Malaysian Tail Strike on take off at Zurich
 

Wednesday July 28th 2004

Tail Strike on departure ! ROTATE !!!

Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-2H6(ER)

9M-MRJ
A B777 made a big thing out of a Normal Take off! Tail Strike! Realy bad one! after 40min Fuel Dumping, 70 tonnes, over the "Schwarzwald" it made a Emergency Landing on RWY14 at Zürich with all the Firetruck`s etc....

Later the Flight MA9 to Kualalumpur was Canceld after 6h standing at the Gate E56 on the Dock Middfield.

The acft is now at home with SR Technics awaiting / undergoing inspection & repair.

The pilot, ... well the usual applies here ... :E

Photo at the following link.

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.cgi?238571

or

http://www.planepictures.net/netsear...=Thomas+Luethi

Pluss ...

http://www.lucienschranz.com/DSCF1383BIG_copy.jpg

http://www.lucienschranz.com/DSCF1384BIG_copy.jpg

http://www.lucienschranz.com/DSCF1385BIG_copy.jpg

http://www.lucienschranz.com/DSCF1386BIG_copy.jpg

http://www.lucienschranz.com/DSCF1387BIG_copy.jpg

When was this?? I can't seem to find a date for it.

When did it happen ?
 

It happened on Wednesday July 28 in the year of our lord 2004 when departing from runway 16 at Zurich Airport.
That = yesterday.

Any details on what caused this ?

Boeing 777 doing something it isnt supposed to!!
 

Hang on here?

Didn't boeing fit a max body angle limiter in its flight control system? Have to remember the 777 is fly by wire, and therefore this shouldn't have happened unless the system failed...

Im not rated on the acft, but if anyone is, filling us in here would be great - also is there any indication on the flight deck when this happens that the system has failed?

Imagine they had to return...I just wonder what brought it on? Just procedurally the thing to do is lift the aircraft by applying full back yoke and let it lift like that? Or was this a repeat of the SIA case, where this time the runway end came very close indeed and required immediate back pressure....but still, the limiter should have stopped this...

Thank god it didn't end up any worse...Zurich has had its moments.

Current B777,both -200 and -300 series do not have protection to avoid a tailstrike.Over-rotate and bang! The -300ER is from what i hear,going to have a system fitted to avoid this.Perhaps someone who is technically up to speed(unlike me) might be able to elaborate.Also,to answer your question,the -300 has an indication via EICAS to alert crew in event of tailstrike.(There is a tailstike leg,located rear underside of fuselage,which when compressed sends message to F/Deck. Electronic checklist requires both outflow valves switched to manual and then to open them both( depressurize cabin).Plan to land at nearest suitable airfield.
Hope this answers most of the questions
Safe flying all !

answers!!
 

Bymonek,

Thanks for the input - I honestly thought the system was already installed on currently 777 models. That theyre considering it, and there is a warning system already built in just screams that the aircraft is probably fairly vulnerable to t/s - but then again, so is the 738.

Quite a tail strike at that too though - next question is how far down teh rwy, and therefore how much rwy did they have left, when they over rotated? Was it just pilot error, or an akwardly loaded airplane, or indeed a miscalculation in the takeoff speeds

During a textbook rotate, the closest the tail of a B777 will get to the ground is 3.4' (About 1 Metre).

So it's pretty close even when things are going normally. To be honest, slow rotates are more common and a clearance of 4.2' is more usual.

As far as incorrect load and balance might affect things: Well it's pretty unlikely since there is a clever nosewheel sensor to let you know if the stab trim is in the right place. In the event of incorrect loading, the 'green band' for setting the trim would show an out of trim condition and there would be an associated caution. Pretty hard to get away with anything these days!

Despite all these safety measures, a good tug at rotate should result in a nice tail scrape.

LFW

How Far down the runway ?
 

The tail strike occured on departure from runway 16 at Zürich airport just after passing the intersection with runway 10/28. Most aircraft tend to reach Vr in this area.

Oh and the photo is NOT "Doctored" and the concrete or aluminium dust is real.

Airbus tail strike
 

I don't know what you guys are going on about. The photo caption on the Airbus clearly says this was done intentionally to test minimum take-off distance. Let's not get into conspiracy theories here.

The photo made me suspicious right away, recalling a similar one of an L-1011 doing the same thing about 25 years ago. Also a test by Lockheed.

If you note carefully, there seems to be a skid plate under the Airbus. Cheers,

Airbus??

:confused:

Airbus 777 :} :E

Mea Culpa
 

See how things get away from you sometimes. One of the previous posts had a url directed toward a photo in some German airline column. I clicked on it and saw an Airbus shooting flames out the arse.

Never saw a picture of the 777. I take all the blame and I am deeply sorry to have been such a fool as not to have checked the post further. There goes my reliability.

I'm gonna say this one time, so listen up.

Unless there is an obsticle on the runway, or the aircraft has been severly mis-loaded, there is absolutely NO reason for a tailstrike on takeoff...period.

IF there is, it is because the handling pilot has not been paying attention.
Wrong thrust selected.
Wrong speeds selected.
Poor operating technique.

My God, I even knew a guy (ex-Eastern Air Lines) who over-rotated at TriStar-500 on takeoff (this ain't easy), ex-BOM enroute AMS.
The guy was an idiot, and oddly enough, disappeared after the flight, never to be seen again, by the company.
Just as well, as he would have been terminated.
The Chief Pilot shared my views exactly about over-rotations.

Ahhh, feel better now.:E

scheenboy,

these pics are very real. I saw that plane reland after dumping som 70 tons of fuel, it is now in the hangar of Sair Technics. The kid who took them has been on national TV today, nice guy, met him once I think. And plenty of withnesses too at the airport.

All,

from the picture it appears that the actual rotation took place where it usually does, right about the crossing between 16/10, which was in use that day. So, plenty of runway left after that.

No other information available at this time.

Best regards

AN2 Driver

411A,!!!!!! Testicle with an i ! Obstacle with an a !
Carry on.

Boeing "TSP"

During flight testing the airplane’s raked wing tips, a new feature on the 777-300ER, has produced 1.5 percent better fuel consumption than expected. Takeoff field length improved by 1,000 feet (305 meters), because of two other new features – semi-levered landing gear and the tail strike protection (TSP) system, as well as brake performance.

The TSP system also reduced approach speeds by two to three knots. Community noise levels are below requirements and QC2 compliant for departure.

411A - how can you POSSIBLY discount the " old underinflated oleo trick.........................." :p := :ok:

SeldomFixit,
As this 'seems' to be reserved exclusively for CX Airboos types...you may be right.:p :E

Could some one post a link to the series of photos mentioned above, the link posted doesn't seem to work, it takes me to a pge whicj I believe is saying the page cannot be found

The 5 photos of the incident
 

Links to the series of 5 photos

http://www.lucienschranz.com/DSCF1383BIG_copy.jpg

http://www.lucienschranz.com/DSCF1384BIG_copy.jpg

http://www.lucienschranz.com/DSCF1385BIG_copy.jpg

http://www.lucienschranz.com/DSCF1386BIG_copy.jpg

http://www.lucienschranz.com/DSCF1387BIG_copy.jpg

Nice weather no wind shear
 

As far as I know there was no wind shear reported at the time of the incident.

It was basically very nice weather as can be seen in the photo with a light breeze, so I think one could discount weather as a factor in this case.

Wind shear or sheer ?

Any news on the damage or the cause?

411A...

I really disagree with you, just because you did not manage yourself to get a tailstrike in your supposedly huge career, that does not mean that such a situation could not arise, without the handling pilot making any huge mistakes.

We had one on the A343 due to a small, undetected and unforeseeable windshear during rotation. The flightcrew really could do nothing about it.

And the airplane was not misloaded, and there was no obstacle on the runway.

BTW The fact that your chief pilot agrees with you does not count as a valid argument to me.

P77

That's ok P77, lots of folks don't agree with me.
Having said that, I have personally been around a very long time in heavy jets, and learned early on in some of the more limiting types (B707-300, JT4 powered, for example) that an overly ambitious takeoff rotation with longer body types was...and will always be, bad news.
Look at the DC-8 60 series for example. Now there was an aircraft that could scrape the tail on takeoff rather easily, yet a very few suffed this fate.
Why...because the pilots were aware of the problems involved, an operated accordingly.
And, they just didn't plug inaccurate figures into the FMS either.
It was 'get out the charts' time on these older types, and new(er) guys on more modern types had better learn to actually pay attention to details, otherwise their career may well be shorter than they thought.

after surviving the acid rain, I don't think the German enviroment luvvies will be happy to hear this. Why not dumping it in the "Vierwaldstaetter See"? After all it happened on a Swiss airport :mad:

why not over the Vierwaldstädter See??????
because the Swiss do not like the consequenzes of the :mad: they produce dumped over their head.:yuk:

There are some procudures to fuel dunping. ICAO Fuel Dumping procedure is:-

1. Min. Alt 6000'
2.Clear Weather
3. ATC Approval
4. Assigned Area

Then there's individual company's procedures. I don't suppose they can just dump 70Ts of fuel on residents heads. At 6000' I'm sure the fuel would have evaporated before it can reach the earth. Just to enlighten you in case you don't know. :D

B737NG,

You call yourself a pilot? Highly unprofessional remarks you are making...

It is unfortunately pretty unsafe to drop fuel over the Vierwaldstättersee at FL100 (terrain), plus to do this in the vicinity of a TMA with high traffic load wouldn't be overly safe either, would it?

Usually there are two possibilities when dumping fuel, the swiss Jura (for departures to the west), and the Black Forest (for departures to the east).
Both areas are most suitable regarding terrain and traffic (you wouldn't wanna fly into the kerosene with your 737, would you?).

Lets for a moment assume that the pilot did not over rotate, then why should the tail scrape occur?

Having flown the 777 for most of its life I never came near scraping the tail (bearing in mind 2-3 feet on a “normal” rotation seems very little but nevertheless is the “normal” figure).

From the pictures we can see that the aircraft at its “tail scrapping attitude” was going too slowly to get airborne, hence the scrape! As the speed built up it then gets airborne.

Why, therefore, was it going too slowly in the first place? ? After all the 777 calculates its own “V speeds” from pilot input of Zero Fuel or Take Off weights. But, If the “FMC” is given a weight less than the actual then it will compute lower speeds hence the probable result will be a scrape.

One 767 operator got very close to a scrape (the tail clearance on the 767 is not as critical as the 777) because the crew had input the “zero fuel weight” into the FMC take off weight box instead of the correct zero fuel weight box. The FMC obviously then calculated the V speeds around the incorrect weights (actual weight less the fuel load). The aircraft was rotated at the FMC computed speeds (for the incorrect weight) to the normal attitude but didn’t leave the runway until the speed had built up to the “correct” figure (just like Zurich). Luckily, as I said earlier, the 767 is not as critical and a tail scrape was avoided.

Lets wait and see with regard to the Zurich incident. It “could” have been pilot error with incorrect figures entered but it could just as easily have been the figures provided to the pilot via the loadsheet were in error!

Only time will tell!

I always thought the 767(300) had a pretty narrow tail margin. At normal lift attitude of 7.5 degrees, there will be 61cm/24inchs of clearance, with tail strike occuring at 9.6 degrees,

2.1 degrees to play with isnt much.

Also many 767 operators dont use FMCs to compute V speeds.

I like your style Woodpecker. - people are too quick to jump to conclusions in this game. It could have been a lot of things. Everyone likes to learn from other peoples mistakes - however this may or may not have been a forced error. Either way, no one was hurt.

Spuds.....
 

I do not critique the action of the crew if you read that correct!
It is the way the swiss handle the traffic into Switzerland and the
consequences accordingly like noise and in emergency cases the
designated areas. It is a political problem since years over the
south part of the black wood forest. In the meantime I fly B777
but I kept my old Nick. So I might be one day the one who has to
dump as well........ who knows ?!?!

NG

The certification of these aircraft is all about establishing the speed, known as Vr, at which, if the correct rotation rate is applied, the aircraft will become airborne without this sort of thiing happening. There is a margin below this to allow for some abuse. The correct rotation rate generally stipulated in Boeing training manuals is 2-3 degrees per second.

This incident would be caused by a too rapid rotation causing the aircraft to strike the tail before it became airborne. Simple.

Nothing was wrong with the plane, it was a training flight for the F/o. His sector back and he over rotated. :ouch:

Anyone have a link for pics of the damage?

Huh...?
 

The Rage,

If true, where the hell was the Commander, out to lunch?
Good grief.
If it was a line training flight, doesn't say all that much for MAS training, does it?

Back to the sim for him...unless it might be 'out the door, don't come Monday'. Opps, forgot, MAS...don't come Saturday.:uhoh:

Can someone tell me the URL of the Flight Data Recorder of this Malaysian flight!

With the data at hand we can see if the poor chap over-rotated or rotated too early (FMC/loadshhet error).... Until then this thread is becoming populated by experts who have never flown the machine and have no data to back up their wild guesses as to the cause.

Hi 411A, indeed `I did listen up'.

However I have to disagree with your firmly expressed, but rather limited view of tailstrike causes.

One possibility you have not considered is windshear.

During many years based in Kai Tak, I had a few experiences of ending up back on the ground a short time after liftoff, normally associated with heavy weights plus windshear etc. Presumably any whizzbang overrotation protections would be disarmed at this stage, so if the speed drops off, the aircraft could settle back).

ZRH, being mountainous, is a good place for this sort of fun event, so perhaps gross incompetence may not be the whole story.

`I know my bit, but if I listen to yours and learn, then I'll know more!'

Wind shear possibly NOT the cause
 

Fragmann 88 have you ever been to Zürich ? Because the mountians are not really close to the airport at all. There are some hills but nothing really that would cause this. Compared to the old Kai Tak which really did have some high ground around it the topography at Zürich is really quite taim. Unless you fly too low and hit something you shouldn't.

What Woodpecker says makes 100% sence.
If the figures are wrong or if one pulls back tooooo soon, tooooo much or tooooo quick then its scrapey, scrapey time.

I think you will find that wind shear or any abnormal weather effects was not a factor in this incident, because unless any wind shear was caused by a thermal lifting off the runway at the time of rotation, the weather on that day could best be discribed a "Peachy" ie. smooth, soft and nicely rounded. I know because I was there. Not in the aircraft but watching.

Lets be good boys and girls and wait for the report.