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 ??!
Posted on 09/11/2009 6:24:51 PM PDT by gandalftb
I did that at Long Beach in a 172. On a FAA check ride! LOL
What the hell are they teaching kids at flight schools nowadays?
Landing speed = Vso-50 ??!
I wonder what will happen to the pilot responsible for taking off?
No prob ...
Lose the brackets inside the quotation marks.
Both pilots were fired.
“Crew underestimated takeoff weight by 100 tonnes”
that darn decimal point.
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.
| 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.
|
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.
Pilot & Copilot were recalled to Dubai and were told to sign letters of resignation on the spot.
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 Not sure why all that damage in the photo unless the plate was retracted at the time of the strike.
I thought the number seemed ridiculous. What’s the fully loaded takeoff weight of that aircraft?
380 tonnes = 418 tons (right?) for A340-600.
Let’s see .. 100 X 2000 = 200,000 lbs. over Max gross?
Are you sure?
We taught did 3°/sec, but I can see them scraping the tail if they miscalculated the takeoff weight by 100K!
No way they were 100 tons overweightThose 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
AbstractAt 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.
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.
