S V Choong 4 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) Read A.net just now about Vrigin Atlantic Airways (VS) A340-600 had a tailstrike at HKG. The plane dumped fuel over at HKG airspace and landed at HKG again later on. All is safe..... Sneeze, any details about this? I remember when MRJ had the tail strike, some monkeys at A.net made claimed that tailstrikes being an Asian thing. Edited July 16, 2006 by S V Choong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tony 1 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 But the MRJ incident, as TK once mentioned it, was due to windshear - the pilots couldn't do anything in time to react. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Min Chun 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 What about VS? It was caused due to the windshear as well? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter Sim 1 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 hah Tony! my news on MRJ is contradicting of yours. I heard that pilot had some calculations error, thus wrong V speeds.. Don't quite know the validity behind it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin P K 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 Sorry, what is a tailstrike ar? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teoh Z Yao 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 Sorry, what is a tailstrike ar? When the a/c's butt decides to scratch the ground while rotating... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
H Azmal 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 When the a/c's butt decides to scratch the ground while rotating... ...and touchdown... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin Teh 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 any picture of the virgin scratch her butt....? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seth K 3 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 Tail strike? No big deal........just another Kai Tak story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gavin Andrew David 6 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 Vspeed calculated by FMC How come they still can come up with error WalteR? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Denny Yen 0 Report post Posted July 16, 2006 The data still needs to be manually entered by the pilots into the FMC. An error such as entering a "2" instead of "3" led to the incident involving 9V-SMT in 2003 It was investigated by NZ's Transport Accident Investigation Comms, abstract here: http://www2.taic.org.nz/InvDetail/03-003.aspx Full report here: http://www.taic.org.nz/aviation/03-003.pdf Aviation Safety Weekly article (condensed version of report) here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...18/ai_112559387 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sim Lim Shen 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2006 The data still needs to be manually entered by the pilots into the FMC. An error such as entering a "2" instead of "3" led to the incident involving 9V-SMT in 2003 It was investigated by NZ's Transport Accident Investigation Comms, abstract here: http://www2.taic.org.nz/InvDetail/03-003.aspx Full report here: http://www.taic.org.nz/aviation/03-003.pdf Aviation Safety Weekly article (condensed version of report) here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...18/ai_112559387 That was one serious scratch. Didn't know it could become so ugly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gavin Andrew David 6 Report post Posted July 17, 2006 The data still needs to be manually entered by the pilots into the FMC. An error such as entering a "2" instead of "3" led to the incident involving 9V-SMT in 2003 Oops sorry must be my bad bec AFAIK the pilots only need to verify the vspeeds and not input them .. thanks for pointing out Denny Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tony 1 Report post Posted July 17, 2006 hah Tony! my news on MRJ is contradicting of yours. I heard that pilot had some calculations error, thus wrong V speeds.. Don't quite know the validity behind it. The data still needs to be manually entered by the pilots into the FMC. An error such as entering a "2" instead of "3" led to the incident involving 9V-SMT in 2003 The MRJ incident took place in ZRH, right? Heard from TK that it's windshear and pilots had too little time to react - was in fractions of a second. Unforeseen weather condition And if it is as how you put it, it's not calculation error, but simply a slip (a type of human error). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
H Azmal 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2006 Wow hope they do the repairs properly - no one wants to see the repeat of what subsequently happened to JA8119. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teoh Z Yao 0 Report post Posted July 17, 2006 ...and touchdown... That would be serious then... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter Sim 1 Report post Posted July 17, 2006 Vspeed calculated by FMC How come they still can come up with error WalteR? Erm, Vspeeds are calculated, but the weight. Indiffrence of weight will bring to indifrrence of vspeeds. Take this to account, probably they miscalculated that the plane is lighter than it is, so rotate speed is much lower. So when you rotate, it won't go airborne, and simultaenously scratch your butt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S V Choong 4 Report post Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) Tail strike? No big deal........just another Kai Tak story. Honestly I could not recall too much tailstrike at Kai Tak, although it did happen. If it was Kai Tak, you will need to include engine strike and runway overshot incidents to it as well. 9M-MPK "Johor Bahru" MAS 744 had an engine strike in 1998 and was unfortunate to have been photographed by local spotters and made the headline news the next day. Some monkeys at A.net also claimed that the VS tailstrike was to do with windshear while rotating as well. Who knows....? I saw 9V-SMT at NZAA after the tailstrike in 2003 while on my way to KUL. She has been sitting at Air NZ engineering yard for a while. Unfortunately I wasn't living at AKL at that time to photograph it. Guess she's probably next set of aircraft to get rid of by SQ. Edited July 17, 2006 by S V Choong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Smith 1 Report post Posted July 17, 2006 I hear it was a "Very Wicked" incident...who can guess the rego? FWIW, the FO on BI68 (PER-BWN, A322 V8-RBS) this morning paused for a rather long time around the empennage this morning, right as I was making my way down that general direction. There was a rather large area of missing paint, at first apperance it looked like a tail strike and that was the reaction he initially thought. But, where it was, the shape and the flaking around the edges replicates a typical dodgy Airbus paint job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BC Tam 2 Report post Posted July 17, 2006 I saw 9V-SMT at NZAA after the tailstrike in 2003 while on my way to KUL. She has been sitting at Air NZ engineering yard for a while ..... Guess she's probably next set of aircraft to get rid of by SQ. SV, You cannot possibly mean the bird has been out of action all this while ?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S V Choong 4 Report post Posted July 17, 2006 No BC, 9V-SMT had been full repaired in NZ by Boeing personell some months after the tailstrike incident. But you couldn't help to think that the SQ management might want to get rid of this bird as early as possible as they are the ones who does not want any possible incident might happen to this bird in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sandeep G 1 Report post Posted July 18, 2006 Was this VS aircraft bound for UK or Australia? Aren't the A345/6 aircraft equipped with an extremely meaty tail-skid?? It must have been pretty hard to damage the bird with a tail-strike given the engineers at Airbus spent extra long hours on combatting this problem that would be a consideration for long aircraft... but i guess if they can't get painting a plane right... ehehehe did you get a shot, Liam? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter Smith 1 Report post Posted July 18, 2006 VS201 ex- SYD. I was under the impression that the A346 was equipped with over-riding software preventing over rotation? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BC Tam 2 Report post Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) ..... the A346 was equipped with over-riding software preventing over rotation? My theory, they dont call it software for no reason !! SV, Thanks for clarifying. I must have muddled up actual meaning of your text. Edited July 18, 2006 by BC Tam Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PC Yuen 0 Report post Posted July 18, 2006 Software - Airbus Hardware - Boeing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
