Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jetliner Slams Tail Into Runway
Fox ^ | Saturday, March 21, 2009 | staff

Posted on 09/11/2009 6:24:51 PM PDT by gandalftb

MELBOURNE, Australia — An Emirates jetliner carrying more than 225 people slammed its tail into the runway as it took off from Australia, sending smoke into the cabin and forcing the pilot to make an emergency landing, officials said Saturday.

No one was hurt, but passengers described being terrified after learning something was wrong soon after the Airbus A340 took off from the southern city of Melbourne about 10:30 p.m. Friday, bound for Dubai.

After the strike, which reportedly left debris strewn on the runway and knocked out some runway lights, the pilot flew over the sea, dumping fuel, before returning to the airport and landing without incident.

"We did land successfully, thankfully, and the plane was surrounded by paramedics and fire engines," passenger Catherine Edmunds told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. "It was terrifying. I'd hate to go through it again."

The ABC said crew noticed smoke in the cabin during the roughly 45 minutes the plane was in the air.

He said such incidents where known in the industry as "tail hits" and were caused by a number of factors such as the angle of takeoff, weather conditions and loading issues.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: accident; airlines; emergencylanding; jet; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: gandalftb

I did that at Long Beach in a 172. On a FAA check ride! LOL


21 posted on 09/11/2009 6:42:59 PM PDT by papasmurf (RnVjayB5b3UsIDBiYW1hLCB5b3UgcGllY2Ugb2Ygc2hpdCBjb3dhcmQh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

In my professional opinion, the pilot was SWAPPING ENDS on landing flare
and/or bled off too much energy in the flare.

What the hell are they teaching kids at flight schools nowadays?

Landing speed = Vso-50 ??!


22 posted on 09/11/2009 6:43:20 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
This is a LAME Fox News story. Read the REAL story in The Australian -- Emirates near-miss vanished on radar at Melbourne -- for a spine tingling tale. The plane took off 100 TONS overweight and ran out of runway.
23 posted on 09/11/2009 6:43:41 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

I wonder what will happen to the pilot responsible for taking off?


24 posted on 09/11/2009 6:44:19 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

No prob ...


25 posted on 09/11/2009 6:45:33 PM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2337671/posts - Crew underestimated takeoff weight by 100 tonnes. Plane barely made it into the air before leaving the airport propery - it did not get airborn before it ran out of pavement.
26 posted on 09/11/2009 6:45:57 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

27 posted on 09/11/2009 6:46:22 PM PDT by gandalftb (An appeaser feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
It's your HTML...
img src="[http://i723.photobucket.com/albums/ww238/gandalftb/th_ML2.jpg]"

Lose the brackets inside the quotation marks.


28 posted on 09/11/2009 6:47:13 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
I wonder what will happen to the pilot responsible for taking off?

Both pilots were fired.

29 posted on 09/11/2009 6:47:58 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

“Crew underestimated takeoff weight by 100 tonnes”

that darn decimal point.


30 posted on 09/11/2009 6:48:36 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WVKayaker
I read about the accident in your link. I read this. Sickening bastards who looted!

As is often the case with tragedies like this, it brought out the best - and worst - in the citizens of San Diego. An estimated 3000 people descended on the scene and some began looting the bodies and houses. Meanwhile, local establishments sent over food and drink for the rescuers while others went to blood banks to donate for what they hoped would be dozens of survivors.

31 posted on 09/11/2009 6:52:53 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WVKayaker
At just after 9 a.m. on September 25, 1978, a Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) 727 with 127 passengers and seven crew hit a Cessna 172 on approach to Lindbergh Airport in San Diego.

Man, don't even get my noggin thinking about that horrible crash. Every time I start thinking about the horrific stories of the carnage on the ground, it gives me nightmares.

Grown men still go through counseling over what they saw that day in the North Park subdivision of San Diego.


32 posted on 09/11/2009 6:54:33 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
I read that too. No way they were 100 tons overweight, something wrong there. Anyone doing load calcs would notice more than 3 or 4 tons underwight, not 100 tons.

BTW, a reduced thrust takeoff does not use less fuel. If you keep the reduced power setting in during the climb it takes longer to get to cruising altitude using more fuel overall. The savings is in reduced engine wear.

33 posted on 09/11/2009 6:54:39 PM PDT by gandalftb (An appeaser feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Pilot & Copilot were recalled to Dubai and were told to sign letters of resignation on the spot.


34 posted on 09/11/2009 6:57:06 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: _Jim

Not sure why they didn’t mention the plate. As for the pitch limiter - unless there’s some sort of weather problem most takeoff’s are done automatically. There’s a button on the throttle (auto-throttle) when pushed advances the throttle to takeoff power. Rudder control happens around 60kts and liftoff usually around 90-110kts. The takeoff pitch angle depends on lots of things such as wind, weight, speed, etc. There are computers that will calculate all that and you can do an auto take off. Now if the PIC pulls back too far too fast (in manual mode) then yes, the tail will strike but the strike plate should prevent damage. Not sure why all that damage in the photo unless the plate was retracted at the time of the strike.


35 posted on 09/11/2009 6:57:33 PM PDT by SkyDancer ('Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..' ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

I thought the number seemed ridiculous. What’s the fully loaded takeoff weight of that aircraft?


36 posted on 09/11/2009 6:58:30 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

380 tonnes = 418 tons (right?) for A340-600.


37 posted on 09/11/2009 7:00:33 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

Let’s see .. 100 X 2000 = 200,000 lbs. over Max gross?

Are you sure?


38 posted on 09/11/2009 7:03:01 PM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Oh, it happened during takeoff? Gotcha.

We taught did 3°/sec, but I can see them scraping the tail if they miscalculated the takeoff weight by 100K!

39 posted on 09/11/2009 7:03:13 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb
No way they were 100 tons overweight
Those might have been metric tons, as in 'tonnes' but the figure was 100 ... per:

www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/AAIR/pdf/AO2009012_Prelim.pdf

Tail Strike
Melbourne Airport, Vic.
20 March 2009
A6-ERG
Airbus A340-500

Abstract

At 2231 Eastern Daylight-saving Time, an Airbus A340-500 aircraft, registered A6-ERG, commenced the take-off roll on runway 16 at Melbourne Airport on a scheduled, passenger flight to Dubai, United Arab Emirates with 257 passengers, 14 cabin crew and four flight crew.

The takeoff was planned as a reduced-power takeoff and the first officer was the handling pilot for the departure. At 2231:53, the captain called for the first officer to rotate.

The first officer attempted to rotate the aircraft, but it did not respond immediately with a nose-up pitch. The captain again called ‘rotate’ and the first officer applied a greater nose-up command.

The nose of the aircraft was raised and the tail made contact with the runway surface, but the aircraft did not begin to climb. The captain then selected TOGA on the thrust levers, the engines responded immediately, and the aircraft commenced a climb. The crew notified air traffic control of the tail strike and that they would be returning to Melbourne.

While reviewing the aircraft’s performance documentation in preparation for landing, the crew noticed that a take-off weight, which was 100 tonnes below the actual take-off weight of the aircraft, had inadvertently been used when completing the take-off performance calculation. The result of that incorrect take-off weight was to produce a thrust setting and take-off reference speeds that were lower than those required for the actual aircraft weight. The aircraft subsequently landed at Melbourne with no reported injuries. The tail strike resulted in substantial damage to the tail of the aircraft and damaged some airport lighting and the instrument landing system.

As a result of the accident, the aircraft operator has advised the Australian Transport Safety Bureau that it is reviewing a number of procedures including human factors involved in take-off performance data entry.

The investigation is continuing.


40 posted on 09/11/2009 7:06:39 PM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson