From what I know of the SQ fuel policy your numbers sound about right Mustafaganda .

Hey GAMAN, were you in that mighty trilander?? Will catch up with you and the crew in April. Say gday to the CP, MW.

GAMAN - I was on taxiway C1 in a Seneca, (just beside the Saab), taxiing out from the air ambulance base.

Fair enough if they have their reasons for not using 23R, I'd still like to know the logic behind it from the airport company point of view though, it just annoyed me because I had a medical priority in the back, and we had to disconnect all the tubes and hoses and gadgets and go stick the poor chap back on a makeshift stretcher in the hangar. I tried to get a tailwind takeoff from the 23L midpoint (going the other way) but they weren't interested in that either.

You can all discount windshear as a probable cause as well, weather at the time was I believe 200/12, a light southerly anyway, no clouds below about 4000' and not even any convection.

It is not getting better, the more one sees!:confused:

Costly tail strike puzzles experts

14.03.2003
By ANGELA GREGORY
The cost of fixing a jumbo jet damaged in a tail strike accident at Auckland Airport could run into millions of dollars.

A former aircraft engineer, who did not want to be named, said the damage was significant and the cost would be huge. He had repaired an Air New Zealand plane in Fiji which had been damaged by a tail strike and there was no comparison, he said.

"This is a mess, and if the thin pressure bulkhead has been damaged, it will be a huge cost ... That plane won't be going anywhere for a while."

Pilot error or poor loading information are emerging as possible causes of the accident. But Singapore Airlines refuses to comment until a formal investigation is complete.

Flight SQ286, with 368 passengers and 20 crew, made an emergency landing about 20 minutes after taking off for Singapore on Wednesday.

As the pilot lifted off about 3pm, the tail of the Boeing 747-400 scraped the runway before the jet became airborne.

An Air New Zealand pilot and aircraft engineers the Herald spoke to yesterday blamed the rare accident on the over-rotation of the jet by the pilot, probably at too low a speed.

They made their assessments after viewing photos of the badly damaged tail and said they had never seen such a serious tail strike.

But Ken Sharp, director of aviation at Massey University, said it would be premature to blame the pilot.

While a 747-400 would be controlled by the pilot, he would be relying on technical information based on the plane's load.

If that had been incorrectly calculated, the pilot could pitch the nose of the plane at the wrong angle and too low a speed.

Mr Sharp said Boeing 747-400s were hugely reliable and Singapore Airlines had a good reputation for running safe operations with sound pilot training.

But an Air New Zealand pilot, who also did not want to be named, failed to see how the tail strike could be anything but pilot error.

The load was calculated by the captain and officers for a take-off performance certificate which should always be double-checked, he said.

"The investigators will have interviewed the crew and looked at their paperwork."

The experienced Boeing 747-400 pilot said tail strikes on take-off were almost unheard of.


Civil Aviation Authority figures show there have been only five recorded tail strikes at New Zealand airports in the past decade, and all involved pilot training and small planes.

Scratches on the paintwork on two Air New Zealand jumbos had indicated slight tail strike damage at overseas airports.

Auckland Airport said the airway was marked but not damaged by the tail strike.

Singapore Airlines spokesman Stephen Forshaw said it was too soon to say if pilot error was to blame for the incident, which left debris scattered on the runway and closed the airport for several hours.

The cause would not be known until the inquiry by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission was completed.

Mr Forshaw said the aircraft would remain on the ground for at least a fortnight and Singapore engineers had arrived yesterday to assess what appeared to be "quite serious" damage.

No one was hurt in the landing and all passengers resumed their journey to Singapore on a replacement aircraft flown in from Sydney.

The captain, who had more than 20 years' flying experience, and two officers had stayed in Auckland to help with inquiries.

Mr Forshaw said the captain had made an "overweight" landing with a full load of fuel on board.

The transport accident commission's investigator-in-charge, Ken Mathews, said the engineers would focus on damage to units under the skin including the auxiliary power unit and how that damage affected the airliner's structural integrity.

7x7

Quote
I’m yet again amazed at the way we ‘eat our young’ and are so damned quick to lay blame on a colleague without waiting for the evidence.
Unquote

Aren't you jumping the gun just a bit? I haven't seen a single posting laying blame directly. A bit of innuendo perhaps and second hand "a pilot said" in the newspapers but nothing damning. Or have I missed something?

Cheers

“A bit of innuendo perhaps” is exactly what I was railing against, broadbeach. If these guys screwed up, they’re going to be forced to live with for a very long time it in ways no one who hasn’t worked in Lyin’ City can even start to understand, so why do some people feel the need to start digging their professional grave for them before the company even begins an investigation?

My point was that every time something like this happens, the Monday Morning Quarterbacks come out in force within five minutes with “a bit of innuendo perhaps” while having absolutely no way of knowing what really did happen.

To repeat myself, while weather doesn’t appear to be an issue in this case, no one among the MMQ’s who posted here even took the time to consider it – in print at least. All the “bits of innuendo” immediately centred on the pilots’ maybe screwing up in some way. What is about this industry that people feel the need to share their opinions – (for that’s all they can be at an early stage after an accident) – with outsiders who often take this so-called “inside information” as holy writ?

I come here to learn from reading these opinions and I don't consider myself an outsider.

So please folks, keep sharing.

I have been sent some photos by e-mail of the damage(a few quids worth!!),however being poor with computers I don't know how to get them on to the message board!!. Anyone know of a way,if so let me know and I'll post them.

Cheers,

NJR.

sure it mat be the weather, it may be the load sheet, it may be the pilots .......no one is seeking to find blame.

the final answer will be a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. unless it is 100% pilot error the airline will seek to distance itself from any/all culpibility.

for those wannabes, professionals and by-standers it is fair to talk about how these things occur, the causal factors, pitfuls and traps for both young and old.

no-one seeks to cast the first stone or to seek blame.......but we dont live long enough to make all the mistakes ourself.

there is no reason why this cannot be a learning experience and hence ideas and hypotheses should be welcome.

i have suffered a catastrophic failure that resulted in a major crash, there are things i could have done better....i'm happy to share them.

there are some good posts here, particularly from those who witnessed the event. no doubt bthere are posts from those who have suffered a simliar fate.......

be fair, be balanced but dont waste an opportunity to share to collective wisdom.

Looks like the crew might have entered a ZF weight into the FMC a hundred tons less than the real one, plus V speeds and an assumed temp consistent with the resulting erroneous TO weight.

Not sure what caused the apparent lack of cross-checks between the three pilots of the crew but I hope the airline’s blame and punishment culture allows an even handed approach to its investigation of an entrapment that we could all easily find ourselves in.

A bit more collective wisdom for us all to reflect on.

I really hope I am not proved wrong on this one but from my experience on the 744 with SIA when the load sheet arrives the captain reads out the ZFW and the TOW to the F/O who is usually doing the bug card. The bug card is then checked, the ZFW entered in the FMC and a cross check of the FMC and Loadsheet weights is done. As this would have been a two F/O flight they usually cross check each others book work also.
In ten years I certainly saw a few bug card errors but I can honestly say never gross, life threatening ones.

In addition one gets a certain'feel' for the ball-park TO speeds. If the ZFW was entered 90k below actual it would possibly be rejected by the FMC anyway? I would certainly expect the trim to be a very strange number, if in the green at all.

Just for what it is worth, the V speeds for 230K are about 25-27 kts less than for 320k and should stand out like a dogs..........

......and if it had a weight and balance computer. Does anyone Know if SQ 744s do?

Having returned from Singapore yesterday, word on the ground is that the aircraft had a large load sheet error, thus leading to the calculation of invalid takeoff data and V speeds insufficient to attain Vmu at a body angle of less than 12.5 deg.

Short of the flight crew supervising loading, you have to rely on the information provided by the Red Cap and load control.

Singapore Tailstrike
 

Pandora. Just for info, a heavy landing always results in theory in so much as it must be checked out. Typically all wheels must be replaced and gear cycles must be done with the A/C on jacks. Its prett serious stuff!

Dan, I've done quite a few Load Sheets on the SQ 744 & you can rest assured, they do have the W&B computer thingy whatsit on board. I've even seen one come back to the gate because of it!

I can also confirm what Blue Eagle says. The Skipper reads it out to Gilligan who transcribes the figures onto his "bug" card.

Dogma. The Load Controllers are also relying on the check in staff to do accurate baggage weights, the pax to sit in their allocated seat, the cargo clerks to correctly advise the weight of the freight, and the ramp staff to correctly load the aircraft ....plenty of links in the chain down here too!:(

And whilst two signatures appear on the loadsheet, only one of them can afford the liability insurance!!!;)

Load Sheet Error?
 

From a source very close to the action I was told that the loadsheet and loading data was VERY quickly checked and found to be correct. I have no way of verifying this information and reserve my judgement until the facts are disclosed by the investigators.

The Loadsheet and Load Distribution was OK
 

Heard also the ULDs and loadsheet documentation was verified OK by investigators and weighed upon disembarkation after the incident. The popular explanation around here is the ZFW senario.
After a re-created a sim profile with low ZFW and assumed temp
the resulting takeoff didn't look pretty even with a slow rotate.
Do SIA tech crew get provided with an expected ZFW and also an explanation if it changes hugely when you get to the loadsheet point?
On the good side the damage is not as bad as originally feared,
the pressure bulkhead is OK (remember JAL Fuji) and Boeing AOG crew are now waiting for parts to start repairs.
Aircraft is outside the hanger and dressed up in black tape because hanger space is tight.
Cheers

Karaka. Like most airlines, there is a certain tolerance to changes to the ZFW, just like the loadsheet. I can't remember exactly what SQ's change is, but if exceeded, a new plan needs to be requested, just like the loadsheet.

Would someone please post a link to some of the photographs, showing the damage to the tail area of this over rotation incident, not just links to the newspapers which originally published them.

Thank you.

Link

That's the link you requested.
UNC