VS tailstrike at VHHH

[flyer_spotter]

Just heard from a friend that Virgin flight to London had a tailstrike at Hong Kong airport.

Anyone knows more about this incident?

[traveller5]

VS201 HKG-LHR STA 05:25, ETA 20:45.

[glhcarl]

I thought Airbus's "envelope protection" prevented this type of incident?

[ETOPS773]

The wind seems to have been very gusty at the time - it could happen to anyone really..

RE: Envelope protection systems, the computers can only do so much to protect the aircraft before mother nature thwarts its efforts. The A340-600 is very long aircraft, and like the 777-300, is very prone to these type of events

[hetfield]

To my limited knowledge most of these events are caused by wrong T/O performance calculations/flap settings.

[forget]

Hetfield, The crew will be delighted to hear that you've pinned down the cause so quickly.

[captjns]

Originally Posted by hetfield

To my limited knowledge most of these events are caused by wrong T/O performance calculations/flap settings.

Also improper rotation techniques during gusty cross-wind conditions too. Careful attention is required for long fuselage type aircraft.

[stansdead]

Of course, Hong Kong is a lovely place too isn't it? It has never had any instances of shifting winds causing severe turbulence or flight incidents has it?

It is more than likely that environmental factors played some part IMHO.

I just cannot see three or maybe four PAIRS of eyes from an operating crew making and allowing a gross error to occur easily and to not be spotted.

Let's wait see.

[throw a dyce]

CLK can be a sod for windshear and all sorts of weird stuff.The windshear warning system didn't warn you of mechanical shear off the airport platform.It just warned of shear from thunderstorms etc.
Very bad place to put an airport,but HK didn't have a lot of choice.
Ex HK ATC...

[Captain Airclues]

throw a dyce

The WTWS has always included terrain induced alerts, but the integration of the LIDAR-based alerts into the WTWS now give terrain induced windshear alerts right down to the runways.

www.weather.gov.hk/publica/reprint/r566.pdf

Airclues

[411A]

>>I just cannot see three or maybe four PAIRS of eyes from an operating crew making and allowing a gross error to occur easily and to not be spotted.<<

That's what the USAF thought too, until proved quite wrong by the recent C-5 accident at Dover AFB.
Or, for that matter, the B747 MK accident in Canada.

It's called...not paying strict attention to what you are doing.

[hetfield]

@forget
@captjns

Sorry, it's not my opinion to blame the crew involved in this particular incident. Sure, windshear could also have been a factor like many others e.g. wrong loadsheet/trim-setting etc.

[TVIR40]

e.g. wrong loadsheet/trim-setting etc.

indeed, the old days of flying little props, an incident happened precisely because of incorrect load sheet handed to flight deck at last minute, through the hatch. The aircraft ended with slight tail scrape damage. On examination the incorrect aircraft had been designated to the load sheet.

[preset]

Originally Posted by hetfield

To my limited knowledge most of these events are caused by wrong T/O performance calculations/flap settings.

Don't forget landing gear strut under inflation can also be a cause. Its happened before. Best to wait and see I would venture.

[Flap 5]

Originally Posted by glhcarl

I thought Airbus's "envelope protection" prevented this type of incident?

For your info: when the aircraft is on the ground the flight control computers are in Direct Law. I seem to remember that the aircraft had to reach a radar altitude of 10 feet before the computers go in to Normal Law, with the protections that you refer to. It is 10 feet for landing when the computers go in to Direct Law.

Therefore on rotate the computers would be in Direct Law and the pilot can freely over-rotate as with any other aircraft.

[PAXboy]

Following such an event - is an immediate return the only course of action?

[ShockWave]

Generally, it depends whether the aircraft has a tail skid or not and how hard it was smashed down on to the runway. 343 and 345 does not have a tail skid, not sure if 346 does. If no tail skid then the aircraft should not be pressurized if a tail scrape has occured. If you don't return then it depends on how far you are happy to fly at 10,000ft.

[glhcarl]

Originally Posted by Flap 5

For your info: when the aircraft is on the ground the flight control computers are in Direct Law. I seem to remember that the aircraft had to reach a radar altitude of 10 feet before the computers go in to Normal Law, with the protections that you refer to. It is 10 feet for landing when the computers go in to Direct Law.

Therefore on rotate the computers would be in Direct Law and the pilot can freely over-rotate as with any other aircraft.

If what you say is true (and it may be as I know nothing about Airbus except what I have read) how can there Autoland system work?

[Carnage Matey!]

On the 320 the aircraft takes off in Direct law and then blends into normal law by about 150 RA. On landing the aircraft is in normal law all the way down unless system failures have caused the control laws to be degraded. In normal law the angle of attack protections only are disabled below 100RA to allow you to land. Autolands can only be conducted in normal law.

[Dan Winterland]

It's not normal law on landing during the final stages. At 50' the auto trim ceases and the pitch law is modified to flare law. The system memorises the attitude at 50' and this attitude becomes the reference for pitch control. As the aircraft descends through abouy 30', the system reduces the pitch attitude at a predetermined rate of 2 degrees down in 8 seconds.