BYMONEK,
Not quite right on the differences between the -200 and -300 vis a vis tail strike indications (too much time at the beach eh?) though the FCOMS are not really clear on the subject. Both aircraft have a tail strike sensor (that little yellow thingy that looks kind of like another antenna). Scrape that and you will get a TAIL STRIKE EICAS message on either aircraft requiring a depressurization and landing. The -300 also has a tail skid that is designed to protect the fuselage (though technically you have also struck the tail if the skid makes ground contact) and prevent actual damage to the aircraft. Provided you did not completely compress the skid and shear off the sensor, you will not get an EICAS message though you will get a friendly little message from maintenance control who will know about the whole sordid affair through their real time flight telemetry. In this case (no EICAS message on the -300), you should be able to complete the flight as the skid has prevented the fuselage from actually making contact with the runway. You can expect an invitation for tea and biscuits "at your earliest conveinience".
Boeing does make reference to receiving a ground report of a tailstrike with no EICAS message in the -200. There is a remote chance that you can impact the tail without the sensor blade making contact. This requires a pitch attitude in excess of 12.3 degrees with all main gear wheels off of the runway. In this case you are directed to follow the tailstrike checklist (depressurize and land). Suggest taking a look at bulliten EKIB-12.

Where does Gulf Air take that info from?
 

I am a bit surprised at the dispatch from Gulf Air regarding wrong loading.

Nobody here at ZRH knows anything about a wrong loading, there is no confirmation of that theory whatsoever.

I wonder if MAS are confirming this or not, otherwise I would treat this dispatch with caution unless it is proven by some hard data. I have not been able to confirm this with any of my contacts in ZRH so far.

To all the flyers out there, disregard whether how much exprience you have, ask youself again, have you ever make any mistake or error in flying? For this set of crew, it's just a bad hair day for them, but they brought the aircraft back on ground safely, good job right? :cool:

411A, I think what we should discuss here is the possible contributing factors for a tail strike, not showing off the experience level, and gossip other's mistake, you were not there during the inccident, how the ***k you know they mishandled the aircraft? :hmm:

NTMU

I asked myself as you suggested and the answer is NO - never made a mistake which resulted in anything of consequence. And I have a hundred colleagues about whom I can say the same.

"Good job right" - Rollocks, matey, they bent the airframe! That takes mishandling - as investigation will doubtless reveal. Some other clown did it to an Airbus recently...

NTMU,

Nope, never even came close to dragging the tail in thirty+ years in heavy jets, and I personally know countless others in the same boat.

Nearly every tailstrike during takeoff or landing is the result of mis-handling the aircraft, or selecting the wrong Vspeeds for departure.

As all of the above referenced incidents are a result of poorly thought out pilot actions, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the difficulties they might now find themselves in.

In short, either fly the aeroplane correctly, or find another job.

It all boils down to...either you are a true professional, or you are not.
No middle ground in my book.

411A (who else :rolleyes: )And how the :mad::mad::mad::mad: do you know THAT, 411A.
Let me guess......you are God's Gift to Aviation???? :rolleyes:

In our company we (often) read about cargo pallets that shifted during T/O (rotation) in our monthly safety bulletin (hooks improperly latched).

This can also happen at TOD when a steep descent is initiated.

Maybe, just maybe a cargo shift took place during rotation. This (I think) would be rather difficult to handle from a tail-prevent-strike point of view.

I doubt that any pilot has never made a mistake, however small it may be.:zzz:

Didn't want to introduce this into the thread for fear of getting flamed, but as square leg has brought up the subject...

I have personally experienced problems on 777 a/c with shifting cargo pallets. CO, EK, MAS.

None resulted in C of G warnings to the flight crew. One did cause the cabin crew to report loud bangs on rotation, TOC and landing run (braking). The pallet was found to be free to move approx 15 feet from it's forward stop near the cargo door to the rear stops! Fortunately it was lightly loaded.

My point is that if a heavy cargo pallet was loaded in the correct position but not locked in place, then the resulting shift rearwards, if there was room, could cause a large rearwards shift in Cof G.

Also, if memory serves, MAS routinely need to alter the position of the cargo locks during turnrounds to accomodate different class of palletts. Other airlines may do the same but MAS are the only ones I have had to routinely assist in this task.

Just thoughts thats all.

:ok:

Just pretty relevant thoughts, Turin. And Trimotor. Of the type you learn from.

411A
Okay you got me - I can't stand it any longer.
blah blah bah etc etc
You were lucky. Endex.

Airsick

There are quite a few of us given by the Almighty to aviation - 411A, Kaptin M, me, Normal Nigel - to name but a few. We don't make mistakes and we spend a lifetime training others not to make them either.

Maybe we've got it wrong, but we thought that was what aviation was about?

I am, after all,

The perfect Joyce

Gilligen
Thank you for putting me right.if the fcoms aren't clear about this,as you state,how the hell are we supposed to know then?That's the problem with most of the paperwork and manuals at EK,There is far too much confusion,discrepancies,and contradictions in the manuals......take the latest effort to implement the new FTL's.Several of the explanatory notes designed to make understanding the new rules easier,are incorrect.That just complicates the issue further!Still,you obviously appear clued up so i'll come to you for guidance in future.:8

Beep!
Non-777 driver here but didn't Lost For Words mention a:
This supports the 'slippery pallet' theory as troubleshooting a stabilser out-of-trim condition would have revealed the load error prior to takeoff.
Also it seems like an aft displacement, the direction an unsecure load would shift at the start of the takeoff roll.

Nose wheel trim sensor

Some B777 pilots are talking about this device wich should allert the crew of a wrongly trimmed B777, ence a wrong loadshet or loading. Can you tell why it did not probably work in that case?


Additionally: having some experience flying commercial A/C, happened to me and very probably to many of you to take off with a tail heavy A/C and not knowing it. This does not mean that I have to hit the tail: even in fly by wire A/C we can feel the rotation speed and check our attitude; especially if we do not have turbolences (like seems to be the case on tha day in ZRH).

:ok:

From memory...the c of g sensor reads the displacement of the nose gear oleo and through a clever magic box and calculation indicates to the flight crew the green band for the correct stab trim required.

If the a/c is loaded with the cargo pallets in the correct place, then there will be no anomalies.

However, if the pallets shift during the t/o roll or at rotation then the (I think) pilots will not get a warning.

Er...I think!:8

Shifting pallets/containers is likely a red herring.

Normally most SE asian airlines leave Europe with the containers full...all of 'em.
If not, then the empty containers are loaded on as well, otherwise all would be at one end of the route network, which gets the cargo guys in an uproar.

Look for the FD CREW, specifically the handling pilot to have stuffed it up....big time.

I’ve had more time stowing ships than aircraft but I know that similar principles apply, i.e. when unsecured cargo starts shifting it a) tends to go very quickly, b) it will always be in the wrong direction and c) the timing will be the most inconvenient.

So cg/nosewheel trim sensors would have been of little use if the pallets/containers were stowed correctly for cg but, unsecured, decided to go aft at rotation. There would be zilch warning.

411’s comment re the unlikelihood of there being empty spaces in the hold is apropos but it’s informed speculation; it doesn’t necessarily mean that there were no empty slots aft. There could be all sorts of reasons - a need for containers for the next flight and thus no empty repositionings for that particular flight. It could be a red herring but then again, maybe not. Icarus's posting on page 4 of this thread refers to an announcement from the airline that the tailscrape was attributed to improper stowage.

I tend to avoid making any judgement on these matters, as I don't have the necessary information at hand. Nor do any of you.

What amuses me is the polarisation between those of open mind and the KKK.

411a's mind is as open as Fort Knox. Go on re-read your comments: You want them to be guilty don't you?

Cargo Shift??
 

Can someone reassure me that palletised or LD3 containerised cargo just cannot "shift" (i.e. slide to the rear upon take-off acceleration)??

Surely any claimed improper loading would imply that the pallet of lead ingots were mistakenly placed aft and were booked onto the load sheets as crates of lettuce, etc etc. What else could improper loading be construed as? Loading full containers in lieu of empty "returns" maybe?

Belgique..

Sorry to be the bearer of unpallatable news (pun intended;) ) but pallets shift..often! Usually they are, as 411 says, empty and are of minor inconvenience. They only cause embarassment to the loaders and a banging noise in the cabin.

If a heavy pallet shifts (and they have) expect touble.

I am not saying that this incident was caused by shifting cargo, but it is a possibility.
I have no axe to gring here just offering (I hope) constructive comment.:ok: