Air Canada tailstrike in Hong Kong

[sportingrifle]

Yes it is.

[telex]

It seriously cracks me up with all you guys talking about this crew as if they are 2000 hr wonders....before you post, how about you state what experience you have and what you are basing your opinion on.

HKG can be a sneaky bitch of an airport, the winds were in the perfect direction for wind shear, although the velocity wasn't where it should have been, anyone who has flown in here will back me up in how quickly things can change. As for proper X-wind technique, LOL anyone want to take a guess in how much a GE90-115BL cost? Let me give you a ball park, over the 40 million mark. Not really in the mood to bounce one of those off the ground. This is not the type of plane you give a foot full of rudder and slip it on, yes it can very well do that, in smooth consistent winds, in gusty variable conditions the proper procedure is to have a bit of crab on touch down, have the mains hit the centreline, while the cockpit is off to the left or right, it takes some getting used to, The gear is designed to crab on touch down for this reason.

As for what happened, who knows, its a hell of a long day, you feel like shit at this point and more then a little slow, it doesn't take much for something to change and it bite you in the ass.

The Skipper and F/O have been around for years, although the F/O was on a training flight. They both were more then qualified to be in those seats, much more qualified then the majority commenting here.

You guys talk like they should have hand bombed it in from 20 Grand....this ain't Northern Ontario.

Do you and rockie share a user name? Must protect the mothership at all costs...

12 knot crosswind on landing. Yeah it's a bitch I know. The profession is truly dead after this near death experience only averted by qualified crew members sacrificing an airframe and saving the $40 million engines. Heroes I tell you.

Two relief pilots onboard and still blame the duty day? Or did you blame the $40 million engine you wanted to protect? What dollar value comparison are you placing on the tail strike vs a pod strike? Surely the $40 million engine would not have been lost? How long has the airframe been out of service now? Does a grounded airframe get relief on insurance and lease costs?

Or was it the runway change which was to blame for the tail strike? Yes a bitch indeed. "Official cause of tail strike was found to be runway change". Maybe you can direct me to the reports which blames runway change for tail strikes? This event has resulted in substantial aircraft damage. ppp I'm sorry to tell you but that is an accident by definition.

How about the PF who was inexperienced on type WHO WAS CONDUCTING HIS OR HER FIRST LANDING ON TYPE over controlling the aircraft as a contributing factor?

The initial report mentions the Captain's experience. But not the FO's experience. Curious why such a qualified crew member would not have his/her experience noted.

But you mention the FO was more than qualified. But then offer the escape clause mentioning a training flight. So not qualified. Or sort of qualified. Or qualified in other areas but not qualified in this particular landing as HK is a bitch that can bite you in the ass. Or some shit.

I don't fault the Captain. Start the day off right. Nice to meet you. Which way do you want to fly?

Some days it's better to say I will take us there. You will take us back. Hopefully the candidate picks up a few things right from the get go.

Other days the Captain tests you from the day you get on the bus.

Now you need my quals to justify my comments?

Back to you ppp.

How many airplanes land per year in HK?

It was just this particular bitch of a 12 knot crosswind protecting $40 million dollar engines with a runway change that caused this particular event with an airframe that had a maple leaf on the tail?

[pelmet]

Probably best at this point in the discussion to wait for the final report. It will be interesting to see if there were significantly stronger winds out of the north at low altitude. If I remember correctly, there is a caution about Low Level Jets(wind that is) during the winter. Something that could cause a shear. There can be some interesting wind patterns in some of these locations. Anchorage is pretty much the most bizarre that I have seen.

Perhaps other factors were involved that had little or mothing to do with the winds or a shear but it has been brought up as a possibility and is a good reminder that one should never assume that the surface wind is similar to the wind at a couple of hundred feet without some sort of corroboration, especially in mountainous terrain. Fortunately, modern Boeing's have a wind vector displayed which can be very helpful making it easier to anticipate sudden wind changes, although it is surprising how often the big wind change happens smoothly, potentially lulling one into complacency.

[C.W.E.]

It was just this particular bitch of a 12 knot crosswind protecting $40 million dollar engines with a runway change that caused this particular event with an airframe that had a maple leaf on the tail?

I guess it was just another Air Canada " Hard landing "

But this time it was on the runway not before it.

[LETUN]

Agree with Telex, the 777 is easy to fly and nothing special about the airport and WX, the WS note in the Jepp is a red herring in this case. And as he said, first landing in a WB should have been done by the captain so that the trainee gets the "picture".
For whatever reason, people new to the 777 have a tendency to over control the ailerons, creating PIO. People coming from the 737s being the worst offenders. A good demonstration is to tell the fo to let go of the yoke for a moment; magically the approach becomes smooth. The 777 is super stable with 3-4 ft tail clearance on landing (16" on take-off).
Also agree with the comments about the treatment of AC's accidents/incidents from some posters. Change the livery for that of your favorite asian carrier or AF and this site would be on fire asking for overflight bans.

[LETUN]

C-FITW has returned to the line according to FR24 data.
Took 2 months to fix

[rookiepilot]

Also agree with the comments about the treatment of AC's accidents/incidents from some posters. Change the livery for that of your favorite asian carrier or AF and this site would be on fire asking for overflight bans.

LOL -- home gamer bias always....
Curious how many landings Cathay does in HKG a year, one of those super "dangerous" Asian carriers.....and how many accidents again?

[BMLtech]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 77-455730/

[pelmet]

The report is out.

https://www.thb.gov.hk/aaia/doc/Air%20C ... 0Dec21.pdf

For the fatigue caused another incident crowd....the pilots reported that they felt fine. 4 pilots on this flight.

For the windshear crowd.......there was a windshear alert of -25 knots to ATC about 12 minutes before the incident. However, the report states that the flights right before and after the incident flight reported no issues and that the FDR analysis showed a steady airspeed. Interpret as you like.

For the inexperienced pilot crowd....the pilot has plenty of hours. No mention of piloting ability in the report though(an AC insider would have to give us that).

According to the report, this incident was caused by PIO. The F/O adding more and more back and forth aileron inputs in the final couple of hundred feet. In fact, so much aileron input that he/she was going stop to stop with increasingly rapid inputs. Not quite sure how that sort of thing happens on any airliner in relatively smooth air. And the pilot had flown quite a few types.

Then there was no flare until the last second when an abrupt input was made once it became obvious that it should have been done earlier. Touchdown loading was over 3.5g.

Then they bounced and during the bounce, the F/O's beverage container fell on the floor. This would really not be the ideal time to pick it up but guess what?......the F/O, still flying the aircraft reached down to do exactly that. A subsequent touchdown was nosegear first.

While taxiing in, the captain mentioned that a there would have to be a tailstrike inspection and the F/O mentioned that to ATC. ATC didn't understand what was said and asked for clarification. The captain said to report severe turbulence. Therefore no runway inspection was made.

Actually, I did have a good hard landing by AC this past summer in an Embraer....nice weather too.

[Eric Janson]

The report is out.

https://www.thb.gov.hk/aaia/doc/Air%20C ... 0Dec21.pdf

The pictures on page 7 of the report are 'interesting' to say the least!

Surprised there wasn't an engine pod/flap strike (not sure what comes first on this aircraft).

[Inverted2]

“Then they bounced and during the bounce, the F/O's beverage container fell on the floor. This would really not be the ideal time to pick it up but guess what?......the F/O, still flying the aircraft reached down to do exactly that. A subsequent touchdown was nosegear first.”

I hope it was a solid gold yeti container full of unicorn tears. :

[Hangry]

The report is out.

https://www.thb.gov.hk/aaia/doc/Air%20C ... 0Dec21.pdf

For the fatigue caused another incident crowd....the pilots reported that they felt fine. 4 pilots on this flight.

For the windshear crowd.......there was a windshear alert of -25 knots to ATC about 12 minutes before the incident. However, the report states that the flights right before and after the incident flight reported no issues and that the FDR analysis showed a steady airspeed. Interpret as you like.

For the inexperienced pilot crowd....the pilot has plenty of hours. No mention of piloting ability in the report though(an AC insider would have to give us that).

According to the report, this incident was caused by PIO. The F/O adding more and more back and forth aileron inputs in the final couple of hundred feet. In fact, so much aileron input that he/she was going stop to stop with increasingly rapid inputs. Not quite sure how that sort of thing happens on any airliner in relatively smooth air. And the pilot had flown quite a few types.

Then there was no flare until the last second when an abrupt input was made once it became obvious that it should have been done earlier. Touchdown loading was over 3.5g.

Then they bounced and during the bounce, the F/O's beverage container fell on the floor. This would really not be the ideal time to pick it up but guess what?......the F/O, still flying the aircraft reached down to do exactly that. A subsequent touchdown was nosegear first.

While taxiing in, the captain mentioned that a there would have to be a tailstrike inspection and the F/O mentioned that to ATC. ATC didn't understand what was said and asked for clarification. The captain said to report severe turbulence. Therefore no runway inspection was made.

Actually, I did have a good hard landing by AC this past summer in an Embraer....nice weather too.

Amazing. AC stopped flying Embrarers well before this past summer.

[imjustlurking]

“Then they bounced and during the bounce, the F/O's beverage container fell on the floor. This would really not be the ideal time to pick it up but guess what?......the F/O, still flying the aircraft reached down to do exactly that. A subsequent touchdown was nosegear first.”

I hope it was a solid gold yeti container full of unicorn tears. :

Going to play devil's advocate here with disclosure; I have not flown the 777.

Having a solid drink container fall on the floor during landing can be dangerous as the forward force from deceleration may cause it to slide forward and interfere with the rudder pedals.

With that said, I recognize that I'm splitting hairs here. Really what needed to be done was a go-around, but many pilots these days are little bítches who are too afraid to admit that their approach isn't going the way it should and execute a missed approach.

[pelmet]

The report is out.

https://www.thb.gov.hk/aaia/doc/Air%20C ... 0Dec21.pdf

For the fatigue caused another incident crowd....the pilots reported that they felt fine. 4 pilots on this flight.

For the windshear crowd.......there was a windshear alert of -25 knots to ATC about 12 minutes before the incident. However, the report states that the flights right before and after the incident flight reported no issues and that the FDR analysis showed a steady airspeed. Interpret as you like.

For the inexperienced pilot crowd....the pilot has plenty of hours. No mention of piloting ability in the report though(an AC insider would have to give us that).

According to the report, this incident was caused by PIO. The F/O adding more and more back and forth aileron inputs in the final couple of hundred feet. In fact, so much aileron input that he/she was going stop to stop with increasingly rapid inputs. Not quite sure how that sort of thing happens on any airliner in relatively smooth air. And the pilot had flown quite a few types.

Then there was no flare until the last second when an abrupt input was made once it became obvious that it should have been done earlier. Touchdown loading was over 3.5g.

Then they bounced and during the bounce, the F/O's beverage container fell on the floor. This would really not be the ideal time to pick it up but guess what?......the F/O, still flying the aircraft reached down to do exactly that. A subsequent touchdown was nosegear first.

While taxiing in, the captain mentioned that a there would have to be a tailstrike inspection and the F/O mentioned that to ATC. ATC didn't understand what was said and asked for clarification. The captain said to report severe turbulence. Therefore no runway inspection was made.

Actually, I did have a good hard landing by AC this past summer in an Embraer....nice weather too.

Amazing. AC stopped flying Embrarers well before this past summer.

I have an unusual habit of marking things down for certain things. Comes from my mother's side of the family. But it does mean that I can sometimes go back and find details. I did that with my list of aircraft that I have flown on as a passenger. It has actually become a long list over the years.

You are correct. It was an A220 that has replaced what was always an Embraer flight for the last several years.

Thanks.

[Inverted2]

“Then they bounced and during the bounce, the F/O's beverage container fell on the floor. This would really not be the ideal time to pick it up but guess what?......the F/O, still flying the aircraft reached down to do exactly that. A subsequent touchdown was nosegear first.”

I hope it was a solid gold yeti container full of unicorn tears. :

Going to play devil's advocate here with disclosure; I have not flown the 777.

Having a solid drink container fall on the floor during landing can be dangerous as the forward force from deceleration may cause it to slide forward and interfere with the rudder pedals.

With that said, I recognize that I'm splitting hairs here. Really what needed to be done was a go-around, but many pilots these days are little bítches who are too afraid to admit that their approach isn't going the way it should and execute a missed approach.

I’ve never flown a 777 either and never will but in my 16,000 hours I’ve had lots of water bottles and other junk fall during flight and landing but never once did I think of grabbing at something on the floor especially during the most critical few seconds of a flight.

[pelmet]

Going to play devil's advocate here with disclosure; I have not flown the 777.

Having a solid drink container fall on the floor during landing can be dangerous as the forward force from deceleration may cause it to slide forward and interfere with the rudder pedals.

If you take a look at a lot of airliners like the 777, you will see that the pilots legs are in channels that go to the rudder pedals, It is not like a typical general aviation airplane where there is a wide open floor space. It is unlikely that a drink container will somehow get behind those rudder pedals with the pilot operating the aircraft. And if it does, just leave it there.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... cation.jpg

Just fly the aircraft.

[rudder]

That is an ugly report. And it was a training Captain in the left seat to boot.

Nobody wants to do a go-around after a 15 hour flight. But that is what should have happened. Or transfer of control early enough to avoid the inevitable outcome of an unstable approach below 500AGL.

Lessons to be learned by all reading the report, particularly left seaters.

[imjustlurking]

Going to play devil's advocate here with disclosure; I have not flown the 777.

Having a solid drink container fall on the floor during landing can be dangerous as the forward force from deceleration may cause it to slide forward and interfere with the rudder pedals.

If you take a look at a lot of airliners like the 777, you will see that the pilots legs are in channels that go to the rudder pedals, It is not like a typical general aviation airplane where there is a wide open floor space. It is unlikely that a drink container will somehow get behind those rudder pedals with the pilot operating the aircraft. And if it does, just leave it there.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... cation.jpg

Just fly the aircraft.

Honestly, with how little I've flown over the past few years, I'm not surprised that my mind went back to my Cessna days.

[pelmet]

Going to play devil's advocate here with disclosure; I have not flown the 777.

Having a solid drink container fall on the floor during landing can be dangerous as the forward force from deceleration may cause it to slide forward and interfere with the rudder pedals.

If you take a look at a lot of airliners like the 777, you will see that the pilots legs are in channels that go to the rudder pedals, It is not like a typical general aviation airplane where there is a wide open floor space. It is unlikely that a drink container will somehow get behind those rudder pedals with the pilot operating the aircraft. And if it does, just leave it there.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... cation.jpg

Just fly the aircraft.

Honestly, with how little I've flown over the past few years, I'm not surprised that my mind went back to my Cessna days.

Off subject but I do wonder if there was a reason it was designed like this. Why do I ask. There was a 747 incident over the Pacific a few years back where the rudder actuator failed resulting in one of the two rudder panels going to full deflection. Apparently a lot of rudder pressure was required to push the other rudder pedal the other way which was extremely tiring. The pilots took turns holding rudder input. I had thought that it might be nice to get both feet on one rudder pedal....but that is not possible with this design. Plus the control column is in the way.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=222509782636317

[imjustlurking]

If you take a look at a lot of airliners like the 777, you will see that the pilots legs are in channels that go to the rudder pedals, It is not like a typical general aviation airplane where there is a wide open floor space. It is unlikely that a drink container will somehow get behind those rudder pedals with the pilot operating the aircraft. And if it does, just leave it there.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... cation.jpg

Just fly the aircraft.

Honestly, with how little I've flown over the past few years, I'm not surprised that my mind went back to my Cessna days.

Off subject but I do wonder if there was a reason it was designed like this. Why do I ask. There was a 747 incident over the Pacific a few years back where the rudder actuator failed resulting in one of the two rudder panels going to full deflection. Apparently a lot of rudder pressure was required to push the other rudder pedal the other way which was extremely tiring. The pilots took turns holding rudder input. I had thought that it might be nice to get both feet on one rudder pedal....but that is not possible with this design. Plus the control column is in the way.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=222509782636317

Diving further away from what I know and into speculation, I suspect that the mechanism used to move the pedals fore and aft is covered by the box like structure. It's likely designed that large out of ease of building and maintenance.