|
EK407 Tailstrike @ ML
G'day all...
Haven't seen anyone (or the media) report this one yet so thought I'd pipe up. This evening on departure from Melbourne, EK407 (a345) experienced a tailstrike. It proceeded to dump fuel before the cabin begun to fill with smoke, at which point a full emergency was called and the flight came back in to 16 for an overweight landing. The landing was hard and long and caused severe damage to the undercarriage (although the aircraft was still able to taxi to stand). All onboard were ok. I'd imagine the aircraft will be sitting somewhere at ML for a while now... -Final |
...another EK A340 tail scrape
And to add to what you said, i also hear it took out lights at the end of the runway as well.
I managed to get over and have a look at the aircraft which is now parked back at the gate. The damage stretches from fwd of the waste service panel which is missing; right back past the rear pressure bulkhead. $$$$ I really feel for the crew, im guessing if the captains an expat he probably wont be in a hurry to go to back to Dubai :uhoh: ## These pictures are free to be distributed without my permission ## http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/1558/a6erg2.jpg http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6858/a6erg.jpg http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1420/a6erg3.jpg |
All very quiet
Would have scared the crap out of the punters up the back and new jocks no doubt required for the tech crew.:ouch:
Good pics which shows the fuselage damage well all things considered. Area thoroughly taped up now and aircraft moved to the southern freight apron (bay G6) but it won't last long there with freighter movements and day stop aircraft parking requirements. Guess it will be around for quite a while while repairs are effected, but by who we will have to wait and see. Let the speculation begin.:ugh::ugh: I think this should be moved to rumours and news somehow.:ok: |
What was the weather like at the time?
|
What does happen to the pilots in a situation like this?
|
There would have been 4 of them in the flight deck.
I would think all 4 stood down immediately and paxed back to DXB. The 2 support pilots will probably be ok as there is stuff all they could have done to prevent it in such a dynamic situation. Plus may not have been able to see the maltese cross etc etc. As for the 2 guys in the hot seats - I guess they'll have to wait for the QAR data and EK will take it from there in their usual inimitable style. I'm curious to hear it took out runway end lights - if that's true - shades of Joburg. |
So this sort of stuff up is career ending, for the main 2 pilots anyway?
Imagine the feelings that go through your mind as you feel that tail scrape! |
If it's one of the "brothers", a couple of hail mary's down at the mosque next Friday and all is forgiven.
If it's an infidel, could well be job threatening. No doubt the hindsight committee has already been established.:mad: |
Hang on, at EK we have a "JUST" culture!!!
|
Hang on, at EK we have a "JUST" culture!!! |
I guess Emirates has a big advertising budget, how else can you explain the lack of any media interest.
Throws into relief what was happening not so long ago to QF, when even a technical delay was enough to generate a "troubled airline" headline. I hope the crew are treated fairly though. |
Smoke in cockpit and very overweight, any chance vision was impaired, stress levels very high? I think before we crucify anybody and start making racial slurs simply because the Aircraft was from the Emirates we wait and see the outcome of the investigation which will be, as we all know on the Australian Transport Safety Bureau site once it's done, or maybe Emirates advertising budget will "cover that up", or Management will "sweep it under the table", please, enough conspiracy theories.
Taking about mosques and infidels... how bl*@dy childish ! Couch potatoes coaching the game instead of being happy it got down safely. |
Nuked - you take things too seriously.
|
Hard to see from the first picture, but I think the damage may stretch over the rear pressure bulkhead which would mean a very expensive repair- removal of fin and complete rear fusleage aft of the bulkhead and bulkhead replacement. A lot of reskinning and frame replacement- this one will be horrific.
I very much doubt whether anybody actually felt the scrape. The smoke in the cabin is interesting- where did that come from? The landing was hard and long and caused severe damage to the undercarriage (although the aircraft was still able to taxi to stand). |
From the ABC's web site.
Vic plane emergency landing 'terrifying' Posted 53 minutes ago Passengers on board a flight which made an emergency landing at Melbourne airport last night say they were terrified. The Emirates flight made the emergency landing after reports of smoke inside the cabin. The tail of the jet scraped the tarmac when it took off and had to return to the airport when the crew noticed the smoke. No-one was injured. One of the 225 passengers on board, Catherine Edmunds, says she was terrified. "We did land successfully, thankfully, and the plane was surrounded by paramedics and fire engines," she said. "It was terrifying, it really was scary. I'd hate to go through it again. I'm not looking forward to getting on a plane tomorrow." Another passenger, Andrea Law, says the plane had to dump fuel before landing. "We were floating round there for about 45 minutes dumping fuel and it was very quiet on board, a bit scary," he said. "I try not to worry because if you start worrying then it just gets really bad. "I know there was one person that was quite sick on the plane because they were frightened, so not nice." Air safety officials are investigating. |
from http://avherald.com/:
Accident: Emirates A345 at Melbourne on Mar 20th 2009, tail strike on takeoff By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Mar 20th 2009 23:11Z, last updated Friday, Mar 20th 2009 23:11ZAn Emirates Airlines Airbus A340-500, registration A6-ERG performing flight EK-407 from Melbourne,VI (Australia) to Dubai (United Arab Emirates) with 225 people on board, experienced a tail strike on takeoff from Melbourne. The airplane climbed out safely, went to dump fuel but returned for an immediate emergency landing when smoke started to fill the cabin. The airplane landed heavily on Melbourne's runway 16, no injuries occured.Severe abrazions occured to the tail skin and several access panels were ripped off during the tailstrike, the landing reportedly caused additional damage to the gear. The Melbourne Airport confirmed, that several runway end lights were damaged in the accident, too, and needed to be replaced. Metars: YMML 201400Z 35006KT CAVOK 15/13 Q1014 NOSIG YMML 201330Z 35005KT CAVOK 15/13 Q1014 NOSIG YMML 201300Z 01006KT CAVOK 15/13 Q1014 NOSIG YMML 201230Z 31004KT CAVOK 16/14 Q1014 NOSIG YMML 201200Z 30004KT CAVOK 16/14 Q1014 NOSIG YMML 201130Z 26003KT CAVOK 17/14 Q1015 NOSIG YMML 201100Z 24004KT CAVOK 16/14 Q1014 NOSIG YMML 201030Z 23003KT CAVOK 17/14 Q1015 NOSIG |
Saw and heard the whole thing....
I was at the lookout point watching the whole thing including the emergency services racing around...
The old man happen to be on the other side at the airport and drove home one of the passengers who told him the whole story. Tail struck the tarmac on take off, luggage underneath 'moved' causing concern to the pilots, dumped fuel over port phillip bay/ocean, smoke started filling the cabin, returned to YMML. Landing was certainly very long. Touchdown was well down 34 and far from the threshold, though it did appear to be a soft landing (not hard as previously commented). Reverse thrust was engaged quickly, which was needed to stop the aircraft on the tarmac instead of the Bulla carpark. There were about 8 emergency vehicles on the tarmac and once the flight came to a complete stop at the end of 34, flood lights lit up the aircraft checking for any catastrophic failures preventing it from taxing back to the gate. Aircraft was escorted to the terminal and passengers disembarked normally. A couple of domestic Qantas flights inbound were slightly delayed on 27 for a couple of minutes. |
Slightly off topic question, where do they dump fuel in places that are land-locked and surrounded by large cities, surely this happens in the US or Europe? Australia seems pretty lucky to have all that water near our capital cities.
|
where do they dump fuel in places that are land-locked and surrounded by large cities, surely this happens in the US or Europe? |
The landing was on Runway 34, not 16 as stated elsewhere in this thread.
|
From memory Min. altitude to 'dump fuel' is 6,000ft.Possibly to ensure it vapourises prior to ground contact.
|
Dont forget you can see it occur on Webtrak..
|
Folks,
Without trying to over dramitise this, when the full story emerges about this accident, it will become clear how close we came to having a major incident in Melbourne last night. The aircraft in fact took out the R16 localiser main and monitoring antenae. Anyone who knows Melbourne will realise how low this dude had to be to do this. Don't know how he missed the strobes. Don't know how he cleared the boundary fence. As someone else has said, wait for the ATSB report - i guarantee it will be chilling. |
Jo'burg all over again ? :confused:
|
C0372/09 REVIEW C0371/09
ILS RWY16 'IMS' FREQ 109.7 NOT AVBL FROM 03 201610 TO 03 230700 EST If he took out the localiser antennae then that would have to happen on the subsequent approach wouldn't it? You are right.... how low was he?:ooh: |
CK
No, he took out the antennae on departure - there were tracks (probably jet blast) in the grass off the end of 16. Like I said, chilling. Noone on that flight should bother with lottery tickets from now on - they have used up all their luck!! |
Tailscrape
Any bets on this being another case of incorrect info being used to determine V Speeds and thrust settings, just like the SQ B747 out of Auckland which used figures 100000Kgs less than actual resulting in a 500 metre tail scrape and getting airborne just above the stall at reduced thrust!!!!
|
The 2 support pilots will probably be ok as there is stuff all they could have done to prevent it in such a dynamic situation. Plus may not have been able to see the maltese cross etc etc. |
As long as you're above 6,000', no detectable vapour will hit the ground.
|
Isnt le'bus and its flight laws meant to prevent over rotation on t/o to prevent tailstrike.? Or is it in direct law (or whatever they call it) and anything goes at that point?
Obviously more to this than just that, if he took out the localiser...... which seems somewhat incredible.... how long is the runway? |
It doe's have tones of the SQ "incident" at AKL a little while back, as well as the one in JNB. It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck to think of the cockpit atmosphere in last few hundred meters of the rwy! :ooh:
T/O performance data errors have been a recurring theme in mishaps for the last couple of years, perhaps it's time for a closer look at more double checking/belts and braces systems for performance data, before one of these 'incidents' produces a less happy ending? I do feel for the Crew though, very much a case of " there but for the grace of god... " Buggs Out P.S. Ymml rwy 34 is just under 12000ft, assuming they used the full length. |
So to take out the localiser during takeoff - takeoff must have been on RWY16.... last time I checked LOC antenna at far end of runway isnt it? ..So scraping bum of airplane... from Juliet to Kilo......only just airborne at threshold of 34...and collected antenna shortly after?
Is this right or do I have it arse about? |
No Doug - we've never used that stupid cross for the rotation (although for a while when we first got the 340s that's what the training dept was bandying at us - I ignored it because one should be looking out of the window)
|
CK, (as pointed out by blueloo, (beat me to it))The 16LLZ aerial is at the far end of its namesake runway. ie. 34 T/Hold end. I'm sure you knew that, just a slip of the "old fella" memory probably.
BlueLoo, The flight control law on take-off is 'DIRECT LAW' and pitch transitions to 'NORMAL LAW' 10 seconds after liftoff. (Roll transitions from direct to normal 5 secs. after lift-off) :ok: ps. When you find yourself that far down the runway and still using your drivers licence and not your pilots licence, heaving the bloody thing off the runway is exactly the right and only thing to do. |
How else can this happen? You got using the cross incorrectly, maybe using incorrect T/O wt / Thrust. System failure or pilot incapacitated. No blame game but genuine interest in probable/possible causes.
|
Yes folks, you have it correct.
Departed off R16 - took out Loc antennae off end of runway/threshold of 34. By the way. the near beam antenna ( the one that is the monitor for the status of the ILS) is only about 5 feet high I'm told by the techs. And he hit it!! |
Pushing the noise levers to the TOGA detent will give immediate FULL THRUST no matter what's in 'the box'.
I would be very hesitant to be critical of the crew until the facts are known. Another consideration for this type of take-off profile would be to check the actual loading of the freight and passengers as opposed to the load sheet theoretical loading. I have no knowledge of the event, but if it was me, I'd hope to be given a fair suck of the sav. |
So if I am interpreting the "facts" presented so far, it appears that they took off on Rwy 16 with approx 5kts tailwind. Can any EK drivers let us know if this service was planned direct to Dubai & how the take-off performance should have been using Rwy 16 with 5 kts downwind at such a heavy weight?
|
Anyone possibly know the departure runway and the flap configuration used for take-off? (Flap 1+F, Flap 2 or Flap 3????)
|
I heard reports today that there were 3 seperate tail strikes observed on the take off roll.
Some speculation that freight may have shifted rearward on rotate causing the stikes. AA |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:44. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.