Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

They're Soliciting Tail-strike Solutions

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

They're Soliciting Tail-strike Solutions

Old 18th Feb 2003, 05:41
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I fly for British Airways and the SESMA program is a great way of catching developing trends on a fleet - deep landings or fast rotations, BUT, I feel that the feedback it gives is not immediate enough nor specific enough to the individual.

When I was on the 747-400, after each flight I would print out the take off data showing pitch rate etc and thereby monitor my rotation rates, ditto for landings and the touchdown position and pitch attitudes. For both t/o and ldg cases it also gave the tail clearance.

What I guess I'm advocating is a readily available FMC/FMGS report that we inspect and learn from in real time (the reports above required a password and delving through various levels of menus to find).

We are introducing the A321 next year and I can see some tailscrapes happening.

Cheers
TopBunk is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2003, 01:30
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa Florida USA
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tailstrikes

Regardless of anyones experience or 'airworthiness' it can happen
to any of us, at my airline we fly as one fleet the 757-200/300
767-200 and 400 aircraft with significantly different tailstrike attitudes ranging from up to 13 degrees on the 762 to a little over 8 on the 753.

Due to our pay system and it's unavoidable link to seniority our more junior pilots can go for months without seeing a 764 and conversely the senior ones will hardly ever see a 757, the handling of these aircraft is different enough to cause a surprise to anyone.

Our first -400 tailstrike happened with one of our most experienced captains who just transitioned of the DC10 and rotated the -400 in the same manner. Rotate a 767-400 like you
do a 767-200 and the same thing could happen to you.

Any kind of pitch guidance or warning would be most welcome. I think the newer Airbuses have some kind of 'soft' limit to guard against this. Didn't the original 747 have a warning system installed that activated the stick shaker, anyone know about this?
Carbon Life Form is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2003, 06:13
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Longitude East 114 degrees
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Use the armrests:

GlueBall is correct, it is a pilot problem and it's compounded by a reluctance to use the armrests. Apart from comfort armrests are there to purposely restrict the heavy handed as they (armrests) ensure that the arm and wrist muscles are used rather than the shoulder muscles. This helps to ease into the correct rotation rate as opposed to hauling and jerking. The USAF C5 A policy is to use armrests ( although I am not one hundred percent sure if they are compulsory or not). They must know something that civilian aviation doesn't as they don't seem to have a tail strike problem.

Prince of Dzun
Prince of Dzun is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2003, 06:26
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gold Coast
Age: 58
Posts: 1,611
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Didn't the original 747 have a warning system installed that activated the stick shaker, anyone know about this?

I don't know about the original ones, but there are still some around with an over-rotation alarm system in them. Not common though.
18-Wheeler is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2003, 01:07
  #25 (permalink)  
Albatross
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Carbon Life Form,

Read this thread and was about to make the same point. What about 777-200 vs. 300 or short a330 vs. a340-600. You are jumping from one Boeing or one Airbus to the other and need to think hard about differing rotation and pitch attitudes. To say it's all pilot induced is glossing over one of the inherent problems of cross crew qualifying.
 
Old 25th Feb 2003, 13:22
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,561
Received 40 Likes on 19 Posts
Put the tail strike attitude on the display

Some PFDs show a pitch limit indicator for the stall.

On the ground or close to it, the pitch limit indicator should display the tailstrike attitude.

All the engineers have to do is decide the radar altitude where the pitch limit indicator switches between tailstrike and stall modes.

And it would be a good idea to use different colors or some other change in symbology as you do want to know if the mode is off.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2003, 16:15
  #27 (permalink)  

ex-Tanker
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Trouble is, RBF, that the attitude alone - while a pretty good ball park indication - is not all. It depends whether the struts are compressed/ wheels on the ground and whether the vector of the ship is towards or away from the concrete.
Few Cloudy is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2003, 00:08
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,561
Received 40 Likes on 19 Posts
FC, I'd go with the struts compressed attitude to make the error on the good side and it avoids unnecessary complexity.

It wouldn't be much fun watching the tailstrike attitude travel down below the a/c indicator after doing a stabilised approach with pitch just below the tailstrike attitude
RatherBeFlying is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.