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

777-300 Landing Tailstrike 11 Dec 2018 in Hong Kong

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

777-300 Landing Tailstrike 11 Dec 2018 in Hong Kong

Old 10th Jan 2019, 19:49
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
777-300 Landing Tailstrike 11 Dec 2018 in Hong Kong

I just learned of this event today. A quick look through PPRUNE rumors and news did not reveal any previous thread about this one.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...strike-454428/

From what I saw it seems the tail damage was fairly extensive. I'm interested in both the status of this bird and any details anyone may have about that landing.
FCeng84 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 20:24
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a Pineapple Under the Sea
Age: 62
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pictures on Twitter here:
WillFlyForCheese is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 20:37
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,991
Received 316 Likes on 162 Posts
Some discussion of it in this thread.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2019, 23:41
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What an unfortunate registration C-FITW - In the North Sea offshore helicopter industry in means controlled flight into terrain (water).
terminus mos is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 04:20
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where ever the wind takes me
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Ironic that i only watched a documentary on YouTube yesterday about rampant fatigue at 'Air Canada', i wonder if it had anything to do with this? They did mention that Canada were in the process of reducing the hours form 1200 (iirc) to bring them in line with the FAA as they had the third highest flight hours . Id be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on it.
andy148 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 12:25
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,891
Received 36 Likes on 20 Posts
Interesting. The 777-300 has software tailstrike protection which reduces elevator deflection but it still has a tail skid, strike detector and a checklist, so obviously not thought to be infallible...
FullWings is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 12:31
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Posts: 904
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Landing tail strikes usually affect a part of the fuselage forward of the tailskid (if installed) due to gear strut compression. These can cause significant damage.
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 16:11
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Full Wings. Depends on model. Earlier ones had tail skid and no protection and later ones have no skid and a computer to protect. However one thing is for sure.. nothing is infallible.
shakealeg is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 16:50
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,991
Received 316 Likes on 162 Posts
Originally Posted by shakealeg
Full Wings. Depends on model. Earlier ones had tail skid and no protection and later ones have no skid and a computer to protect.
I believe all -300ERs have some degree of tailstrike protection embedded in the flight control software. Later production aircraft have enhanced protection, which enabled them to be built without the tailskid, resulting in significant weight savings when all the extra structure needed for it was eliminated.

Earlier aircraft can have the software upgrade and the tailskid removed, though the weight savings are obviously less. I think a similar SB is also available for non-ER -300s.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2019, 18:50
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
I believe all -300ERs have some degree of tailstrike protection embedded in the flight control software. Later production aircraft have enhanced protection, which enabled them to be built without the tailskid, resulting in significant weight savings when all the extra structure needed for it was eliminated.

Earlier aircraft can have the software upgrade and the tailskid removed, though the weight savings are obviously less. I think a similar SB is also available for non-ER -300s.
Interesting to have another 'protection' system, a la MCAS, that obviously limits the pilot's inputs. Boeing, unlike Airbus, used to have a philosophy that the pilot should be able to bend the airplane. Clearly that is no longer the case.
etudiant is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 00:17
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by etudiant
Interesting to have another 'protection' system, a la MCAS, that obviously limits the pilot's inputs. Boeing, unlike Airbus, used to have a philosophy that the pilot should be able to bend the airplane. Clearly that is no longer the case.

I stand to be corrected but I believe Boeing’s tailstrike protection system is a ‘soft’ limiter
You know it’s there when it operates but you can ‘pull through it’ if you have to


like all their FBW limiting systems they can be overridden by applying more force if necessary
stilton is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 01:23
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by stilton



I stand to be corrected but I believe Boeing’s tailstrike protection system is a ‘soft’ limiter
You know it’s there when it operates but you can ‘pull through it’ if you have to


like all their FBW limiting systems they can be overridden by applying more force if necessary
Hope that you are right, that I was maligning Boeing unfairly in this instance. Can anyone give a definitive answer?
etudiant is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 04:00
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,411
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
like all their FBW limiting systems they can be overridden by applying more force if necessary
When they can be overridden they get overridden even when not required.
vilas is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 04:10
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Up
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HK Air Accident Investigation Authority released its Preliminary Report. I don't have enough posts to include the link here.

Interesting read. I was on that AC 15 on Dec 11 2018. It's one of my regular routes.
Seat4A is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 17:02
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: everywhere
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
flyhardmo is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 17:27
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Up
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@flyhardmo
Thank you for posting the link.

My recorded notes on Dec 11 upon arrival had some of the same details noted in the prelim report. Plus flying as pax, we had different views rolling to the right while seated just in front of the wing on the starboard side. Knew there would be damage with the first hit. We also felt more than one bounce. She was already at the Haeco facility prior to my departure on connecting flight. She is still there.
Seat4A is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 21:46
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to the preliminary report, this was the FOs first landing in the 777 since simulator (type) training. Although the report notes that Air Canada’s SOP is to disengage the autopilot at 400 agl, I’m pretty confident that this isn’t enough time to get a ‘feel’ for the aircraft; especially for someone so new to it.
Callsign Kilo is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2019, 22:45
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Report also indicates late change to parallel runway. Sounds like an appropriate situation for extra briefing to be ready for and execute a go around if not sufficiently stable. Had the FO had any time on that flight hand flying prior to disconnect at 400 ft? The cost of this event could have paid for a lot more training including some hand flying in the real thing. With a high enough pilot gain any airplane can be made to PIO.
FCeng84 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 02:26
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 48
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How come Cathay’s tailsyrike in HKG got no report released by CAD?
Sqwak7700 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 03:08
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 101
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Sqwak7700
How come Cathay’s tailsyrike in HKG got no report released by CAD?
Report is issued by the accident investigation unit of the state of occurrence unless delegated to the state of registration
Chris2303 is offline  

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.