BA A321 tailstrike.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our friends in TLS aren't helping matters. Despite 1100+ A321s being built and another 1500+ on order, they refuse to produce a datapack for the A321 so currently all FSTDs are A320 only.
At least they noticed the tail strike!
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...pdf_500002.pdf
When Boeing introduced the B737-400 they also included a tail bumper. Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321?
https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...pdf_500002.pdf
When Boeing introduced the B737-400 they also included a tail bumper. Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321?
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my day I always flew plus 10 on a 321 and it was always a power on landing with little nose up.......yeap totally against the grain.....never scraped a tail and stop dist never an issue. Flew the 73 400s the same.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed - I was told that a member of the public had seen 'sparks' on landing and reported it to the airport.
Passengers had disembarked before people (including the fire service) started paying attention to the tail end of the aircraft.
Passengers had disembarked before people (including the fire service) started paying attention to the tail end of the aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Boeing introduced the B737-400 they also included a tail bumper. Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321?
So it's not true then; the pilot can take an AB outside its comfort zone. A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input. Being a Boeing man I thought that's what all these Toulouse electrons was about. Don't let the pilot bend the a/c. There have been other demonstrations of this myth being false; here's another.
But I do ask the question as a technician, not a pilot: why not have proximity sensors in the tail linked to pitch channel; both take off and landing?
So it's not true then; the pilot can take an AB outside its comfort zone. A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input. Being a Boeing man I thought that's what all these Toulouse electrons was about. Don't let the pilot bend the a/c. There have been other demonstrations of this myth being false; here's another.
But I do ask the question as a technician, not a pilot: why not have proximity sensors in the tail linked to pitch channel; both take off and landing?
When Boeing introduced the B737-400 they also included a tail bumper. Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321?
So it's not true then; the pilot can take an AB outside its comfort zone. A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input. Being a Boeing man I thought that's what all these Toulouse electrons was about. Don't let the pilot bend the a/c. There have been other demonstrations of this myth being false; here's another.
But I do ask the question as a technician, not a pilot: why not have proximity sensors in the tail linked to pitch channel; both take off and landing?
So it's not true then; the pilot can take an AB outside its comfort zone. A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input. Being a Boeing man I thought that's what all these Toulouse electrons was about. Don't let the pilot bend the a/c. There have been other demonstrations of this myth being false; here's another.
But I do ask the question as a technician, not a pilot: why not have proximity sensors in the tail linked to pitch channel; both take off and landing?
Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321?
A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input.
why not have proximity sensors in the tail linked to pitch channel; both take off and landing?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A RAD ALT on the tail link into the pitch computer and a filter than resists further pilot input.
No aircraft works that way.
No a/c worked that way until AB, F16, FBW, Stealth a/c. They have built in anti-stall pitch limiters; alpha floor etc. Until these a/c 'no a/c worked that way.' Remember the 1st autoland; look no hands? Times move on. Telephones were just that; wires and things. then came cordless phones, then mobile phones and then they had cameras, and then they internet and are in fact hand-held computers. But no phones worked that way.
Now they do! It's called evolution and development. 25 years ago there was no TCAS. No need, we have radar ATC. That didn't work so well. It will happen that there will be automatic RA manoeuvres on a/c. Good grief it is already on motor cars with active cruise control and auto braking functions. To save embarrassment there is not auto parking. Talk about dumbing down of PF skills. You don't need to be able to brake or park. point and shoot and get out at the other end. When my phone can 'beam me up' then I know Star Trek has become real. Every year is closer.
No aircraft works that way.
No a/c worked that way until AB, F16, FBW, Stealth a/c. They have built in anti-stall pitch limiters; alpha floor etc. Until these a/c 'no a/c worked that way.' Remember the 1st autoland; look no hands? Times move on. Telephones were just that; wires and things. then came cordless phones, then mobile phones and then they had cameras, and then they internet and are in fact hand-held computers. But no phones worked that way.
Now they do! It's called evolution and development. 25 years ago there was no TCAS. No need, we have radar ATC. That didn't work so well. It will happen that there will be automatic RA manoeuvres on a/c. Good grief it is already on motor cars with active cruise control and auto braking functions. To save embarrassment there is not auto parking. Talk about dumbing down of PF skills. You don't need to be able to brake or park. point and shoot and get out at the other end. When my phone can 'beam me up' then I know Star Trek has become real. Every year is closer.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will happen that there will be automatic RA manoeuvres on a/c.
When Boeing introduced the B737-400 they also included a tail bumper. Why didn’t Airbus put something in place as well when introducing the A321?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh - How about this, from Boeing
Flight testing of the Boeing 777-300ER has verified the performance of numerous special features. One such feature, Tail-Strike protection, helps prevent tail contact with the ground on takeoff. Operating through the airplane's fly-by-wire flight controls, the system allows the airplane to lift off at reduced speed, increasing allowable takeoff weight by 4,000 to 10,000 pounds (1,814 to 4,536 kilograms), depending on airport conditions and airplane structural limits.
"It's in the primary flight computer," said Frank Santoni, Boeing 777 chief pilot, of the special feature. "It's a function that looks at rate of closure of the tail to the ground during rotation, measuring how fast and at what distance the tail is moving toward the pavement."
If the tail gets too close to the ground, the system moves the elevator for slower nose rotation. During abuse takeoff testing, where Santoni has deliberately rotated the airplane early and fast, the system has responded as designed.
"It's doing a superb job, which is testament to our engineering team," Santoni said. "On the 777-300 program six years ago we did the same takeoff performance tests and contacted the tail about 12 times, which is expected during flight-test. On this program, we haven't touched once."
"It's in the primary flight computer," said Frank Santoni, Boeing 777 chief pilot, of the special feature. "It's a function that looks at rate of closure of the tail to the ground during rotation, measuring how fast and at what distance the tail is moving toward the pavement."
If the tail gets too close to the ground, the system moves the elevator for slower nose rotation. During abuse takeoff testing, where Santoni has deliberately rotated the airplane early and fast, the system has responded as designed.
"It's doing a superb job, which is testament to our engineering team," Santoni said. "On the 777-300 program six years ago we did the same takeoff performance tests and contacted the tail about 12 times, which is expected during flight-test. On this program, we haven't touched once."
