VS tailstrike at VHHH
 

Just heard from a friend that Virgin flight to London had a tailstrike at Hong Kong airport.

Anyone knows more about this incident?

VS201 HKG-LHR STA 05:25, ETA 20:45.

I thought Airbus's "envelope protection" prevented this type of incident?

The wind seems to have been very gusty at the time - it could happen to anyone really..

RE: Envelope protection systems, the computers can only do so much to protect the aircraft before mother nature thwarts its efforts. The A340-600 is very long aircraft, and like the 777-300, is very prone to these type of events :{

To my limited knowledge most of these events are caused by wrong T/O performance calculations/flap settings.

Hetfield, The crew will be delighted to hear that you've pinned down the cause so quickly. :( :(

Also improper rotation techniques during gusty cross-wind conditions too. Careful attention is required for long fuselage type aircraft.

Of course, Hong Kong is a lovely place too isn't it? It has never had any instances of shifting winds causing severe turbulence or flight incidents has it?

It is more than likely that environmental factors played some part IMHO.

I just cannot see three or maybe four PAIRS of eyes from an operating crew making and allowing a gross error to occur easily and to not be spotted.

Let's wait see.

CLK can be a sod for windshear and all sorts of weird stuff.The windshear warning system didn't warn you of mechanical shear off the airport platform.It just warned of shear from thunderstorms etc.
Very bad place to put an airport,but HK didn't have a lot of choice.
Ex HK ATC...:hmm:

throw a dyce

The WTWS has always included terrain induced alerts, but the integration of the LIDAR-based alerts into the WTWS now give terrain induced windshear alerts right down to the runways.

www.weather.gov.hk/publica/reprint/r566.pdf

Airclues

>>I just cannot see three or maybe four PAIRS of eyes from an operating crew making and allowing a gross error to occur easily and to not be spotted.<<

That's what the USAF thought too, until proved quite wrong by the recent C-5 accident at Dover AFB.
Or, for that matter, the B747 MK accident in Canada.

It's called...not paying strict attention to what you are doing.:(

@forget
@captjns

Sorry, it's not my opinion to blame the crew involved in this particular incident. Sure, windshear could also have been a factor like many others e.g. wrong loadsheet/trim-setting etc.

Quote:

---

e.g. wrong loadsheet/trim-setting etc.

---

indeed, the old days of flying little props, an incident happened precisely because of incorrect load sheet handed to flight deck at last minute, through the hatch. The aircraft ended with slight tail scrape damage. On examination the incorrect aircraft had been designated to the load sheet.

Don't forget landing gear strut under inflation can also be a cause. Its happened before. Best to wait and see I would venture.

For your info: when the aircraft is on the ground the flight control computers are in Direct Law. I seem to remember that the aircraft had to reach a radar altitude of 10 feet before the computers go in to Normal Law, with the protections that you refer to. It is 10 feet for landing when the computers go in to Direct Law.

Therefore on rotate the computers would be in Direct Law and the pilot can freely over-rotate as with any other aircraft.

Following such an event - is an immediate return the only course of action?

Generally, it depends whether the aircraft has a tail skid or not and how hard it was smashed down on to the runway. 343 and 345 does not have a tail skid, not sure if 346 does. If no tail skid then the aircraft should not be pressurized if a tail scrape has occured. If you don't return then it depends on how far you are happy to fly at 10,000ft.

If what you say is true (and it may be as I know nothing about Airbus except what I have read) how can there Autoland system work?

On the 320 the aircraft takes off in Direct law and then blends into normal law by about 150 RA. On landing the aircraft is in normal law all the way down unless system failures have caused the control laws to be degraded. In normal law the angle of attack protections only are disabled below 100RA to allow you to land. Autolands can only be conducted in normal law.

It's not normal law on landing during the final stages. At 50' the auto trim ceases and the pitch law is modified to flare law. The system memorises the attitude at 50' and this attitude becomes the reference for pitch control. As the aircraft descends through abouy 30', the system reduces the pitch attitude at a predetermined rate of 2 degrees down in 8 seconds.

A330 and above have what is caled FLARE mode, which is a combination of normal roll mode and direct flare mode. Essentially the same as above.

mhhhhhh that sounds all too technical to me, Airbus or Scarebus? Thanks God I still fly a "Bobby", yes it is true that even a Bobby can have a Tailstrike with the lengh of 63 or 73 Meter. Winds at VHHH are sometimes a challenge itself to Crew`s and it is easy to get cought by one. Luck is as well involved! Do you know what I mean?!?!?! Lucky I am in my days off and not the one who where there at the time. Important that nobody got hurt, a few scratches at the Skid-pod I hope. Be more carefull with guessing, Aviation is not a place for Lottery and Gambling. It is a factloving comunity and when the DFDR is analyzed then you may find some answers to questions.

Fly safe and land happy

NG

ETOPS773..."The A340-600 is very long aircraft, and like the 777-300, is very prone to these type of events."

...only when improper rotation or flare techniques not commensurate with weather conditions are applied.

Nah - my airline had a tail strike on a 320 on a go around - wheels never touched the ground =- only the tail -clever eh?! :}

There you go glhcarl! It's been over 7 years since I flew the A330 and over 9 years since I flew the A320 but you get the picture! Basically there are no protections when you rotate.

I remember it as Direct Law as when you move the stick around you get a cross on the PFD, for the control check to show direct control input, until you get airborne. Yes it can be a Scarebus if you get too complcated with it. Keep it simple and it is just an Airbus! :)

Capt. A,

You said that with LIDAR sending info to the WTWS at CLK there will be winshear warnings right 'down' to the runway.

This is absolutely correct but what is not generally realised is that the LIDAR cannot see windshear OVER the runway itself.

Presently the LIDAR is positioned alongside the tower and 'looks' up the approach path and departure route (straight out) but it's geometry does not allow it to look at the airflow over the runway.

Therefore in this case (tailstrike) the LIDAR would not have seen the windshear and sent inputs to the WTWS if it was present.

I understand the the Observatory has asked for funding for another LIDAR set to allow more coverage over the runways.

It's patently obvious that the vast majority of those commenting here have no idea of what they speak. Even those of you who actually do (or claim to) have Airbus experience have not flown the A340-600, as demonstrated by your lack of knowledge of this aircraft and its systems.

And what possible relevance is the transition from Normal to Flare Law on landing to an incident that apparently occurred on Take Off?

Please withold your comments unless you have something useful or intelligent to add. I have seen little on this thread that fits either of those categories.

Scroggs (an A340-600 driver)

Well said SCROGGs, my feelings entirely.:ok:

(I also fly the 346 / 343 and 330!)

ejj or any HK hands,

CLK ATC used to issue windshear warnings as: Max shear and distance from touchdown of first encounter.
e.g. Something like "20kn loss at 5nm final"

Which actually meant first encounter would be at 5nm and somewhere between there and touchdown the 20kn loss would take place i.e. the 20kn loss would not necessarily be at 5nm.

The phraseology could be misleading to occasional visitors and I wonder, for the benefit of readers, if you can say if this is still the case.

So far as I know this is still the case.

No, but probably the best.....

Haven't got the ops manual to hand, but if I remember correctly if a tailstrike is indicated by the tailstrike sensor and indicated on ECAM, I think the ECAM message is land ASAP, which in most cases would be a return to take off field.

:confused: Anyone know if this alleged tail-strike occurred on take off or landing? VS201 originates in Sydney

VS201 is SYD-HKG-LHR, this incident occured on departure from HKG. Aircraft had tail scrape on rotation and after dumping fuel returned to HKG.

HI guys, not the most pleasant experience, I can imagine.
We do fly in to VHHH and there's a lot of useful info written in the JEP already. If you pay attention you certainly can have a mental picture of what to expect. I'm currently on the 330 fleet and would be interested in comments of 346 skippers about the take off and landing techniques. Is that the same like 330? I've been told there's some kind of protection against over rotation built in. Is that somewhat true?
Thanks.

Thank you, SRS What? for the clarification. :hmm:

Which Law?
 

Sounds as though you need to be a lawyer to understand an Airbus!

Still sitting on the stand-off bay so a bit more than a paint scrape apparently.

Will be repaired by HAECO, take about 5 days before returning to LHR

capt rat not yet they hav'nt spilled the dosh. also maybe an airbus job it's that bad

Alternate law does not come in until computers go down and certainly only until airborne.

Does this mean wooly jumper's will be protected by constant pressure extension checks on the main landing gear like the fragrant harbour guy's have been with their tail strike.:D