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

China Airlines 744F tail strike

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

China Airlines 744F tail strike

Old 29th Mar 2010, 23:39
  #21 (permalink)  
Nightfire
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Are you implying that contractors are virtual prisoners who can't break their contract or otherwise just walk off the job? I doubt that any airline anywhere would be ripping off your shirt to drag you into the cockpit to make you fly.
At Dynasty's competitor, EVA, certainly. They have a very high training bond. You can make a runner of course, but then you won't have any papers.
So unless you're lucky enough to find another job somewhere where they don't require a letter from your previous employer, you can only put up with all the sh1t and wait for EVA to let you go. China Airlines will probably be similar.
 
Old 30th Mar 2010, 00:59
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: No where
Posts: 28
Just to clearify a few things, the crew didn't know there was a tail strike, however, due to late lift off, the crew suspected the gear might have damaged some runway lighting or equipment, hence asked ANC to check the runway. ANC replied that no damage nor debris were found.

The feeling of a tail strike depends on the magnitude of which, a lighter one can not be felt, this one felt exactly the same as a landing (thus crew suspected a second wheel contact), the damage so far is only a few panel replacement. Not sure what it felt like on SQ flight in AKL 2003.

By the way, does anyone know what happened to the crew on SQ and CX flights that had tail strike in AKL?
lowvaeater is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2010, 01:03
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ampang
Age: 72
Posts: 42
sunbird wrote :
Some things never change,what an outfit.
Well, we all can say the same for Fedex.........accident in Subic, Narita, US and stalling in the holding pattern! Don't try make it seem that it only happen in Asian carriers.
Kal Niranjan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2010, 04:11
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 162
China Airlines Pilots know no fear except one and that one is the fear of being invited to Disciplinary Review Board where there is always tea but no biscuits.
Every flight is a "mission" and most important is to complete the mission.
Guava Tree is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2010, 08:11
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 1,349
Tail strikes

The SQ tailscrape in AKL was very similar to the A340 in Tullamarine. In both instances the TOW was entered incorrectly, 100 tonnes incorrectly. The SQ dragged its empenage for 500 metres and got airborne just above the stall. Cx was not anywhere near as disasterous.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2010, 08:40
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 162
Significance of incorrect entry of Take off weight

I would further explain the remarks by Old Fella as I see it:
The significance of incorrect entry of take off weight is that there will be too much thrust reduction for the entire take off. This will result in the far runway fence appearing to get nearer faster than it will appear possible to rise above it, resulting in dramatic action by the sensible pilot at the last moment to avoid crashing through ground obstacles at the far end of the runway.
Guava Tree is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2010, 10:16
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: london
Posts: 59
Kal,
Comparing China with Fedex is false.
Fedex has 672 aircraft China 62, of which china wrote of nearly 10% of their fleet, 2 A300s,3 b737s,3 B747s, 1 MD11.
sunbird123 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2010, 10:45
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 1,349
Incorrect Data Entry

Guava Tree, the A340 Crew at least increased thrust when they realised all was not well, unlike the SQ crew whom, as I understand it, did not. I seem to recall that the CX crew over-rotated rather than the cause being an incorrect data entry.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2010, 11:03
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wiltshire uk
Age: 58
Posts: 84
Been here before

In most of the cases being discussed here, the crew elected to return due suspicion of damage. However, does anyone recall the China Southern A340 that staggered off a certain LHR runway with a tailstrike about five years ago? The crew were informed of suspected tail strike by ATC (runway lights damaged) and yet elected to pressuriase the hull and continue on an 11 hour sector to home base.

A creeping structural failure could have led to airframe failure at any stage- and Nevil Shute and Ernie Gann would have been proven correct all over again...

Surely, if there is any suspicion of very late rotation with possible tail strike, the aircraft should be de-weighted in the hold and then landed at the nearest runway - possibly the departure point.

So the multi million dollar (repair) question in this case, is, did the crew have any knowledge of the event or an event that might suggest such?

If they did, why did they not make a fuel dump and precautionary landing, and if they did not, are they not lucky it did not pop a plate or a pressure bulkhead way out over the Pacific....

As usual, it has all happened before. Have we learned anything yet ?
Slats One is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2010, 11:34
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sin City
Posts: 279
Still remember the SQ tailstrike a/c's registration. 9V-SMT
Scrape My Tail

The SQ's tailstrike incident could have turned out more disastrous as the a/c took off 30 knots below its actual take off speed and the stickshaker activated just seconds after it took off. It almost stalled a few metres above the runway ! And I do remember that the pilots had no idea that they had a tail strike until the fire services informed them after they landed.
leewan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2010, 12:40
  #31 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 20
in this case the mistake was that they set the landing weight instead of the Take off weight, but even setting the Take off weight is not CAL's SOP, you should set ZFW to avoid this kind of incorrect data.
Both guys on seat were fired and the third was supended for 2 months
domani is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2010, 13:42
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: No where
Posts: 28
All the FMC entries were done correctly, including the ZFW, it was the ACARS RAS data that was incorrect.
They did apply full TO thrust at the end.
EK crew were all sacked.. but how about the SQ case?.. what happened to the crew after the incident?
lowvaeater is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 00:16
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palm Desert CA 92260 USA
Age: 70
Posts: 1
c11

C 11 Is Passanger Flight Jfk Anc Tpe !
podaca is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 00:50
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 4
If B18723 is the correct registration, This is a freighter aircraft regardless of the flight number.
B747SF is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 04:35
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 162
Sure seems to be a freighter:

http://www.asc.gov.tw/downfile/preli...CI5233_eng.pdf

I find it interesting that the flightcrew have reported stick shaker stall warning occurred “during take off roll”, instead of reporting that stick shaker occurred on rotation. We know that take off roll includes rotation, but if the stick shaker occurred on rotation then saying that it occurred on take off roll, rather than saying that it occurred on rotation, would be perceived as a deliberate ambiguity.
Therefore we should charitably assume that the stick shaker occurred on the take off roll before rotation. Before rotation the nosewheel is on the ground so the stickshaker has no business to be operating and the conclusion would reasonably be that the stickshaker was in error and a false warning.
Guava Tree is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 14:03
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,333
I find it interesting that the flightcrew have reported stick shaker stall warning occurred “during take off roll”, instead of reporting that stick shaker occurred on rotation. We know that take off roll includes rotation, but if the stick shaker occurred on rotation then saying that it occurred on take off roll, rather than saying that it occurred on rotation, would be perceived as a deliberate ambiguity.
Therefore we should charitably assume that the stick shaker occurred on the take off roll before rotation. Before rotation the nosewheel is on the ground so the stickshaker has no business to be operating and the conclusion would reasonably be that the stickshaker was in error and a false warning.


you could be right, but then again I may have misread this
lomapaseo is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.