777-300 Landing Tailstrike 11 Dec 2018 in Hong Kong
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where ever the wind takes me
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Age: 62
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like all their FBW limiting systems they can be overridden by applying more force if necessary
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Up
Posts: 100
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.
Interesting read. I was on that AC 15 on Dec 11 2018. It's one of my regular routes.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: everywhere
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Up
Posts: 100
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.
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.
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.
