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

Cargo B tail strike at BRU.

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

Cargo B tail strike at BRU.

Old 28th Oct 2008, 03:20
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 52
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cargo B tail strike at BRU.

Anyone has more info on this one?
Happened on 27 oct PM while departing, took off, dumped fuel and came back to BRU.
Ctail is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 10:14
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under The Stars
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, I heard about this yesterday. Cargo B has been phoning around asking for ACMI.

Does any one know how bad the strike was and how long the aircraft will be out of action.
747Comet is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 15:36
  #3 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow! That must have been an amazing rotation on take-off. I'm inclined to think the over-rotation was once airborne, I don't think you could do this sort of damage with the wheels still in contact. Over-rotation damage I have seen has been much further forward just aft of the upsweep. Likely explanation- serious miscalculation of weight?
Rainboe is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 16:03
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,357
Received 92 Likes on 36 Posts
Looks similar to the Singapore tailstrike "down under" a little while ago........
ETOPS is online now  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 16:27
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On first sight, and not being a structural engineer, it would appeared to have damaged the rear pressure bulkhead. If that is the case and it is an old airframe, I find it hard to believe that it is a viable proposition to restore it to service.
TopBunk is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 16:34
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under The Stars
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The flight they were operating was only about 30000kgs so it might have been an over rotatation?

With CBA now aog and CBB still in check, the -400 now delayed till Jan 2009 could Cargo B be in trouble
747Comet is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 16:56
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On first sight, and not being a structural engineer, it would appeared to have damaged the rear pressure bulkhead. If that is the case and it is an old airframe, I find it hard to believe that it is a viable proposition to restore it to service.
The APB is forward of the vertical stabilizer and there is evidence that the skin has been scraped in this area. But without being able to see how much skin deformation there is in this area, it is hard to tell APB damage by looking at external damage.
glhcarl is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 16:59
  #8 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
it would appeared to have damaged the rear pressure bulkhead.
Looks like it to me. The rest is superficial, but that would be prohibitively expensive. One of the Documentary channels is running a program about changing a 767 rear pressure bulkhead. It's a big difficult job. I still can't imagine clobbering it like that.
Rainboe is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 17:07
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The pressure bulkhead location coincides exactly with the leading edge of the tailplane... So look at the picture, and take your conclusions. If it is the case, it will be an expensive repair.
xxx

Dark contrails
BelArgUSA is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 18:15
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tail damage

I have seen a few 747 with tail strike damage.
But none as bad as this one.
xxx
Generally, the tail strike is limited to the belly (skin) area.
Here it appears that it is a serious "over-rotation" problem.
After the belly scraped, continued rotation further into APU area.
xxx
I shall say nothing.

Happy contrails
BelArgUSA is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 20:10
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely this is either a load shift, a gross weight miscalculation or a huge loadsheet and trim problem.

No sane pilot is going to over-rotate that badly unless something is very amiss and there's nothing they can really do to prevent a strike.
Ex Cargo Clown is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 20:51
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely this is either a load shift, a gross weight miscalculation or a huge loadsheet and trim problem.
That was my thoughts. To me it looks like the tail was dragged for a fair ol' distance.

Mercenary Pilot is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 20:54
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: here and there
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought that weight and balance systems where installed on all dedicated 747 freighters. This one used to be ex-AF according to my listings.
Loadshift would be a good reason. A loadsheet must have been wrong by about 100t or more to get results like this.

I don't think it'll be repaired as it would be very expensive to fix this scratch and cargob has reportedly been in rather serious financial troubles lately.

Guess the crew is invited to the office to answer some questions.
MaxBlow is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 21:43
  #14 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That sort of loadshift is more likely to induce an extremely rapid conclusion to the flight. If there was a gross error of loading data, the takeoff performance would be wrong. Happened at AKL to another 747 with similar results.
Rainboe is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 21:47
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe not a loadshift then, more a loadsheet problem, and reported CG% out of kilter with the actual loading of the aircraft. Heavy pallets loaded further aft than they should be would cause a few problems to say the least.
Ex Cargo Clown is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 22:57
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Eyewitnesses who know pointy end from blunt suggest 200m plus at the scraping attitude, and a real concern it was not going to get airborne.
greuzi is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 23:08
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another broken -200 freighter. Been a busy year.
greuzi is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 23:32
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: platform9
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
-no loadsheet error (all wgts correct, loaded according to loadplan)
-cg well within limits (zfw 25pct mac)
-payload 107.5t
-no load shift as a/c full
-fob 99t
-all frt was reweighed. result 300kg difference
744rules is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2008, 23:47
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Generally, a 747F or SF is approximately 156,000 to 160,000 kg BOW.
So with 99 tons of fuel, and payload 108 tons, the T/O weight was some 365,000 which makes it a heavy aircraft.
xxx
That aircraft Max TO weight, is either a 377,800 or a 371,900 kg.

Happy contrails
BelArgUSA is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2008, 10:30
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 2,357
Received 92 Likes on 36 Posts
When flying with new co-pilots on the 747-400 I always give them a simple rule about V speeds. When leaving the flight deck, after landing, set the speed in the MCP to zero. That forces the next crew to set something in that box before take-off. SOP is to put the ball park V2 figure based on expected TOW which can be extracted from the table on the checklist. I also advise a gross error check before take-off. Thus - is 144kts a sensible V2 for 370T ?? No it's approach speed left over from the previous sector...........
ETOPS is online now  

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.