EK407 Tailstrike @ ML

[inandout]

Min ht for fuel jet is 4000feetAGL

[third_time _lucky]

Min ht for fuel jet is 4000feetAGL

Don't know what country you're from but in Oz min height is 6000ft AGL. ATC have to keep other traffic clear of 1000ft above, 2000ft below and 1/2 mile laterally around the dump zone. Also no racetrack patterns for obvious reasons so if they were dumping for 45 mins, a big no go zone would have been used.

[helen-damnation]

Can any EK drivers let us know if this service was planned direct to Dubai & how the take-off performance should have been using Rwy 16 with 5 kts downwind at such a heavy weight?

Yes, it's a direct service.
Performance should have been fine, although I don't have figures to hand. 5 Kt tailwind would have given a lower "flex" thrust (more thrust) and a lower V1 but that's it. Certainly not limiting.

You got using the cross incorrectly

EK still using the Maltese Cross for rotation?

I believe the software has been modified so that the cross disappears when the nosewheel strut extends. If so, you CAN NOT fly the rotation with it 'cos it's not there.

[boree3]

Just a quick question from an onlookers point-of-view.

Why would you use 16 with 5 knots of downwind and not 34 with 5 knots of headwind? Noise abatement? I guess 16 was the nominated runway but it is still up to the PIC to decide if he requires 34.

Politicians, performance figures etc. etc. etc. Whatever happened to the oldie "the 2 most useless things in avaition, runway behind the aircraft and fuel in the bowser"?

Well done to all as everybody walked away.

[ColB]

I'm certainly no expert, just an unfortunate FF, but having just come back from YMML, I can tell you that it hit the antenna that is about 300m south of 34. The big orange array that is about 6 -7 ft tall.

I'm sure the experts here can substitute in the correct terminology.......

[tmpffisch]

To what I can tell, the event has been censored from WebTrak.....

At 2233 the Braybrook and Keilor noise meters register with no aircraft shown, and the incoming DJ294 on RW16 switches to RW27.

[SB4200]

LOC Antenna

12000' and some... Whoa!

Google Maps

[not a very clever google mapper linking person... might need to scroll a bit ]

[Ken Borough]

Mr Brokenshire said a number of factors could cause a "tail hit", among them weather conditions, loading issues and handling.

"It is a hazard, particularly on the longer aircraft," he said.

Brokenshire is a spin-doctor for the ATSB. Was he confusing the -600 with its shorter brother the -500? He needs an education as the -500 is shorter that a B747 so what he means by 'the longer aircraft' is anyone's guess.

Is he also trying to introduce new terminology to the industry by referring to the incident as a 'tail hit'? In these parts we use (or maybe used to use) 'tail-strike' ot 'tail-scrape'.

Of course, one can always rely on spin doctors for accurate information that is then peddled by the media as gospel.

[fogap]

The information regarding possible shifting of container during the roll corresponds with information I received from a passenger who stated that crew believed there was movement in the lower cabin (noticable noice, not from the strike).

In reply to a possible "video of the incident"....yes, I 'thought' I was recording it until I later found I wasn't. (the perils of getting a new phone only two days previous!).

[gruntyfen]

Newspaper quotes

How about this in the Herald Sun and reportedly a quote from an Emirates spokesperson.

An Emirates spokesperson confirmed the incident in a statement at 11.20am: "Last night, EK 407 from Melbourne to Dubai had to return to Melbourne shortly after take-off when a flight deck indication alerted the Captain to the possibility of the tail contacting the runway on departure.

[7378FE]

How come Qantas hasn't been blamed for it?

Because they don't codeshare on the flight, wait until Etihad has one, then QANTAS will be in the crosshairs, as they will be codesharing.

7378FE

[leewan]

This could be due to:
1. Incorrect TOW calculation
2.Cargo not properly latched and secured.
3.Cargo themselves not properly calculated
AFAIK, the 345 doesn't have tail strike protection. And as for the smoke, my guess is that it could have punctured the pressurised area of the fuselage causing the burning smoke of the fuselage to be circulated in the cabin. Whatever it is, it is gonna cost alot of $$$ to be repair that.

Take a look at this for full r/way usage for t/o:
YouTube - China Airlines 737-800 nearly overshoots runway at takeoff

[canadair]

bottom line, it happened,
spare a moment and think of the crew,
right now they all wish they were not rostered for the flight.
Analyze all you want, pontificate away, but the incident is what it is.

It will undoubtedly come out, and they will stand or fall on the results, but either way the crew is currently reliving every minute, every action, and every decision made.

It is so easy to discuss an incident, and more times than not assess instant blame, but between these guys there is hundreds or thousands of ops normal departures, this one is not, so lets remember that a trained professional proven crew is involved.

It hits home that, regardless of experience, and ability, we are always only as good as our last flight.

I don't work for EK, but in the end we all do the same job. Those of us that do, ask yourselves how you might feel sitting in the hotel right now.

[Goffee]

Now "breaking news" on the BBC...

... must be the weekend crew, but that is pretty slow.

[kingpost]

I wonder if any authority will look at the flight schedule the pilots have been working prior to the event. They're still human and being scheduled very high duty times eventually catches even the sharpest of operators.

[411A]

Not knowing much about long-bodied Airboos aeroplanes (or, short-bodied ones for that matter)...does this particular model have any type of tailskid...and if not, why not?

[baires1]

once I was on a a342 heavy T.O from LEMD . ATIS reported wind calm. In our company we do our own calculation for T.O. speeds. As we where number 2 on sequence the tower reported to the number 1, wind 5 kts tail . when we roll into position wind calm. where using TOGA. 36L Its a long runway, but also long T.O. roll and wind might have changed or not being accurately reported along the runway. As we saw the end of the runway aproaching pretty fast and we didn't have V1 yet, the PF (FO) initated rotation. Had we waited for V1, today I would be driving a cab.
Got airborne normally but none of us where happy about the situation the say the least.
after T.O. we found out that the T.O. performance charts for 10 kts tail wind indicated V1,Vr,V2 much lower than the one we have used (example: V1 140 instead of 154, that's 14 knots less!) and that our T.O. rotation was perfectly safe. The reason: T.O. charts normaly uses improved climb speeds. I found usefull to take a look at the 10kts tail wind speeds on heavy T.O.'s . Just in case.

[Blockla]

The Melbourne Airport confirmed, that several runway end lights were damaged in the accident, too, and needed to be replaced.

Heavily scrapped the tail and took out some lights (presumably on departure).

Was there a power issue associated with the event or an event simply because of weight? Long flight from YMML to OMDB, some 6300NM.

Is it unlikely that the scrapping kept them on the ground longer than expected, ie past the end of the movement area. Any damage to the Runway?

Was the scrapping a desperate result of needing to get in the air; ie they were past the point of no return with not enough tar left in front of them?

[Jofm5]

Was the scrapping a desperate result of needing to get in the air; ie they were past the point of no return with not enough tar left in front of them?

According to The Aviation Herald

In daylight Saturday morning it was established, that the airplane was still on the ground when it passed the runway end during takeoff, according gear tracks were found in the soft ground past the runway end.

[DeltaRed]

Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman Ian Brokenshire said its officers were headed to Melbourne.

"We have started the investigation and we will be sending a team of four to Melbourne later this afternoon to start the investigation tomorrow," he said.

"We will be looking at the flight data records, getting data off that, interviewing the crew, interviewing the company representatives, inspecting the runway and aircraft."

That will be an neat trick since all four of the crew were reportedly on the next flight out of the country - less than two hours later and now in Dubai.

The ground staff claim they dead-headed on the next direct service to Dubai which left "immediately".

Maybe I'm wrong but I would've thought they'd hang around for a de-brief with the ATSB. Getting them out in such a hurry was most certainly NOT out of fear the pilots might have been arrested or otherwise interfered with.

While I don't think for a second these fellows have anything untoward to answer for, I can't help but feel somewhat disturbed by the unseemly haste in which the crew were removed from the scene of a pretty significant incident. Obviously before the ATSB were probably even woken up.

Emirates pulls off yet another sleazy safety-related move. It'll be interesting to see how EK expansion into Australia might just be put under the microscope as a result of this action - not the event but the rapid extraction of the crew before they could be interviewed.

I bet the police were pissed off they never got their hands on them at "the crime scene." I suppose that's a good thing, at least.

It's always so inconvenient when these things happen away from Dubai...