QF 453 tailstrike at SYD

[djfuzz]

Qantas plane drama after tail strike

A Qantas plane with 120 passengers on board had to abort its ascent and return to Sydney airport after a tail strike on take-off yesterday afternoon.

Flight QF453, a Boeing 767 bound for Melbourne, had taken off from Sydney at 5pm and was in its climbing phase when the captain told passengers over the PA system that that plane's tail may have struck the ground on take-off.

Headline seems a bit 'dramatic' - Minor tail strikes aren't that rare an occurrence, are they? It's just that extra care needs to be taken in ensuring the integrity of the rear bulkhead in order to avoid a JL 123 type incident, right?

 

[oz_mark]

Reading the rest of the article, sounds like it was a fairly minor scrape in the scheme of things. Still, I am sure the engineers will be casting their collective eyeballs over it.

A Qantas spokeswoman told Fairfax Media a gust of wind lifted the nose of the plane as its front wheel had just left the ground, lifting the plane up more sharply than normal.

"The tail skid — a shock absorber at the back of the aircraft — touched the runway," the spokeswoman said. Tail skids are devices purposely fitted to aircraft to absorb tail strike impacts

 

[munitalP]

At least they missed the localising radar unlike a recent MEL event

Mr!

 

[dajop]

Headline aside (blame the sub-eds) the nonews coverage is almost unbelievable - for them - with level headed, matter of fact comments from a passenger. No over dramatisation in the story from an armchair expert full of doomsday scenarios - instead some balanced comments from Ms Kearns of the sort that most of us on AFF would make.

 

[markis10]

Tailstrikes are pretty rare, and serious enough for manufacturers to put in skids as well as requiring an immediate depressurisation of the aircraft and return to departure point.

 

[mannej]

Whilst not the QF tail strike, I did find this the other day!

Photos: Boeing 767-3Z9/ER Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

 

[Worldtraveller8888]

The tail skid — a shock absorber at the back of the aircraft — touched the runway," the spokeswoman said. Tail skids are devices purposely fitted to aircraft to absorb tail strike impacts

It sounds like it was only the tail skid that touched. Certainly wouldn't have required depressurisation and inspection of the pressure bulkhead.

The tail of a 767 goes pretty close to the runway during a normal takeoff anyway. Somewhere around 50cm clearance by memory.

WT

 

[markis10]

It sounds like it was only the tail skid that touched. Certainly wouldn't have required depressurisation and inspection of the pressure bulkhead.

The captain does not get an indication of the severity of the tailstrike, only that an impact with the tail skid occurred and it was not in its normal position, inspection of the bulkhead and other possible damage is mandatory, as is following the tailstrike checklist for the 767 which includes depressurisation:

Condition: Tailskid/fuselage contact with runway on takeoff.

CAUTION: Do not pressurise the aircraft due to possible structural damage

CABIN ALTITUDE MODE SELECTOR ....................MAN
CABIN ALTITUDE MANUAL CONTROL ................. CLIMB
Position outflowvalve fully open to depressurise aircraft.

Level off at lowest safe altitude.
Plan to land at the nearest Available Airport

 

[ozbeachbabe]

djfuzz

Headline seems a bit 'dramatic' - Minor tail strikes aren't that rare an occurrence, are they? It's just that extra care needs to be taken in ensuring the integrity of the rear bulkhead in order to avoid a JL 123 type incident, right?

The problem in that accident was when the engineers repaired the rear pressure bulkhead after that tail strike, they only used one row of rivets instead of two and after so many cycles the constant pressurisation and depressurisation put too much stress on the one row of rivets hence the catastrophic end result.

 

[serfty]

The operating aircraft (a -336) was out of action yesterday but is scheduled to resume operating later this morning.

 

[Flying Fox]

I can't believe that these things are 'normal'. Delays are 'normal'.

Anyway, glad that the aircraft returned to SYD for inspection. Good decision.

 

[markis10]

I can't believe that these things are 'normal'. Delays are 'normal'.

Anyway, glad that the aircraft returned to SYD for inspection. Good decision.

Tailstrikes are not normal, on average two a year are recorded with the ATSB, compare that to bird strikes which have 5-10 in each weekly report. The accuracy of the media report was also not normal :shock:

What was normal was the procedure followed by the crew and airline in responding to the incident, basically landing ASAP and once confirmed it was a tailstrike rather than a faulty sensor, implementing the maintenance action.

 

[NM]

Tailstrikes are not normal, on average two a year are recorded with the ATSB, compare that to bird strikes which have 5-10 in each weekly report. The accuracy of the media report was also not normal :shock:

What was normal was the procedure followed by the crew and airline in responding to the incident, basically landing ASAP and once confirmed it was a tailstrike rather than a faulty sensor, implementing the maintenance action.

Shall we describe it as correct and normal procedure following an uncommon event.

Certainly tail strikes are much less common that other strikes, such as bird strikes, lightning strikes, baggage handler strikes etc. But they are an event anticipated by the aircraft manufacturers, hence the tail skid and sensors.

For me the real issue is what caused the tail strike. In this case it has been reported as a wind gust at the time of rotation. not much the pilots can do about that. In some other more serious incidents, procedural errors and human mistakes/miscalculations have lead to more serious incidents where the tail strike was a symptom of a bigger issue.

 

[drewbles]

Whilst not the QF tail strike, I did find this the other day!

Photos: Boeing 767-3Z9/ER Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about that picture is the comment below

OE-LAZ (cn 30331/759) Cross wind take off, the rotation seems not smooth enough, fortunately no major damage to the fuselarge, flight continued.

I most certainly hope they didn't continue and turned back to land.

 

[markis10]

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about that picture is the comment below



I most certainly hope they didn't continue and turned back to land.

They did continue as there was no tailstrike indication in the aircraft and were no doubt unawares until landing:

Incident: Austrian B763 at Beijing on Jan 29th 2010, tailscrape on takeoff

 

[drewbles]

They did continue as there was no tailstrike indication in the aircraft and where no doubt unawares until landing:

Incident: Austrian B763 at Beijing on Jan 29th 2010, tailscrape on takeoff

Gotchya. Thanks for that. I wonder if the failure of the indication in the coughpit was a problem, or if it's designed to not report 'minor tailstrikes'. I would have thought that any tailstrike was bad enough to go around, regardless of impact (any impact = bad!)

 

[markis10]

It was a tailskid boot strike to be precise, believe the tailskid has to move an inch for a notification to be apparent in the coughpit whereas this incident just rubbed the boot (crushable cartridge) off, which was retrofitted. I think the BA birds have the same mod and possibly it was one of the BA birds involved yesterday, obviously in that case more than the boot was impacted.

Good close up pic here:

http://www.gadling.com/2008/05/23/plane-answers-overcoming-the-fear-of-flying/

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I think someone mentioned in a previous post that is was a 767-336 - the "36" is the BA customer number (QF is "38") so I would have been VH-ZX*.

Cheers

Oz

 

[markis10]

I think someone mentioned in a previous post that is was a 767-336 - the "36" is the BA customer number (QF is "38") so I would have been VH-ZX*.

Cheers

Oz

Serfty posted it as being a BA bird back on page 1, I thought so. Ironically the last similar occurance I can find was also a BA bird - ZXC, that at face value looks similar to the Austrian incident - no coughpit indication.

200003037

 

[serfty]

This one was alpha - AKA "Jervis Bay"