Jetliner Slams Tail Into Runway

Fox ^ | Saturday, March 21, 2009 | staff

[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.

[_Jim]

Not sure why they didn’t mention the plate.

I'm wondering if there is a plate ...

I did scratch the runway with the rear tie-down eye-bolt on a Cessna 150 once on landing at Redbird AP ...

[ProtectOurFreedom]

811,000 pounds max TO weight / 392,000 pounds empty. It is possible...but probably unlikely. Data from Airbus.com for an A340-600.

	Maximum ramp weight		369.2 (381.2) tonnes		813.9 (840.4) lbs. x 1000
	Maximum takeoff weight		368 (380) tonnes		811.3 (837.8) lbs. x 1000
	Maximum landing weight		259 (265) tonnes		571 (584.2) lbs. x 1000
	Maximum zero fuel weight		245 (251) tonnes		540.1 (553.4) lbs. x 1000
	Maximum fuel capacity		195,881 (204,500) Litres		51,746 (54,023.2) US gal.
	Typical operating weight empty		177.8 (181.9) tonnes		392.0 (400.9) lbs. x 1000

[SkyDancer]

First, what plane? Boeing? Airbus? I know all Boeing AC have strike plates .... not sure what bird that is ... in any event the PIC sure did a number on it .... and wow, you sure must have been pulling to grind up your tie-down bolt ....

[rawhide]

I wonder who inputed the wrong take-off weight? The captain or first officer?

[_Jim]

The subject plane; the subject of this post: an Airbus A340-500, if the facts here are correct ...

On my landing: I came back a little too far on the stick-er- wheel ... student pilot a LONG time ago ... a learning experience!

[_Jim]

I wonder who inputed the wrong take-off weight? The captain or first officer?

I think there were tight lips on this one. The accident investigation says this:

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 aircraft’s actual weight.

BTW, a LOT more data, info, pics of the interior damage to the aircraft here:

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

[_Jim]

Follow-up: Pilots resign after Emirates A340-500 accident

"The pilots flying the Emirates Airbus A340-500 that suffered a severe tailstrike at Melbourne on 20 March have left the airline."

[mtnjimmi]

yeah I remember that one it took out four houses on the ground, I ended up on the site where the Cessna went down.
not especially good memories.

[Habibi]

“I know all Boeing AC have strike plates .... “

BRRRAAAACCCKKK! Wrong answer. Try again. I must have done too many walk-arounds on Boeing 737-100’s, -200’s and -300’s and missed that strike plate every time. Ok, picky point, but lots of Boeings without strike plates.

I’ve never been convinced that a strike plate would save my job, so I never bothered to whack one. It might save my hydraulics and flight controls .... maybe. Some times it literally has to be done.

As for tie down rings, it’s really easy to whack ‘em in a Cessna with the back seats filled. 207’s especially.

[Kickass Conservative]

A little Bondo and a little touch up paint, good as new.

[SkyDancer]

The article was describing a current type AC - maybe waaaaay back when you were around -100’s/200’s/300’s they didn’t have them - so you also fly with the CG in the back seat as well???

[Habibi]

” maybe waaaaay back when you were around -100’s/200’s/300’s they didn’t have them”

LOL! You’re right. I have been around for a long time. Well, those aircraft didn’t have tailskids/skidplates then, and they don’t have them now. You are aware that the -300’s have a fairly high population on the airways. My guess is the last -100 has gone to the salvage yard in the US, and the -200’s have begun the process as well. But they were nice aircraft from a pilot’s standpoint, and the -200’s with -17’s were repectable. In any event, there are, and were, Boeings without tailskids/skidplates. Chances are pretty good that you’ve ridden on at least a -300 if you fly very much. If you haven’t noticed them, you don’t fly very much.

” - so you also fly with the CG in the back seat as well???”

And in the aft or forward baggage area also. Big airplane, little airplane, you may not throw the bags, but a CG problem is yours alone when the gear comes off the ground. Any pro pilot that says he hasn’t flown an aircraft out of CG, ain’t a pro pilot. Oh I suppose it’s possible that a low time/inexperienced pilot might never have flown out of CG, but he hasn’t flown much, and he certainly doesn’t make a living at it. Things happen over three or four decades. Not much new, but it keeps happening.

In the real world of aviation, one learns that all is not as we might wish. But if we don’t want to be “surprised”, we pay attention to what has been a problem for others, and what WILL go wrong in the future. I’m sure you’re well aware that not everything goes “by the book” on an aircraft. When you’re in the pointy end, it’s nice to have an extensive mental library of potential disasters, just so you’re still around to remember the specifics after they try to happen to you.

Keep your eyes open so you have fewer bad memories, when/if you get old. ;-)

[SkyDancer]

Thanks for the nice post ...seen a lot of -300's around, wonder what their cycle rates are by now .... I've seen some 727 cargo that must have almost 150K plus ...then too, those DC-8's ....

Did a flight where I had the trim full forward and the yoke almost into the panel .... yep, guilty!

[Habibi]

Yeah, it just keeps happenin’. Not much new for us pilots. Just so we know what to do about it (and you did). Good for you.

Yeah, lots of cycles on the Boeing fleet, but they can keep getting rebuilt (if you have the gold). As for the Airbus, not so much. There are still lots of old airplanes around, but not many old Airbuses (sp?). What’s the plural of Airbus? Airbi?

I had a brief flirtation with Airbi in my career (they do have nice cockpit seats). Word has it when they get to a particular number of cycles and hours they’re scrapped. I don’t know whether it is economically feasible to mess with all that composite. My guess is that when it reaches a particular life limit, it’s dead. I’m not terribly sure there is even much scrap value in the airframe on those things. At least with the old Boeings, you can make beer cans out of ‘em of sumpin’.