|
777-300 Landing Tailstrike 11 Dec 2018 in Hong Kong
I just learned of this event today. A quick look through PPRUNE rumors and news did not reveal any previous thread about this one.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...strike-454428/ From what I saw it seems the tail damage was fairly extensive. I'm interested in both the status of this bird and any details anyone may have about that landing. |
Pictures on Twitter here:
|
Some discussion of it in this thread.
|
What an unfortunate registration C-FITW - In the North Sea offshore helicopter industry in means controlled flight into terrain (water).
|
Ironic that i only watched a documentary on YouTube yesterday about rampant fatigue at 'Air Canada', i wonder if it had anything to do with this? They did mention that Canada were in the process of reducing the hours form 1200 (iirc) to bring them in line with the FAA as they had the third highest flight hours . Id be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on it.
|
Interesting. The 777-300 has software tailstrike protection which reduces elevator deflection but it still has a tail skid, strike detector and a checklist, so obviously not thought to be infallible...
|
Landing tail strikes usually affect a part of the fuselage forward of the tailskid (if installed) due to gear strut compression. These can cause significant damage. |
Full Wings. Depends on model. Earlier ones had tail skid and no protection and later ones have no skid and a computer to protect. However one thing is for sure.. nothing is infallible.
|
Originally Posted by shakealeg
(Post 10358084)
Full Wings. Depends on model. Earlier ones had tail skid and no protection and later ones have no skid and a computer to protect.
Earlier aircraft can have the software upgrade and the tailskid removed, though the weight savings are obviously less. I think a similar SB is also available for non-ER -300s. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10358122)
I believe all -300ERs have some degree of tailstrike protection embedded in the flight control software. Later production aircraft have enhanced protection, which enabled them to be built without the tailskid, resulting in significant weight savings when all the extra structure needed for it was eliminated.
Earlier aircraft can have the software upgrade and the tailskid removed, though the weight savings are obviously less. I think a similar SB is also available for non-ER -300s. |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 10358227)
Interesting to have another 'protection' system, a la MCAS, that obviously limits the pilot's inputs. Boeing, unlike Airbus, used to have a philosophy that the pilot should be able to bend the airplane. Clearly that is no longer the case.
I stand to be corrected but I believe Boeing’s tailstrike protection system is a ‘soft’ limiter You know it’s there when it operates but you can ‘pull through it’ if you have to like all their FBW limiting systems they can be overridden by applying more force if necessary |
Originally Posted by stilton
(Post 10358414)
I stand to be corrected but I believe Boeing’s tailstrike protection system is a ‘soft’ limiter You know it’s there when it operates but you can ‘pull through it’ if you have to like all their FBW limiting systems they can be overridden by applying more force if necessary |
like all their FBW limiting systems they can be overridden by applying more force if necessary |
HK Air Accident Investigation Authority released its Preliminary Report. I don't have enough posts to include the link here.
Interesting read. I was on that AC 15 on Dec 11 2018. It's one of my regular routes. |
|
@flyhardmo Thank you for posting the link.My recorded notes on Dec 11 upon arrival had some of the same details noted in the prelim report. Plus flying as pax, we had different views rolling to the right while seated just in front of the wing on the starboard side. Knew there would be damage with the first hit. We also felt more than one bounce. She was already at the Haeco facility prior to my departure on connecting flight. She is still there. |
According to the preliminary report, this was the FOs first landing in the 777 since simulator (type) training. Although the report notes that Air Canada’s SOP is to disengage the autopilot at 400 agl, I’m pretty confident that this isn’t enough time to get a ‘feel’ for the aircraft; especially for someone so new to it. |
Report also indicates late change to parallel runway. Sounds like an appropriate situation for extra briefing to be ready for and execute a go around if not sufficiently stable. Had the FO had any time on that flight hand flying prior to disconnect at 400 ft? The cost of this event could have paid for a lot more training including some hand flying in the real thing. With a high enough pilot gain any airplane can be made to PIO. |
How come Cathay’s tailsyrike in HKG got no report released by CAD? |
Originally Posted by Sqwak7700
(Post 10359122)
How come Cathay’s tailsyrike in HKG got no report released by CAD? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.