Jet grounds two pilots for Bangkok tail strike
Thread Starter
Jet grounds two pilots for Bangkok tail strike
More bad publicity for Jet....
NEW DELHI: Jet Airways has grounded two pilots for a "tail strike" in Thailand last week. The incident reportedly happened when the airline's Boeing 737 was taking off from Bangkok for Delhi with over 160 people on board.
During take off, the plane's rear section of fuselage (main body of aircraft) hit the runway.
Confirming this, a Jet spokesman said: "Jet flight 9W 65 of January 19, 2018, from Bangkok to Delhi experienced a tailstrike. The Boeing 737-800 with eight crew and 155 guests, landed safely at Delhi. The aircraft was inspected and cleared for operations by the Jet Airways' engineering and safety team." "The airline has reported the event to the regulatory authorities and is also investigating the matter. As a standard practice, the crew of the flight have been placed off active duty to assist with the investigations. At Jet Airways, safety of our guests and crew is of paramount importance," he added.
Full story: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/62612623.cms
During take off, the plane's rear section of fuselage (main body of aircraft) hit the runway.
Confirming this, a Jet spokesman said: "Jet flight 9W 65 of January 19, 2018, from Bangkok to Delhi experienced a tailstrike. The Boeing 737-800 with eight crew and 155 guests, landed safely at Delhi. The aircraft was inspected and cleared for operations by the Jet Airways' engineering and safety team." "The airline has reported the event to the regulatory authorities and is also investigating the matter. As a standard practice, the crew of the flight have been placed off active duty to assist with the investigations. At Jet Airways, safety of our guests and crew is of paramount importance," he added.
Full story: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/62612623.cms
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will be an interesting one - if the crew were aware of the strike during takeoff and continued to Delhi (not at 10,000 feet I assume 
) will not be a good look for the crew.
A "scrape" that wasn't felt during the take off another matter.
) will not be a good look for the crew.A "scrape" that wasn't felt during the take off another matter.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail Strike Jet Airways 9W-065 BKK-DEL 19.Jan.18
Let us look at various.
Airport is pretty much at sea level. Maybe some cross wind, no negative wind-shear reported, simply decent weather.
Cockpit crew was rested as a Lay over. Not sure about the cabin crew?
Airport is a Cat A so nothing special there.
If a 900ER which it seems are older, many cycle air frames and usually at least one engine with 30,000 hrs or more.
Jets CRM?
Joint CRM – I never saw this being even discussed during such courses at Jet where I attended it twice.
Now would a junior cabin crew report this on take off? I doubt it!
Also if the APU was running, that of course would mask any scraping sounds sounds even more.
CRM briefings with the cabin crew. Almost unheard of with most Local / Expat Pilots except for flight time, flight level and whether and turbulence and maybe some entry password.
OM/A 23.1 covers “tail strike Awareness”, did they brief it, we'll never know because the CVR was over written as they did not return to land. They of course could of pulled the CVR C/B, did they we do not know but I doubt it.
OM/A 34.4.2.2 A) has a tail strike as a reportable incident, did they report it or did Engineering see the issue after landing in DEL?
OM/A has no other reference to tail strikes! Now on to the FCTM;
FCTM. There in CH 8.31, .32 has all sorts of info on it which the cockpit crew should be familiar with. Were they, did they discuss this after rotation in their departure briefing? We'll never know!
FCTM 3.10/.11 has the pitch attitudes. What we do know is their flap setting 1 or 5 used? Tail strike pitch attitude is 10.0 in either case for the 900ER.
FCTM 3.12 talks about slow or under rotation which would keep you away from such. I can say from personal experience many thought they we in an F16 or similar and usually rotated at the higher rate. This surely can lead to problems.
Jets OM/A uses a standard pax weight of 75 kgs whether of for male or female. They easily were full house and even with 100 males you could add 1,500 kgs to your load sheet weights to cover the unrealistic load sheet weight. Most males never weight 75 kgs with carry on.
Dispatching at MLW which is (71350/69943kgs) so maybe the question of an over weight landing came into play if they even discussed this after take off?
Max thrust Derate is 26Kfrom 27K. These is non-SFP and has no ACARS.
No where is high consumption, drag, fan thrust deterioration (FTD) of the engines accounted for in their performance.
So take off performance is based on a perfect no drag, 100% thrust producing engine with 75kg max weight pax for male and female plus baggage (usually correct)!
Did they use an OPT program or the Paper Performance Charts?
Obviously 1st, 2nd and 3rd Segments were not an issue as they have no engine troubles. So if the PF rotated too fast and caused this, not an issue to rush with the pitch if both engines running as per take off performance!
Did they use the correct ZFW or TOW?
Did they insert an Intersection if used, correct flap setting, derate, assuming temperature, TWC, V1, V2 or V2, etc.?
If they suspected a tail strike – did they avoid the issue i.e. CRM with the cabin crew, even read the QRH checklist or simply assume with normal pressurization they could continue?
So coming back to Airmanship. Especially the PNF should be aware of the pitch attitude during rotation and unless the RA shows a positive rate, one should surely respect the pitch values given in the FCTM mentioned above. If you went above in ground effect, then you have to assume a possible tail strike. Clean up, call the back end crew, get your info and then decide. Did they? I doubt it from my experiences. In their OM/A they always “claim” safety is priority.
Remember a tail strike can be A) scrape of the plastic, B) scrape and shows shoe compression, C) scrape, shoe compression to the limit and then fuselage damage.
Seems either the first two if dispatched within a few hours after landing in Delhi.
So pretty hard for the cockpit crew not to be convinced, aware or suspected it happened!
Now what is very interesting I have assume non-Expat cockpit crew. Why? Because as soon as there is one Expat flying their names, etc are released to the general public
Also do not forget Jet has had two previous very near death accidents for all on board due to India Pilot error namely 9W-555 on 18.08.2015 in Trivandrum and 9W 2374 on 27.12.2016 in GOA. Both pilot error and the 2374 at least one if not two cabin crew evacuated BEFORE the passengers.
The 2374 DGCA report is still open. I do know well over $30 Million in damages to the aircraft and was written off, but Jet repaired to avoid the HULL LOSS with their insurer.
Remember the DGCA was downgraded for reason by the FAA!
Airport is pretty much at sea level. Maybe some cross wind, no negative wind-shear reported, simply decent weather.
Cockpit crew was rested as a Lay over. Not sure about the cabin crew?
Airport is a Cat A so nothing special there.
If a 900ER which it seems are older, many cycle air frames and usually at least one engine with 30,000 hrs or more.
Jets CRM?
Joint CRM – I never saw this being even discussed during such courses at Jet where I attended it twice.
Now would a junior cabin crew report this on take off? I doubt it!
Also if the APU was running, that of course would mask any scraping sounds sounds even more.
CRM briefings with the cabin crew. Almost unheard of with most Local / Expat Pilots except for flight time, flight level and whether and turbulence and maybe some entry password.
OM/A 23.1 covers “tail strike Awareness”, did they brief it, we'll never know because the CVR was over written as they did not return to land. They of course could of pulled the CVR C/B, did they we do not know but I doubt it.
OM/A 34.4.2.2 A) has a tail strike as a reportable incident, did they report it or did Engineering see the issue after landing in DEL?
OM/A has no other reference to tail strikes! Now on to the FCTM;
FCTM. There in CH 8.31, .32 has all sorts of info on it which the cockpit crew should be familiar with. Were they, did they discuss this after rotation in their departure briefing? We'll never know!
FCTM 3.10/.11 has the pitch attitudes. What we do know is their flap setting 1 or 5 used? Tail strike pitch attitude is 10.0 in either case for the 900ER.
FCTM 3.12 talks about slow or under rotation which would keep you away from such. I can say from personal experience many thought they we in an F16 or similar and usually rotated at the higher rate. This surely can lead to problems.
Jets OM/A uses a standard pax weight of 75 kgs whether of for male or female. They easily were full house and even with 100 males you could add 1,500 kgs to your load sheet weights to cover the unrealistic load sheet weight. Most males never weight 75 kgs with carry on.
Dispatching at MLW which is (71350/69943kgs) so maybe the question of an over weight landing came into play if they even discussed this after take off?
Max thrust Derate is 26Kfrom 27K. These is non-SFP and has no ACARS.
No where is high consumption, drag, fan thrust deterioration (FTD) of the engines accounted for in their performance.
So take off performance is based on a perfect no drag, 100% thrust producing engine with 75kg max weight pax for male and female plus baggage (usually correct)!
Did they use an OPT program or the Paper Performance Charts?
Obviously 1st, 2nd and 3rd Segments were not an issue as they have no engine troubles. So if the PF rotated too fast and caused this, not an issue to rush with the pitch if both engines running as per take off performance!
Did they use the correct ZFW or TOW?
Did they insert an Intersection if used, correct flap setting, derate, assuming temperature, TWC, V1, V2 or V2, etc.?
If they suspected a tail strike – did they avoid the issue i.e. CRM with the cabin crew, even read the QRH checklist or simply assume with normal pressurization they could continue?
So coming back to Airmanship. Especially the PNF should be aware of the pitch attitude during rotation and unless the RA shows a positive rate, one should surely respect the pitch values given in the FCTM mentioned above. If you went above in ground effect, then you have to assume a possible tail strike. Clean up, call the back end crew, get your info and then decide. Did they? I doubt it from my experiences. In their OM/A they always “claim” safety is priority.
Remember a tail strike can be A) scrape of the plastic, B) scrape and shows shoe compression, C) scrape, shoe compression to the limit and then fuselage damage.
Seems either the first two if dispatched within a few hours after landing in Delhi.
So pretty hard for the cockpit crew not to be convinced, aware or suspected it happened!
Now what is very interesting I have assume non-Expat cockpit crew. Why? Because as soon as there is one Expat flying their names, etc are released to the general public
Also do not forget Jet has had two previous very near death accidents for all on board due to India Pilot error namely 9W-555 on 18.08.2015 in Trivandrum and 9W 2374 on 27.12.2016 in GOA. Both pilot error and the 2374 at least one if not two cabin crew evacuated BEFORE the passengers.
The 2374 DGCA report is still open. I do know well over $30 Million in damages to the aircraft and was written off, but Jet repaired to avoid the HULL LOSS with their insurer.
Remember the DGCA was downgraded for reason by the FAA!
Last edited by Brookfield Abused; 25th Jan 2018 at 15:27. Reason: Additions
Mistrust in Management
How can you have a tail strike on take off? Are these guys even pilots :/
Kind regards
Exeng
Garbage in = Garbage out.
When using computers you need to have a good idea what the information spits out should be. This comes with experience on type.
You need an independent source for information to compare what the computer/FMS comes up with. Never take one source (FMS) as gospel. An extra minute or so checking may save a life time of regret, or worse.
When using computers you need to have a good idea what the information spits out should be. This comes with experience on type.
You need an independent source for information to compare what the computer/FMS comes up with. Never take one source (FMS) as gospel. An extra minute or so checking may save a life time of regret, or worse.
Tail strikes happen.
• Too early or too late rotation
• Too fast or too slow rotation
• Excessive rotation rate
• Excessive initial pitch attitude
• Rotation at incorrect Vr for the weight and flap setting
Even putting a non pilot passenger in the seat and giving effects of controls. (not this operator, one much closer to EASA land).
The crew don't always know that it has happened, there is 13" and 1.5 degrees between a normal Flaps 1 takeoff and touch. Some aircraft have a sensor to indicate contact has occurred, and will annunciate that in the cockpit, others only show up post flight.
More tail strikes occur on landings than takeoffs.
• Too early or too late rotation
• Too fast or too slow rotation
• Excessive rotation rate
• Excessive initial pitch attitude
• Rotation at incorrect Vr for the weight and flap setting
Even putting a non pilot passenger in the seat and giving effects of controls. (not this operator, one much closer to EASA land).
The crew don't always know that it has happened, there is 13" and 1.5 degrees between a normal Flaps 1 takeoff and touch. Some aircraft have a sensor to indicate contact has occurred, and will annunciate that in the cockpit, others only show up post flight.
More tail strikes occur on landings than takeoffs.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: HERE AND THERE
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but...
A tail strike is easily noted by the crew/pax seated at the aft of the aircraft and surely may be reported to the pilots.
After such an event a mandatory turn back is the safest course of action, followed by the due inspection.
Am I missing something here?
After such an event a mandatory turn back is the safest course of action, followed by the due inspection.
Am I missing something here?
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Canuckland
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we know the extent of contact with runway surface?
It might just have been the wear shoe that came in contact. the article mentions nothing of that sort.
It is certainly not necessary that the crew or passengers would've heard anything. Recall the QR 777 at MIA.
It might just have been the wear shoe that came in contact. the article mentions nothing of that sort.
It is certainly not necessary that the crew or passengers would've heard anything. Recall the QR 777 at MIA.
