Singapore B744 in bad tailstrike @ Aukland NZ
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the first tailstrike of an aircraft, nor will it be the last.
Until we know the facts, like, just what did the load sheet show compared to the actual loading? and a lot more besides it would be wrong to start passing judgement.
In the meantime perhaps someone with a knack for searching archives could put together a list of tailstrikes to transport jets that have happened over the last two years?
Until we know the facts, like, just what did the load sheet show compared to the actual loading? and a lot more besides it would be wrong to start passing judgement.
In the meantime perhaps someone with a knack for searching archives could put together a list of tailstrikes to transport jets that have happened over the last two years?
I don't think it's the press' job to educate the people, but it is their job not to misinform them!
I tend to use the word much more liberally, i.e. to learn, by considering information (from all sources) and to weigh such information based on previous learning experiences.
When new information stops coming in, I am guaranteed to become ignorant. In my evryday life without news, I don't get much new information.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The information was published, and I have seen it for myself, that on a heavyweight take-off, the Classic 747 rear fuselage could get to within 18 inches of the tarmac. It would be a very easy thing to strike the tail of a Classic or -400- that is why the rotation should be controlled at about 2 1/2 degrees/second, and allowed to keep rising slowly through the 10 degree attitude where it naturally wants to stop (because the tailplane is getting close to the ground and picking up compressed air between the tailplane and the ground. Liftoff occurs shortly after this and the rotation continues at a slower rate up to an attitude of anything from 13-17 degrees which after lift off is quite safe.
I watched an Eastern Airlines Airbus have a landing tailstrike at MIA right next to me waiting to take-off. It was surprisingly spectacular. I wouldn't call it 'flames'- more like spectacular large sparks. They were unaware and sound rather hacked off when we advised them! Easy to do with some types- I imagine the A340-600 needs to take special care!
I watched an Eastern Airlines Airbus have a landing tailstrike at MIA right next to me waiting to take-off. It was surprisingly spectacular. I wouldn't call it 'flames'- more like spectacular large sparks. They were unaware and sound rather hacked off when we advised them! Easy to do with some types- I imagine the A340-600 needs to take special care!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As in Melbourne perhaps...?
Those with long memories can recall several SQ tailstrikes on takeoff with long bodied aircraft.
Runway lights also involved?
Wonder if they were at the end of the runway...as in Melbourne (runway 27) many years ago.
Runway lights also involved?
Wonder if they were at the end of the runway...as in Melbourne (runway 27) many years ago.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blueagle,
From the NTSB records:
Nov '98 - Portland - MD-11 - Delta
Dec '98 - Shangai - MD-11 - Chhina Eastern
Jun '99 - Phoenix - 757 - Delta
Jul ' 99 - JFK - A300-600 - American
May ' 00 - Maui - L1011 - American Trans Air
Jun '01 - Atlanta - 757 - Delta
Jul '01 - Monastir - 737-400 - Euralair
Oct ' 01 - Roanoke - EMB145 - Mesa
Dec '01 - Anchorage - 747 - Evergreen
Jun '02 - Subic Bay - MD-11 - Fedex
Jun '02 - El Paso - A300-600 - Fedex
Jun '02 - Japan - 767 - ??
Sep '02 - Baltimore - 757 - Northwest
Feb '03 - Vancouver - 737 - Alaskan
From the NTSB records:
Nov '98 - Portland - MD-11 - Delta
Dec '98 - Shangai - MD-11 - Chhina Eastern
Jun '99 - Phoenix - 757 - Delta
Jul ' 99 - JFK - A300-600 - American
May ' 00 - Maui - L1011 - American Trans Air
Jun '01 - Atlanta - 757 - Delta
Jul '01 - Monastir - 737-400 - Euralair
Oct ' 01 - Roanoke - EMB145 - Mesa
Dec '01 - Anchorage - 747 - Evergreen
Jun '02 - Subic Bay - MD-11 - Fedex
Jun '02 - El Paso - A300-600 - Fedex
Jun '02 - Japan - 767 - ??
Sep '02 - Baltimore - 757 - Northwest
Feb '03 - Vancouver - 737 - Alaskan
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
I was watching the whole thing unfold from the holding point.
I thought initially they'd lost an engine on rotate because of the whacking great cloud of smoke that came out of them.
The interesting thing is they did not dump fuel at all, they were coming back around downwind and called for vectors out to sea so they could dump, and then straight away called back to say negative, they would be landing immediately due to the fire warning, turned onto base and came straight in. I dont know where all these reporters got the idea that they dumped fuel from?
The reason they took two approaches to land, was that they went massively through their turn onto finals at the first attempt and ended up a good half mile right of the centerline.
The second approach was on centerline but looked to be pretty high, and fast, I'd like to know what the threshold speed is supposed to be when you're that heavy?
Now if someone from Auckland Airport company could just explain to us ignorant pilots why we couldn't have used 23R while 23L was shut? I thought that was exactly why that parallel runway / taxiway was brought in, so we could all use it when the main one was shut for maintenanance?
I thought initially they'd lost an engine on rotate because of the whacking great cloud of smoke that came out of them.
The interesting thing is they did not dump fuel at all, they were coming back around downwind and called for vectors out to sea so they could dump, and then straight away called back to say negative, they would be landing immediately due to the fire warning, turned onto base and came straight in. I dont know where all these reporters got the idea that they dumped fuel from?
The reason they took two approaches to land, was that they went massively through their turn onto finals at the first attempt and ended up a good half mile right of the centerline.
The second approach was on centerline but looked to be pretty high, and fast, I'd like to know what the threshold speed is supposed to be when you're that heavy?
Now if someone from Auckland Airport company could just explain to us ignorant pilots why we couldn't have used 23R while 23L was shut? I thought that was exactly why that parallel runway / taxiway was brought in, so we could all use it when the main one was shut for maintenanance?
The aircraft took out about three runway edge lights, presumably with its main gear - would have been more but for the flush mountings at the taxiway entrance. Seems as though there were a number of things going on here....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Newswatcher.
If their weight was up around three hundred tonnes then the bug speed would have been about 157kts, possibly a flap 25 landing also so bug speed of 164kts.
320 tonnes gives a flap 25 figure of 170kts. (30flap 163kts).
It is not at all uncommon for the crew/pax to know nothing of a tail strike until it is reported to them via other aircraft or ATC.
If their weight was up around three hundred tonnes then the bug speed would have been about 157kts, possibly a flap 25 landing also so bug speed of 164kts.
320 tonnes gives a flap 25 figure of 170kts. (30flap 163kts).
It is not at all uncommon for the crew/pax to know nothing of a tail strike until it is reported to them via other aircraft or ATC.
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Luke for a Pilot's eyewitness account of what actually happened. Sounds better. Sounds like it was dealt with by the crew as it should have been. Initially decide to dump fuel due to overweight landing then Negative when they get fire warning because it calls for immediate landing. Then deciding to go-around because not stable on approach. They would fly by the book and training. The real worry if I were them is the aftermath.
Wasnt there on the day, but from what was said today, Luke's account is spot on. I did have a look at the aircraft today, to understate it, it looks bloody nasty. Apart from what you see in the pics, there are scrap marks down to about a few meters from the main gear. I couldnt exactly get the tape out to check though. The apu itself looks un-touched.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ether
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luke, were you in the Saab or the ATR? I was watching as well and it looked pretty scary.
The runway lights appear to have been removed by the tail of the aircraft.
There was a sustantial gouge out of the runway which was one of the delays to it opening again.
The likely cause as passed on to me by a -400 captain (and I stress this is an opinion) was that they have either taken off without the flaps set correctly or rotated at V1.
No fuel dump so landing was at least 100T over max landing weight.
Ouch.
Regardless of cause credit is due to the crew for getting everyone safely back on the ground.
The runway lights appear to have been removed by the tail of the aircraft.
There was a sustantial gouge out of the runway which was one of the delays to it opening again.
The likely cause as passed on to me by a -400 captain (and I stress this is an opinion) was that they have either taken off without the flaps set correctly or rotated at V1.
No fuel dump so landing was at least 100T over max landing weight.
Ouch.
Regardless of cause credit is due to the crew for getting everyone safely back on the ground.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one’s mentioned the weather conditions at the time. Is anyone willing to even give the guy a break and posit that windshear might have been involved? (Even if it wasn't, no one's mentioned the possibility.)
I’m yet again amazed at the way we ‘eat our young’ and are so damned quick to lay blame on a colleague without waiting for the evidence.
I’m yet again amazed at the way we ‘eat our young’ and are so damned quick to lay blame on a colleague without waiting for the evidence.
GAMAN,
I think 100 T over MLW is probably a bit high.
Lets assume a good ZFW of 235 T and about 11 hrs fuel, say 110 T gives a TOW of 345 T. A B744 is about 285 T MLW at least, so we aren't that bad - 60 T say as worst case. From what I hear of the SQ fuel policy, likely much less!!!
I think 100 T over MLW is probably a bit high.
Lets assume a good ZFW of 235 T and about 11 hrs fuel, say 110 T gives a TOW of 345 T. A B744 is about 285 T MLW at least, so we aren't that bad - 60 T say as worst case. From what I hear of the SQ fuel policy, likely much less!!!