QF10 LHR Return - possible tail-strike

[Kendall Roy]

The QF10 VH-ZND is returning to LHR with a suspected tail strike.

Wx is shocking around LHR with lots of diverts to the mainland and missed approaches.

 

[jase05]

Just landed back at LHR

 

[henrus]

Some webcam pictures have appeared via twitter.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226507701032714240

 

[drron]

I always log out of twitter @henrus as the link takes us to your twitter account.Bit of a nuisance signing back in but that's life.

 

[jb747]

An update from QF on one of the links says that the engineers found no damage, so presumably there wasn't a tail strike at all. Even the slightest touch would remove the paint.

 

[RooFlyer]

This from Pprune

Yep just heard on with Qantas maintenance, both tail strike indicators tripped. Apparently a first for a Qantas B787

Hutch

Assuming that report is correct (and the pilots obviously thought something had happened), what might trip both indicators if not an actual strike?

 

[Flying Fox]

An update from QF on one of the links says that the engineers found no damage, so presumably there wasn't a tail strike at all. Even the slightest touch would remove the paint.

Given it wasn't a tail strike, what would have made the pilots think that a tail strike occurred? Turbulence on take-off?

 

[serfty]

I saw a report on FT that whilst no damage was done, the aircraft landed extremely hard due to the fuel load and and that they needed to make sure the landing gear was okay.

The flight was later cancelled.

Results from https://www.ExpertFlyer.com

Flight Status Search:
Departing on 09/02/20, Flying QF flight 10

Flight   Status           Depart Location  Depart Date                   Reliability  Arrive Location  Arrive Date
...

                          LHR              Scheduled: 09/02/20 11:55 AM               PER              Scheduled: 10/02/20 12:30 PM
QF 10    Scheduled        Term: 3          Estimated: 09/02/20 11:55 AM  83% / 13m    Term: 3          Estimated: 10/02/20 2:46 PM
                          Gate:            Actual:                                    Gate: 20         Actual:
                                                                                      Baggage: 5

                          LHR              Scheduled: 09/02/20 11:55 AM               PER              Scheduled: 10/02/20 12:30 PM
QF 10    Diverted toLHR   Term: 3          Estimated: 09/02/20 11:49 AM  83% / 13m    Term: 3          Estimated: 09/02/20 2:02 PM
                          Gate: 5          Actual: 09/02/20 11:49 AM                  Gate: 20         Actual: 09/02/20 2:02 PM
                                                                                      Baggage: 5


Comments:
"DOQF10/09FEB
* OPERATIONAL FLIGHT INFO *            QF  10   -1 SU 09FEB20 
CITY INFO                                       HOUR (LOCAL)

LHR  ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE                1155          
     AIRCRAFT FORCED TO RETURN                                
     ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL                  1446     PER  
*1A PLANNED FLIGHT INFO*              QF  10   -1 SU 09FEB20  
APT ARR   DY DEP   DY CLASS/MEAL          EQP  GRND  EFT   TTL
LHR          1155  SU JCDIUWRTZYB/LR      789        16:35    
                      HKMLVSNQOGX/LR                          
                      E/LR                                    
PER 1230  MO 1400  MO JCDIUWRTZYB/D             1:30  3:25    
                      HKMLVSNQOGX/D                           
                      E/D                                     
MEL 2025  MO                                               21:30
..."

 

[jb747]

I don't know what form of tail strike indication they have. It could literally be as low tech as a small extension with a bit of paint on it. So, yes, I can see how that could have been tripped, without there being any actual damage to the aircraft.

The video of the landing is pretty solid, but it doesn't look outlandishly so. TBA I guess. I'll find out from one of the 787 people in a few days.

 

[woodborer]

I saw a report on FT that whilst no damage was done, the aircraft landed extremely hard due to the fuel load and and that they needed to make sure the landing gear was okay.

The flight was later cancelled.

If the plane landed overweight, isn't it normal to check things out?

 

[serfty]

If the plane landed overweight, isn't it normal to check things out?

Absolutely -interesting the cancellation though rather than a delayed departure...

 

[moa999]

Also mentioned elsewhere that the crew only have about 45-60min leeway on the LHR-PER flight before they go out of hours, so by the time they dumped fuel and returned they would have needed a new crew

I can't imagine QF has a full crew on standby at LHR just for that flight.

 

[jb747]

I've checked with someone who flies them, and it's an electronic warning, that comes up on the EICAS. He was also surprised, as the flight control system protects against it. I think my guess of a sudden loss of headwind, during the rotate, might be close.

 

[jb747]

If the plane landed overweight, isn't it normal to check things out?

Yes, but there's no reason to think that it landed overweight. Boeing and Airbus have quite different views on the subject.

I can't imagine QF has a full crew on standby at LHR just for that flight.

The cabin crew are London based, so they possibly do have a full cabin crew.

In the early days of the 787 doing that trip, they were building longer slips than the 380, but actually using one of the days as a designated standby. I have no idea of the current state of play though.

 

[Andz]

I felt sorry for the Tam 777 passengers with 3 landing attempts at 4h18.