Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

VS tailstrike at VHHH

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

VS tailstrike at VHHH

Old 16th Jul 2006, 17:05
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 60
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A330 and above have what is caled FLARE mode, which is a combination of normal roll mode and direct flare mode. Essentially the same as above.
ShockWave is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2006, 17:25
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
mhhhhhh that sounds all too technical to me, Airbus or Scarebus? Thanks God I still fly a "Bobby", yes it is true that even a Bobby can have a Tailstrike with the lengh of 63 or 73 Meter. Winds at VHHH are sometimes a challenge itself to Crew`s and it is easy to get cought by one. Luck is as well involved! Do you know what I mean?!?!?! Lucky I am in my days off and not the one who where there at the time. Important that nobody got hurt, a few scratches at the Skid-pod I hope. Be more carefull with guessing, Aviation is not a place for Lottery and Gambling. It is a factloving comunity and when the DFDR is analyzed then you may find some answers to questions.

Fly safe and land happy

NG
B737NG is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2006, 17:33
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ETOPS773..."The A340-600 is very long aircraft, and like the 777-300, is very prone to these type of events."

...only when improper rotation or flare techniques not commensurate with weather conditions are applied.
GlueBall is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2006, 18:08
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Copper Mountain
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by glhcarl
I thought Airbus's "envelope protection" prevented this type of incident?
Nah - my airline had a tail strike on a 320 on a go around - wheels never touched the ground =- only the tail -clever eh?!
Peter Wacker is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2006, 20:56
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink

There you go glhcarl! It's been over 7 years since I flew the A330 and over 9 years since I flew the A320 but you get the picture! Basically there are no protections when you rotate.

I remember it as Direct Law as when you move the stick around you get a cross on the PFD, for the control check to show direct control input, until you get airborne. Yes it can be a Scarebus if you get too complcated with it. Keep it simple and it is just an Airbus!
Flap 5 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 00:43
  #26 (permalink)  
idg
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Capt. A,

You said that with LIDAR sending info to the WTWS at CLK there will be winshear warnings right 'down' to the runway.

This is absolutely correct but what is not generally realised is that the LIDAR cannot see windshear OVER the runway itself.

Presently the LIDAR is positioned alongside the tower and 'looks' up the approach path and departure route (straight out) but it's geometry does not allow it to look at the airflow over the runway.

Therefore in this case (tailstrike) the LIDAR would not have seen the windshear and sent inputs to the WTWS if it was present.

I understand the the Observatory has asked for funding for another LIDAR set to allow more coverage over the runways.
idg is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 11:35
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's patently obvious that the vast majority of those commenting here have no idea of what they speak. Even those of you who actually do (or claim to) have Airbus experience have not flown the A340-600, as demonstrated by your lack of knowledge of this aircraft and its systems.

And what possible relevance is the transition from Normal to Flare Law on landing to an incident that apparently occurred on Take Off?

Please withold your comments unless you have something useful or intelligent to add. I have seen little on this thread that fits either of those categories.

Scroggs (an A340-600 driver)
scroggs is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 12:24
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well said SCROGGs, my feelings entirely.

(I also fly the 346 / 343 and 330!)
electricjetjock is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 12:49
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
ejj or any HK hands,

CLK ATC used to issue windshear warnings as: Max shear and distance from touchdown of first encounter.
e.g. Something like "20kn loss at 5nm final"

Which actually meant first encounter would be at 5nm and somewhere between there and touchdown the 20kn loss would take place i.e. the 20kn loss would not necessarily be at 5nm.

The phraseology could be misleading to occasional visitors and I wonder, for the benefit of readers, if you can say if this is still the case.
Basil is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 12:58
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: far east
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Basil
ejj or any HK hands,

CLK ATC used to issue windshear warnings as: Max shear and distance from touchdown of first encounter.
e.g. Something like "20kn loss at 5nm final"

Which actually meant first encounter would be at 5nm and somewhere between there and touchdown the 20kn loss would take place i.e. the 20kn loss would not necessarily be at 5nm.

The phraseology could be misleading to occasional visitors and I wonder, for the benefit of readers, if you can say if this is still the case.
So far as I know this is still the case.
preset is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 13:02
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PAXboy
Following such an event - is an immediate return the only course of action?
No, but probably the best.....
hetfield is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 13:20
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Here and there....currently here.
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by PAXboy
Following such an event - is an immediate return the only course of action?
Haven't got the ops manual to hand, but if I remember correctly if a tailstrike is indicated by the tailstrike sensor and indicated on ECAM, I think the ECAM message is land ASAP, which in most cases would be a return to take off field.
Tom Sawyer is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 16:49
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK/China
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anyone know if this alleged tail-strike occurred on take off or landing? VS201 originates in Sydney
puddinghead is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 19:29
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
VS201 is SYD-HKG-LHR, this incident occured on departure from HKG. Aircraft had tail scrape on rotation and after dumping fuel returned to HKG.
srs what? is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 20:01
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HI guys, not the most pleasant experience, I can imagine.
We do fly in to VHHH and there's a lot of useful info written in the JEP already. If you pay attention you certainly can have a mental picture of what to expect. I'm currently on the 330 fleet and would be interested in comments of 346 skippers about the take off and landing techniques. Is that the same like 330? I've been told there's some kind of protection against over rotation built in. Is that somewhat true?
Thanks.
popay is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2006, 20:56
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK/China
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you, SRS What? for the clarification.
puddinghead is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2006, 06:40
  #37 (permalink)  

ex-Tanker
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Which Law?

Sounds as though you need to be a lawyer to understand an Airbus!
Few Cloudy is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2006, 07:17
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Still sitting on the stand-off bay so a bit more than a paint scrape apparently.
bekolblockage is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2006, 08:07
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Will be repaired by HAECO, take about 5 days before returning to LHR
Captain Rat is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2006, 13:46
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
capt rat not yet they hav'nt spilled the dosh. also maybe an airbus job it's that bad

Alternate law does not come in until computers go down and certainly only until airborne.

Does this mean wooly jumper's will be protected by constant pressure extension checks on the main landing gear like the fragrant harbour guy's have been with their tail strike.
itwilldoatrip is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.