft: Boeing 777-200, registration: N78008
Injuries: 214 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On March 2, 2005, at 1550 eastern standard time, a Boeing 777-200, N78008, operated by Continental Airlines as flight 99, experienced a tail strike departing from the Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Newark, New Jersey. There were no injuries to the 2 certificated airline transport flight crewmembers, 2 relief flight crewmembers, 12 flight attendants, or 198 passengers. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan had been filed for the flight destined for Hong Kong, China. The flight was a scheduled international passenger flight, conducted under 14 CFR Part 121.
According to a representative of the operator, the airplane was departing from runway 4R, an 11,000 foot-long, 150 foot-wide, asphalt runway. As the airplane was rotated, it lifted off the runway, momentarily settled back to the ground, and lifted off a second time. Suspecting that the tail of the airplane struck the ground, the pilot elected to return to the airport, where it landed uneventfully.
A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector and representatives of Boeing and the operator examined the airplane after the accident. Scrape marks were observed on the underside of the airplane's tail section. Further examination revealed substantial damage to the aft pressure bulkhead.
The winds recorded at EWR, at 1551, were from 320 degrees, at 23 knots, gusting to 27 knots.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Safety Weekly reported this a few weeks back in thier weekly synopsis.
First I've heard of it otherwise.
Just noticed there are two tailstrike threads started on 4/2/05.....
NTSB letter of "Safety Recomendation" issued on March 8, 2005...=
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2005/A05_03_07.pdf
....no amount of automation/procedures will forgo airmanship and common sense.
First I've heard of it otherwise.
Just noticed there are two tailstrike threads started on 4/2/05.....
NTSB letter of "Safety Recomendation" issued on March 8, 2005...=
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2005/A05_03_07.pdf
....no amount of automation/procedures will forgo airmanship and common sense.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following comment is contained in the NTSB Safety Recomendation provided by Shore Guy:
If I understand this recomendation correctly, I disagree. The whole point of cross-checking (by human or computer) is to catch a human error (which we all make) before it creates a problem. Preventing the pilots from making manual entries of the gross weight into the FMS, while allowing someone else to enter this value which is then uplinked, defeats the purpose. Human error is not eliminated with this recomendation, it is only shifted from the pilots to someone else, and the cross-checking is still not done.
In the publications that Boeing issued to operators in 2000 informing them of methods to reduce the risk of erroneous takeoff reference speeds, Boeing offered an option that it had developed of using an uplink from the aircraft communications and reporting system to display takeoff weight data on the FMS rather than the flight crew typing in this information. Boeing also indicated that it was investigating an option to inhibit any entry into the gross weight field, which would eliminate the possibility of flight crews erroneously entering zero fuel weight into the gross weight field. The Safety Board considers either of these suggestions to be viable methods of ensuring the integrity of gross weight values. Therefore, the Board believes that the FAA should require Honeywell to modify its FMS software either to inhibit manual entries in the gross weight field or to allow the takeoff gross weight to be uplinked directly into the FMS, and require operators of airplanes with Honeywell FMSs to incorporate this software modification.
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember well on the DC-8, by sixties, a system had been installed to measure the aircraft's gross weight and its center of gravity. Those figures were derived from the compression/shortening of the shock absorbers. It was not so much precise and so it was soon deactivated. Something like that, but much more reliable was installed on the MD-11. If I am correct a question arose 'cause the difference between the std pax wt on the load-sheet and the real weight measured by the machine, but the difference was a few centimes of 100 Tons (or pounds).
Somebody current on that aircraft can correct me.
I am sure that this is the only way to avoid the so many time made pilot error: to input 100... ZFW less than real on the FMC
Fly Safe
DOVE
Somebody current on that aircraft can correct me.
I am sure that this is the only way to avoid the so many time made pilot error: to input 100... ZFW less than real on the FMC
Fly Safe
DOVE
Last edited by DOVES; 2nd Apr 2005 at 17:04.
Boeing also indicated that it was investigating an option to inhibit any entry into the gross weight field, which would eliminate the possibility of flight crews erroneously entering zero fuel weight into the gross weight field.
We have no SOP which involves entering anything in the gross weight field. So much for the price of safety...
Buttonpusher
The planes at CO all have uplink capability and is sop to accept (RTE, PERF INIT and TAKEOFF )data via ACARS, the crew manually inputting entries seems quite remote...however I was not there at the time.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trim sheet, fuel gauges, calculator, speed tables - 2 of you do it for cross-check - Job done. Time taken - 30 seconds. Total cost - NIL.
Has never failed me in 12 yrs of flying. NEVER trust a computer.
16B
Has never failed me in 12 yrs of flying. NEVER trust a computer.
16B
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Osaka
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh soory I thought this was concerning to the Japan Airlines 767 tail strike during landing phase, in Fukushima from the last 7 days.
JAL must now make apologie to passengers on every flight on PA until April 15 for the to many mistakes.
JAL must now make apologie to passengers on every flight on PA until April 15 for the to many mistakes.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without intending to sound smug I can't help feeling that if the worst scandal that people can find to post here is of such trivial banality as a tailstrike that failed to hit the headlines then we, as an industry, must be doing things pretty much right?
The fact that this non event failed to make news is surely a symptom af a mature and well run industry that is far past the death and glory days that the more hysterical amongst us (not just the media) love to hark - or bark - back to.
The lack of interest in such day to day minor glitches is surely a good thing. Long may it remain so.
Remember, Safety is no Accident!
The fact that this non event failed to make news is surely a symptom af a mature and well run industry that is far past the death and glory days that the more hysterical amongst us (not just the media) love to hark - or bark - back to.
The lack of interest in such day to day minor glitches is surely a good thing. Long may it remain so.
Remember, Safety is no Accident!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the point were I go off on a rant.
There have been two recent cases where the weights have been 100tonnes out resulting in incorrect V speeds.
SIA in AKL and more recently AFR (A340).
ACA (A330) had a case where the Vr was inputted 20kt below that calculated (a 5 became a 3).
How could any professional pilot 1. not notice a 100t discrepancy or 2. not notice a 20kt reduction in Vr?
This points to a loss of basic airmanship.
There have been two recent cases where the weights have been 100tonnes out resulting in incorrect V speeds.
SIA in AKL and more recently AFR (A340).
ACA (A330) had a case where the Vr was inputted 20kt below that calculated (a 5 became a 3).
How could any professional pilot 1. not notice a 100t discrepancy or 2. not notice a 20kt reduction in Vr?
This points to a loss of basic airmanship.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Osaka
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The JAL announcement to the pax go some things like "We apolagise for our past performances and we are soory. We are a safety airline."
Its for maybe 2 or 3 pargraph in length. I will try and get a copy.
May be it is the punishment by JCAB to JAL.
Its for maybe 2 or 3 pargraph in length. I will try and get a copy.
May be it is the punishment by JCAB to JAL.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agaricus bisporus,
Your post makes interesting reading when you describe the incident as "such trivial banality as a tailstrike " and "day to day minor glitches " (your words).
When I refer back to the original post, I see that "Further examination revealed substantial damage to the aft pressure bulkhead" (Koan's words).
Maybe tailstrikes causing substantial damage to the aft pressure bulkhead are numbered amongst day to day glitches, and of trivial banality where you come from, but not where I come from.
Old Smokey
Your post makes interesting reading when you describe the incident as "such trivial banality as a tailstrike " and "day to day minor glitches " (your words).
When I refer back to the original post, I see that "Further examination revealed substantial damage to the aft pressure bulkhead" (Koan's words).
Maybe tailstrikes causing substantial damage to the aft pressure bulkhead are numbered amongst day to day glitches, and of trivial banality where you come from, but not where I come from.
Old Smokey
