Singapore B744 in bad tailstrike @ Aukland NZ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forced landing for burning plane
Forced landing for burning plane
A Boeing 747 with nearly 400 people on board has been forced to make an emergency landing in Auckland after it caught fire.
The tail of the Singapore Airlines plane scraped the tarmac on take-off from Auckland International Airport on Wednesday afternoon.
The airline says the aircraft was forced to circle the airport and dump fuel while ground crews assessed the damage.
It then made an emergency landing.
About a dozen ambulances and fire trucks were on standby, but the airline says the plane landed safely and no one was hurt.
About 30 flights were distrupted as airport staff swept the runways clear of debris.
All those aboard were evacuated once it came to a stop, and no injuries have been reported.
Published on Mar 12, 2003
A Boeing 747 with nearly 400 people on board has been forced to make an emergency landing in Auckland after it caught fire.
The tail of the Singapore Airlines plane scraped the tarmac on take-off from Auckland International Airport on Wednesday afternoon.
The airline says the aircraft was forced to circle the airport and dump fuel while ground crews assessed the damage.
It then made an emergency landing.
About a dozen ambulances and fire trucks were on standby, but the airline says the plane landed safely and no one was hurt.
About 30 flights were distrupted as airport staff swept the runways clear of debris.
All those aboard were evacuated once it came to a stop, and no injuries have been reported.
Published on Mar 12, 2003
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will be interesting if anyone can get any pics of the tail of this prior being shut up in a hangar!
Sounds like an impressive tailstrike? Would be interested in the "caught fire" / "burning" facts. Presume sparks from contact with the runway - even APU fuel fire if he really went for it..?
Can't imagine fire was serious / long lasting if he then dumped fuel...
NoD
Sounds like an impressive tailstrike? Would be interested in the "caught fire" / "burning" facts. Presume sparks from contact with the runway - even APU fuel fire if he really went for it..?
Can't imagine fire was serious / long lasting if he then dumped fuel...
NoD
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical jurno crap reporting. It was a tail strike .... nothing more .... nothing less
The Singapore Airlines 747-400 with a damaged tail. Picture / Kenny Rodger
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...ection=general
Airline denies fire caused emergency landing
12.03.2003
7.50pm
Despite eye-witness accounts of flames shooting from the back of a Singapore Airlines jet which made an emergency landing at Auckland International Airport today, the airline denies fire was involved.
The Boeing 747-400, carrying 368 passengers and 20 crew departed at 3.28pm this afternoon bound for Singapore, but apparently struck its tail on the runway on take-off.
In a statement released this afternoon, Singapore Airlines said it appeared the tail strike triggered a fire alarm in the cockpit.
However, there was "no information to suggest that the fire warning light was triggered by an actual fire", the statement said.
However, eye-witnesses interviewed by TV3 news this evening said they saw flames of up to 3m coming from the tail of the aircraft as it circled above the runway.
Singapore Airlines said the aircraft was in the air for about 20 minutes before it could land again.
The plane was then moved to a remote bay where passengers disembarked.
"No passengers or crew were injured in the incident or the landing."
The plane was under the command of an experienced crew, including a captain with 20 years' experience, the airline said.
The airline would "co-operate fully" with authorities investigating the incident.
Another aircraft was to be flown from Sydney to Auckland later tonight to operate the flight.
In a statement issued by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission, John Mockett, chief investigator of accidents, said an investigation would determine the causes and circumstances of the accident "for the purpose of preventing similar occurrences in future".
The investigation would include inspection of the aircraft and its cargo, interviews with flight and ground crews, and may take some months.
The investigator in charge, Ken Mathews, would travel to Auckland tomorrow morning.
About 20 flights out of Auckland were delayed because of the incident, which closed the runway for just over an hour.
Auckland International Airport CEO John Goulter said the runway was closed from about 4.50pm to 5.50pm to allow a full inspection to be carried out.
"We had to ensure that there was nothing on the runway, like pieces of debris, which could have posed a danger for other aircraft."
All flights had been rescheduled successfully, he said.
"It's not a big drama, it's just part of the business."
- NZPA
The Singapore Airlines 747-400 with a damaged tail. Picture / Kenny Rodger
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...ection=general
Airline denies fire caused emergency landing
12.03.2003
7.50pm
Despite eye-witness accounts of flames shooting from the back of a Singapore Airlines jet which made an emergency landing at Auckland International Airport today, the airline denies fire was involved.
The Boeing 747-400, carrying 368 passengers and 20 crew departed at 3.28pm this afternoon bound for Singapore, but apparently struck its tail on the runway on take-off.
In a statement released this afternoon, Singapore Airlines said it appeared the tail strike triggered a fire alarm in the cockpit.
However, there was "no information to suggest that the fire warning light was triggered by an actual fire", the statement said.
However, eye-witnesses interviewed by TV3 news this evening said they saw flames of up to 3m coming from the tail of the aircraft as it circled above the runway.
Singapore Airlines said the aircraft was in the air for about 20 minutes before it could land again.
The plane was then moved to a remote bay where passengers disembarked.
"No passengers or crew were injured in the incident or the landing."
The plane was under the command of an experienced crew, including a captain with 20 years' experience, the airline said.
The airline would "co-operate fully" with authorities investigating the incident.
Another aircraft was to be flown from Sydney to Auckland later tonight to operate the flight.
In a statement issued by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission, John Mockett, chief investigator of accidents, said an investigation would determine the causes and circumstances of the accident "for the purpose of preventing similar occurrences in future".
The investigation would include inspection of the aircraft and its cargo, interviews with flight and ground crews, and may take some months.
The investigator in charge, Ken Mathews, would travel to Auckland tomorrow morning.
About 20 flights out of Auckland were delayed because of the incident, which closed the runway for just over an hour.
Auckland International Airport CEO John Goulter said the runway was closed from about 4.50pm to 5.50pm to allow a full inspection to be carried out.
"We had to ensure that there was nothing on the runway, like pieces of debris, which could have posed a danger for other aircraft."
All flights had been rescheduled successfully, he said.
"It's not a big drama, it's just part of the business."
- NZPA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an interview, a Singapore Airlines spokesman advised that the over-rotation on take off resulted in a tail strike, and this triggered an "APU fire warning".
As a result of this the crew dumped fuel, and returned to Auckland and landed.
Because the aircraft was so heavy, it had a "heavy landing" which the passengers would have been aware of.
The aircraft was to be checked for the orginal tail strike, and the subsequent heavy landing.
Some days it's best not to go to work?
As a result of this the crew dumped fuel, and returned to Auckland and landed.
Because the aircraft was so heavy, it had a "heavy landing" which the passengers would have been aware of.
The aircraft was to be checked for the orginal tail strike, and the subsequent heavy landing.
Some days it's best not to go to work?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When an aircraft is havy it makes an 'overweight landing'.
When it is smacked in (on the aircraft I fly the limit is 2g) it is a 'heavy' landing.
The aircraft being above max landing weight does not automatically result in a heavy landing.
When it is smacked in (on the aircraft I fly the limit is 2g) it is a 'heavy' landing.
The aircraft being above max landing weight does not automatically result in a heavy landing.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a journo of sorts, not print, but very interested in aviation matters, and after years of reading the 'crap journo' comments I think this one deserves a quick reply. The piece in the link was put together very fast by someone with little time, and it's quite a good piece. Lots of direct quotes, information, and a clear indication of the source of the fire rumour, ie a dodgy quote on a news report. Ends on a clear 'no big deal' from a professional directly quoted.
The original piece is a 'quicky' taken straight from the wire services I would imagine. Everyone wants news fast so that's what you get.
Still news. Jeez, this is called a Rumour website. Are you saying all stories about aviation should be kep out of the media until they pass a professional 'significance' level.
At the moment Concorde is going through a bad spell with minor'ish problems that get in the news, always met with howls of 'what's the story?' from ppruners. Well, get real. It's a story. Think before you post the crap jouno stuff.
The original piece is a 'quicky' taken straight from the wire services I would imagine. Everyone wants news fast so that's what you get.
Still news. Jeez, this is called a Rumour website. Are you saying all stories about aviation should be kep out of the media until they pass a professional 'significance' level.
At the moment Concorde is going through a bad spell with minor'ish problems that get in the news, always met with howls of 'what's the story?' from ppruners. Well, get real. It's a story. Think before you post the crap jouno stuff.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hello Kitty City
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for "heavy" pilots. How "easy" is it to "over rotate"?
In this world of advanced electronics, is there no warning that a pilot can get, to alert him that such an incident is about to occur, unless action is taken?
How far off the runway is the underside of the tail on a 747 during a "normal" take-off?
In this world of advanced electronics, is there no warning that a pilot can get, to alert him that such an incident is about to occur, unless action is taken?
How far off the runway is the underside of the tail on a 747 during a "normal" take-off?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Builder,
You ask us pilots to get real? I guess most of us are clinging to a sort of "unbiased, well-informed and objective view" that journalists are supposed to have. Nowadays, the more sensation you can get, the better. Of course it sounds better to have a headline that says "Forced landing for Burning plane" than "Aircraft has tailstrike and returns to airport safely". Who of the general public would read the story with the latter headline? Plus, a story like that would instantly be moved 10 pages back in the newspaper.
Since nowadays, there are so many competing news sources (papers, television, internet), each one is trying to nudge ahead of the competition by sensationalizing news. No shock there, my country's most popular newspaper's news reporting level is almost at the level of the tabloids: way overdone and many times not even correct.
In our case, journalists do their (albeit small) part in making our industry fare a bit worse. Yes, you're reading it correctly, journalists help screw up the airline industry. These stupid stories make people afraid of flying and join anti-aviation activist groups at worst and make people think the aviation industry is worrisome at best. NEVER do I read about the great job the pilots, ATC, ground resources do when they bring a bad situation to a good ending. NEVER do I read a story where the reader is given the impression that even though something goes wrong, rest assured that you'll make it back in one piece. Because that sort of reporting is dull and boring.
So let us have our fit when over-sensationalized journo crap like this comes out.
Newswatcher,
Although I don't fly wide bodies, I fly 757-200's which are long tubes as well and are at risk of tail strikes during takeoff and landing. Although some aircraft have a sensor that will give you a message in the cockpit or a spring that will even absorb some of the energy should the tail (almost or entirely) hit the asphalt, there are no systems that warn you in advance if your rotation rate is too high (as far as I know).
Tail clearance during a fully standard takeoff for a 757-200 is just 84cm (33in), for a 757-300 it's 66cm (26in) and for a 767-300 it's 61cm (21in). So imagine that giant piece of metal blasting down the runway at almost 300 km/h with just that little clearance between the tail and the ground.
You ask us pilots to get real? I guess most of us are clinging to a sort of "unbiased, well-informed and objective view" that journalists are supposed to have. Nowadays, the more sensation you can get, the better. Of course it sounds better to have a headline that says "Forced landing for Burning plane" than "Aircraft has tailstrike and returns to airport safely". Who of the general public would read the story with the latter headline? Plus, a story like that would instantly be moved 10 pages back in the newspaper.
Since nowadays, there are so many competing news sources (papers, television, internet), each one is trying to nudge ahead of the competition by sensationalizing news. No shock there, my country's most popular newspaper's news reporting level is almost at the level of the tabloids: way overdone and many times not even correct.
In our case, journalists do their (albeit small) part in making our industry fare a bit worse. Yes, you're reading it correctly, journalists help screw up the airline industry. These stupid stories make people afraid of flying and join anti-aviation activist groups at worst and make people think the aviation industry is worrisome at best. NEVER do I read about the great job the pilots, ATC, ground resources do when they bring a bad situation to a good ending. NEVER do I read a story where the reader is given the impression that even though something goes wrong, rest assured that you'll make it back in one piece. Because that sort of reporting is dull and boring.
So let us have our fit when over-sensationalized journo crap like this comes out.
Newswatcher,
Although I don't fly wide bodies, I fly 757-200's which are long tubes as well and are at risk of tail strikes during takeoff and landing. Although some aircraft have a sensor that will give you a message in the cockpit or a spring that will even absorb some of the energy should the tail (almost or entirely) hit the asphalt, there are no systems that warn you in advance if your rotation rate is too high (as far as I know).
Tail clearance during a fully standard takeoff for a 757-200 is just 84cm (33in), for a 757-300 it's 66cm (26in) and for a 767-300 it's 61cm (21in). So imagine that giant piece of metal blasting down the runway at almost 300 km/h with just that little clearance between the tail and the ground.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For any doubters, this aircraft made two attempts to land after the tailstrike.
A link is provided for on-line viewing of the incident per TV3
http://www.xtramsn.co.nz/musicandvideo/0,,5203,00.html
It was much more than a simple tail strike.
A link is provided for on-line viewing of the incident per TV3
http://www.xtramsn.co.nz/musicandvideo/0,,5203,00.html
It was much more than a simple tail strike.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
newswatcher
There is no warning system on the -400 of imminent tail strike.
At lift off, with a 10 deg pitch, boeing says there is 44 inches of tail clearence.
Rwy contact occurs at 12.5 deg (bogies on grnd I suppose)
At lift off, with a 10 deg pitch, boeing says there is 44 inches of tail clearence.
Rwy contact occurs at 12.5 deg (bogies on grnd I suppose)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hello Kitty City
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A340-600 has a pitch limit indicator as an aid to prevent tail strike.
It is a large orange "V" on the PFD. If you rotate past the apex of the V you will strike the tail. It disappears 3s after take-off.
It cannot prevent you over rotating but it does give you a visual warning as you near the limit.
In my experience most tail strikes have been caused by rotating at to low a speed rather than rotating too rapidly. Similarly on landing holding the acft off to achieve a smoother touchdown has resulted in more tail strikes than simply over flaring. (only an opinion)
It is a large orange "V" on the PFD. If you rotate past the apex of the V you will strike the tail. It disappears 3s after take-off.
It cannot prevent you over rotating but it does give you a visual warning as you near the limit.
In my experience most tail strikes have been caused by rotating at to low a speed rather than rotating too rapidly. Similarly on landing holding the acft off to achieve a smoother touchdown has resulted in more tail strikes than simply over flaring. (only an opinion)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iz,
Never say never.
Er...off the top of my head.. er.. The Azores glide landing. Seem to remember most lying journo scum went with the "Pilot save lives with miracle glide landing" version of events.
What about the pilot out of cockpit window story? What about Sioux crash - pilot flys plane using engine power... I could go on.
Never say never.
Er...off the top of my head.. er.. The Azores glide landing. Seem to remember most lying journo scum went with the "Pilot save lives with miracle glide landing" version of events.
What about the pilot out of cockpit window story? What about Sioux crash - pilot flys plane using engine power... I could go on.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks IZ, I thought the "tolerance" wasn't great!
I agree that there is much sensationalism with regard to news reporting of "incidents".
However, on the subject of "good news" reporting, I think you may be reading the "wrong" papers. I often see stories hailing the skills of a pilot. Unfortunately these are often well after the event occurred, usually because of the need to wait until an investigation has deemed the "official" circumstances/cause of an incident. A recent example was the award given to BA Captain Hagan following the Kenya "nutter" incident.
Many stories will never be reported, because the "hero" died during the incident, although Sqn Ldr Andrews was posthumously hailed a hero for taking avoiding action to save people on the ground, after he died when his Hawk crashed in 1999.
I agree that there is much sensationalism with regard to news reporting of "incidents".
However, on the subject of "good news" reporting, I think you may be reading the "wrong" papers. I often see stories hailing the skills of a pilot. Unfortunately these are often well after the event occurred, usually because of the need to wait until an investigation has deemed the "official" circumstances/cause of an incident. A recent example was the award given to BA Captain Hagan following the Kenya "nutter" incident.
Many stories will never be reported, because the "hero" died during the incident, although Sqn Ldr Andrews was posthumously hailed a hero for taking avoiding action to save people on the ground, after he died when his Hawk crashed in 1999.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree speed seems to be a main factor (in general). However some a/c especially stretched versions are rather limited in ground clearance on rotation speed with heavier loads. Latest 777-300ER even uses some automated elevator input when coming too close to the ground to prevent tailstrikes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Question from one who has never flown anything that can dump fuel. I'm not implying anything on this specific flight, as no facts other than the tail is damaged is currently known.
What are the procedures regarding fueldumping, if you at the same time have a fire indication in the tailsection/APU?
What are the procedures regarding fueldumping, if you at the same time have a fire indication in the tailsection/APU?
Guest
Posts: n/a
BobBuilder
I am also a journo of sorts, writing features for a magazine from time to time.
The above is factually incorrect. I don't care how quickly the piece was written, it is IMHO irresponsible to report in such a way.
If the piece had said
Then that would have been acceptable.
The professional pilots on this board get annoyed with what they refer to as 'crap journalism' and in this instance I totally understand their feelings.
An airborne fire is one of the most serious emergencies a pilot has to deal with, whereas a fire warning light must be dealt with but is often no more than an erroneous indication.
Equally, 'hero pilot saves plane' is often a headline with which pilots will be uncomfortable, especially when it is written before the board of enquiry that establishes the facts.
I am also a journo of sorts, writing features for a magazine from time to time.
A Boeing 747 with nearly 400 people on board has been forced to make an emergency landing in Auckland after it caught fire
If the piece had said
A Boeing 747 with nearly 400 people on board has been forced to make an emergency landing in Auckland after it was suspected to have caught fire
The professional pilots on this board get annoyed with what they refer to as 'crap journalism' and in this instance I totally understand their feelings.
An airborne fire is one of the most serious emergencies a pilot has to deal with, whereas a fire warning light must be dealt with but is often no more than an erroneous indication.
Equally, 'hero pilot saves plane' is often a headline with which pilots will be uncomfortable, especially when it is written before the board of enquiry that establishes the facts.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To clarify my “crap” comment, I was referring to the content of the initial post.
The attached article from the NZ Herald was a reasonable attempt by a jurno to at least state the facts without sensationalizing or colouring the facts.
The attached article from the NZ Herald was a reasonable attempt by a jurno to at least state the facts without sensationalizing or colouring the facts.
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the Lonely Planet website there's a tale of a pax that was bumped from the flight. She was given NZ$600 compensation and a business class seat on tomorrow's flight -- which was the one she wanted anyway, but couldn't get on because it was full.
Guess it was her lucky day!
Guess it was her lucky day!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tcas climb, that's an interesting remark you made there. Personally, with any APU fire indication that does not go out, I'd land immediately, we don't know the facts for this instance, perhaps the indication went out. Even so, I don't know if it's wise to start spraying fuel if you cannot visually check your tail from inside the aircraft.
Tail strike can happen because of bad loading or bad trim setting (apart from the reasons mentioned above). If the CG was more aft than normal or calculated, a high rotation rate could occur, rotation could even start before the calculated rotation speed.
Bob Builder, I'm sorry, I exaggerated a bit, there are good stories out there, but they're more the exception than the norm. The ones that do compliment the outcome usually go "The pilot was able to land the aircraft safely." Most people think there's only one pilot on the plane (the captain) and the first officer only sits there to keep him company (okay there are captains out there who think this too but they should be banned from the planet). Back when passengers were allowed to visit the flight deck during flight, you wouldn't believe what some of them would say to me, as F/O. First suck up to the captain, then turn to me and say, "Now then young man, what is it that YOU do here?"
I personally don't care or take it personally, but some pax start writing their testaments when they see the captain going to the toilet because they think nobody is flying the plane (you should see them when he's in the lav and it starts getting turbulent, and don't start saying it's the f/o wiggling the yoke! )
I don't think it's the press' job to educate the people, but it is their job not to misinform them!
Tail strike can happen because of bad loading or bad trim setting (apart from the reasons mentioned above). If the CG was more aft than normal or calculated, a high rotation rate could occur, rotation could even start before the calculated rotation speed.
Bob Builder, I'm sorry, I exaggerated a bit, there are good stories out there, but they're more the exception than the norm. The ones that do compliment the outcome usually go "The pilot was able to land the aircraft safely." Most people think there's only one pilot on the plane (the captain) and the first officer only sits there to keep him company (okay there are captains out there who think this too but they should be banned from the planet). Back when passengers were allowed to visit the flight deck during flight, you wouldn't believe what some of them would say to me, as F/O. First suck up to the captain, then turn to me and say, "Now then young man, what is it that YOU do here?"
I personally don't care or take it personally, but some pax start writing their testaments when they see the captain going to the toilet because they think nobody is flying the plane (you should see them when he's in the lav and it starts getting turbulent, and don't start saying it's the f/o wiggling the yoke! )I don't think it's the press' job to educate the people, but it is their job not to misinform them!