MyCargo 747 hard tail strike on take-off

[txl]

ACT Airlines (aka MyCargo) Boeing 747-400 freighter operating for Saudia Arabian Airlines struck tail on runway on departure from Dammam to Zaragoza, diverted to Jeddah. Looks like severe damage to the tail cone.
Pics here: http://avherald.com/h?article=4d2bf0d1&opt=0

[Lantern10]

Well that is some serious damage.

[tdracer]

I like this comment from the link:

Not a strike, more like a grand slam homer!

Looks like they must of dragged the tail for some time - sort of a "min-unstick" test, without the tailskid...

[OldnGrounded]

I expect the video of that takeoff is impressive. Well, if there is video.

[Intruder]

Worst one I've seen! I wonder how big the discrepancy was between actual weight and performance calculations...

[moosepileit]

2003 dropped the APU

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20030312-0



Home » Database » 2003
Last updated: 2 February 2020
Status: Final
Date: Wednesday 12 March 2003
Time: 15:28
Type: Silhouette image of generic B744 model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different
Boeing 747-412
Operator: Singapore Airlines
Registration: 9V-SMT
C/n / msn: 27137/990
First flight: 1993-08-04 (9 years 7 months)
Total airframe hrs: 43627
Cycles: 6712
Engines: 4 Pratt & Whitney PW4056
Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 20
Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 369
Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 389
Aircraft damage: Substantial
Aircraft fate: Repaired
Location: Auckland International Airport (AKL) ( New Zealand)
Phase: Takeoff (TOF)
Nature: International Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport: Auckland International Airport (AKL/NZAA), New Zealand
Destination airport: Singapore-Changi International Airport (SIN/WSSS), Singapore
Flightnumber: 286
Narrative:
Singapore Airlines flight SQ286 taxied to runway 23L at Auckland's International Airport and was cleared for takeoff. When the captain rotated the aeroplane for lift-off the tail struck the runway and scraped for some 490 metres until the aeroplane became airborne. The tail strike occurred because the rotation speed was 33 knots less than the 163 knots required for the aeroplane weight. The rotation speed had been mistakenly calculated for an aeroplane weighing 100 tonnes less than the actual weight of 9V-SMT. A takeoff weight transcription error, which remained undetected, led to the miscalculation of the takeoff data, which in turn resulted in a low thrust setting and excessively slow takeoff reference speeds. The system defences did not ensure the errors were detected, and the aeroplane flight management system itself did not provide a final defence against mismatched information being programmed into it.
During the takeoff the aeroplane moved close to the runway edge and the pilots did not respond correctly to a stall warning.
Probable Cause:

The final report did not contain a "Probable cause".
Accident investigation:
cover
Investigating agency: TAIC New Zealand
Status: Investigation completed
Duration: 252 days (8 months)
Accident number: 03-003
Download report: Final report
Classification:
Tailstrike
Forced landing on runway

photo of Boeing-747-412-9V-SMT
accident date: 12-03-2003
type: Boeing 747-412
registration: 9V-SMT

Unless otherwise stated: copyright © 1996-2020 Aviation Safety Network (ASN)

[bunk exceeder]

Originally Posted by Intruder

Worst one I've seen! I wonder how big the discrepancy was between actual weight and performance calculations...

ZFW in the wrong boxes perhaps? I always used to look for little scratches on the bottom of the drain mast. Seems funny now as I read this....

[kiwi grey]

Yup
There's tail scrapes, and then there's TAIL SCRAPES
That isn't going to buff out

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Intruder

Worst one I've seen! I wonder how big the discrepancy was between actual weight and performance calculations...

Many years ago (I think it was before Boeing launched the 747-400 so the highest certified MTOW was around 800,000 lbs), there was discussion of a new 747 derivative with a new wing and a million lb. MTOW. When I mentioned this to a rep from a certain Asian based cargo carrier (no longer in business), he replied along the line of 'so what, we're already doing that'.
I don't think he was joking

[CurtainTwitcher]

100 tons is a popular (and understandable) error for performance. Emirates Flight 407 tailscrape in YMML is reminiscent of the damage to this aircraft with a performance calculation error 100 tons too low: Tailstrike and runway overrun - Airbus A340-541, A6-ERG, Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 20 March 2009

[Icelanta]

They climbed to FL180 and continued to their Jeddah base with this damage!

[By George]

With The SQ incident the crew had recently converted to the 747 from the A340 and the incorrect figure didn't stand out from what they were use to. I can't remember the details but it was around a 100 ton out. In typical crew black humour 9V-SMT, became known as 'Scrape My Tail'. The Captain was a very nice bloke from Sri Lanka.

[Groundloop]

Originally Posted by Icelanta

They climbed to FL180 and continued to their Jeddah base with this damage!

If I remember correctly the Singapore crew climbed to cruising height and flew all the way from Auckland to Singapore.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Groundloop

If I remember correctly the Singapore crew climbed to cruising height and flew all the way from Auckland to Singapore.

No, SQ286 landed back at AKL with an APU fire warning.

[alf5071h]

Icelanta, # 11, - flying damaged aircraft.
Hindsight - your view of the damaged aircraft, outside the aircraft, several photos to interpret, many times.
The crew's view, instruments, feel, vibration, perhaps without anything obvious; their understanding at that time, and their decision.

'All decisions are correct at the time'; only after time are they judged as suitable or not so.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by alf5071h

Icelanta, # 11, - flying damaged aircraft.
Hindsight - your view of the damaged aircraft, outside the aircraft, several photos to interpret, many times.
The crew's view, instruments, feel, vibration, perhaps without anything obvious; their understanding at that time, and their decision.

'All decisions are correct at the time'; only after time are they judged as suitable or not so.

Tin Hat On:
Some time ago, I was a pax in a wee Boeing that did a takeoff on a domestic leg. Beside me snoring, was another pilot, we were on our way to do an air law exam for the company we had joined.

Looking across sleeping beauty out the window, was impressed by the snatch flare [I'm a dunce, F2 corrected me... read: "Rotate"], enough that before we hit the skid, it looked inevitable. Was impressive. So, 1 sec later, a wiggle was felt along the length of the tube to where I was sitting, not enough to awake sleeping beauty from his slumber though, he slept until landing. Now most planes have the same procedure once the tail has been tapped, words like, don't pressurise, land ASAP etc. Which was apparently at the planned destination. Yup, we climbed away from a VFR airport to cruise at 28,000' and descend to land at another airport some 300nm distant. Post landing, as we walked off the aircraft, I stopped in front of the nose of the plane to see if the crew were aware of what they did. Yup, that too, two unhappy campers whip down the stairs off the aero bridge and walk briskly to the tail. They walk back somewhat more deflated a minute later. So, crews apparently have different views on the check lists.

A few months later, after another saga, in conversation a comment was made whether the wash up on this tail strike was known by me. Story was, pilot had a friend, FO agreed that the pilot should put the friend in the RHS for the takeoff, and pilot gave effects of controls to the friend in the RHS. I found out about that having arrived at 5AM in the morning, told this at 7AM, and was back at the safety managers office at 8AM confirming the gist of the story. At 815AM I met the DDFO (a nice guy) confirmed that the pilots disciplinary action was a 2 week paid leave. At 816AM I handed over my ID and said "not impressed". So, tail strikes can have many causes, some are a little out of the ordinary. Tin hat off....

[BRUpax]

Looking quickly at FR24, the aircraft actually climbed initially to FL50 and leveled off. It then climbed to FL 70 and went into a holding pattern near Hanidh at FL70. After 25 mins holding (at FL70) it set course for Jeddah climbing to FL100, which it maintained for about 8 mins before climbing to FL150. It then maintained FL150 for about 40 mins before a further climb to FL180.

[Capt Fathom]

Originally Posted by Groundloop

If I remember correctly the Singapore crew climbed to cruising height and flew all the way from Auckland to Singapore.

Why would you post something like that. The Incident Report is readily available stating otherwise!

[Fursty Ferret]

Looking across sleeping beauty out the window, was impressed by the snatch flare, enough that before we hit the skid, it looked inevitable.

You do realise that the flare happens at landing, right? Does throw the rest of your story into doubt.

​​​

[Global Aviator]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

Why would you post something like that. The Incident Report is readily available stating otherwise!

Because I think there was another tail strike where indeed they did! Memory makes me think 777 though...