Air France tailstrike

[rigpiggy]

Just saw a YouTube short @gustodiaries where af356 aborted the landing in yyz,and dragged its butt.

Anyone have further info

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/xbDy3TMw7wQ

[Donald]

https://avherald.com/h?article=513fc722&opt=0

An Air France Airbus A350-900, registration F-HTYH performing flight AF-356 from Paris Charles de Gaulle (France) to Toronto,ON (Canada), was landing on Toronto's runway 24L when the aircraft bounced, increased the pitch and contacted the runway surface with its tail before climbing out to safety. The aircraft positioned for another approach to runway 24L about 15 minutes later, landed without further incident and taxied to the apron. There were no injuries, the aircraft sustained substantial damage however.

france_a359_f-htyh_toronto_240121_2.jpg (99.75 KiB) Viewed 7477 times

france_a359_f-htyh_toronto_240121_1.jpg (77.04 KiB) Viewed 7477 times

That is a lot of elevator deflection for a balked or bounced landing procedure.

[Inverted2]

Air France and 24L don’t mix.

[cdnavater]

My first thought is loss of lift due to airspeed(or decrease in wind), the reaction to the sudden drop was pull back while very likely calling for a go around.
What I don’t see is any ground spoiler in that photo, so they either left some thrust on or added thrust during the sink rate that developed, as I assume that like most bigger aircraft the ground lift dump system needs all parameters to be met before activation.
Of course I would like to hear a take from someone who flies the A350, which does not include any Canadian airlines at this point.

[digits_]

Would that cause substantial damage? Obviously it looks bad, but aren't they designed to take a certain beating?

[cdnavater]

Looking at the picture of the damage, it goes past what appears to be the pressure bulkhead, that aircraft is likely going to be there for months.
I can’t tell for sure but it looks like rivets there, so likely a metal tail section and all those skins will need to be replaced, bulkhead inspection at minimum. There is also likely a minimum of an X-ray to ensure no cracking, how do you define substantial damage if not what you see there?
I’m not an expert, just been in the industry long enough to know, this is going to ground this aircraft for a while, slight chance they could ferry it unpressurized back to France for the repairs, I wouldn’t want to be the ferry pilot myself.

[Donald]

Tough to tell from the pax video, but it sounds/looks like:

Crunch/bounce

Rotate

Engine spool up.

[JasonE]

Didn't look so bad from the passenger view point, possible it could have been recovered instead of a go around?

[cdnavater]

Didn't look so bad from the passenger view point, possible it could have been recovered instead of a go around?

Do you fly 705?
The recovery from a bounced landing in an aircraft with ground lift dump/ground spoilers should be a go around due to the risk of the deployment of the system in the air due to all parameters being met.
Example, the RJ parameters are wheel spin sensed of 16 knots, rad alt above 7’, Weight on wheels and thrust levers at idle. During a bounce with thrust levers above idle, you could have the first three from the bounce and then if you reduce the thrust levers to idle, the last being met and your lift spoiler deploy while in the air. To prevent this, if you initiate a go around the last parameter is not met, thrust levers forward of idle. Of course the main issue being engine spool up from near idle to go around thrust puts you in a precarious position of low airspeed and low thrust, I don’t know the procedure for an A350 but my guess is they are all similar, don’t rotate to the go around attitude until the engines are back airspeed above Vref.

[Donald]

Didn't look so bad from the passenger view point, possible it could have been recovered instead of a go around?

Allegedly on LiveATC the pilots said "we have avoided a long landing" after the go around.

[JasonE]

Didn't look so bad from the passenger view point, possible it could have been recovered instead of a go around?

Do you fly 705?

No, hence my question.

[cdnavater]

Didn't look so bad from the passenger view point, possible it could have been recovered instead of a go around?

Do you fly 705?

No, hence my question.

Which is why I answered, focus on that, my question was more rhetorical because I assumed anyone who does would know

[Donald]

Do the Airbus products have the ability to predict long landings and make an auto-callout?

[Tbayer2021]

Do the Airbus products have the ability to predict long landings and make an auto-callout?

The airbus I fly has Runway Overrun Warning and Runway Overrun Protection, ROW/ROP. ROW applies in flight and is go around oriented, while ROP applies on ground and is stop oriented.

ROW applies in flight (from 500RA) all the way to auto break activation and predicts stopping distance and does trigger an alert in case it predicts an overrun.

[daedalusx]

Do the Airbus products have the ability to predict long landings and make an auto-callout?

Honeywell has RAAS / Smartlanding offered as an option for both Boeing and Airbus products as well as a few modern Bizjets.
Up to the carrier to decide if they want to spend the money on it.

[RoAF-Mig21]

How does the BTV (Brake to Vacate) system work in this scenario? I think the A350 has that. (Sorry I don't fly any Airbus planes)

[Tbayer2021]

How does the BTV (Brake to Vacate) system work in this scenario? I think the A350 has that. (Sorry I don't fly any Airbus planes)

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/them ... system.pdf

[homesick]

I was a passenger on the flight.

The flare was quite exaggerated and I knew just before the impact that it wasn't ops normal.

But the strike felt more like hard landing rather than a tail impact.

The captain made a PA saying they went around because of the runway being occupied.

[cdnavater]

I was a passenger on the flight.

The flare was quite exaggerated and I knew just before the impact that it wasn't ops normal.

But the strike felt more like hard landing rather than a tail impact.

The captain made a PA saying they went around because of the runway being occupied.

I’m guessing that was better than, we fucked up! Lol
Odds are very few will ever know the extent of the event they were in, especially since the announcement basically said it was ATCs fault, not many will search it out.

[Eric Janson]

Had a listen to the sounds on the video.

It sounds like idle reverse was selected then cancelled before the engines spooled up for the rejected landing.

Maybe procedures are different with the ROW/ROP system - but on all jets I've flown a go-around after selecting reverse is strictly prohibited.

Will be interesting to read the report on this. This is an accident so there will be one.

[boeingboy]

Would that cause substantial damage? Obviously it looks bad, but aren't they designed to take a certain beating?

Yes - Repairs are going to take a long time to accomplish....and it will no doubt be Airbus that does the repair.

The A350 fuse comprises of carbon composite panels (4) riveted to aluminum frames, and the tailcone is one piece carbon composite piece. So the repairs will be complex. Depending on the amount of damage to the parts - you may be able to do a repair on them - however the logistical issues combined with the fact it was built in 2021, plus the time required to do that - would lead me to suspect that they will simply remove the damaged pieces and replace them as an entire assy rather than try to repair them in field.

[co-joe]

Air France and 24L don’t mix.

Crazy that an airport with 5 runways, makes heavies land on the shortest one. Toronto logic.

[Eric Janson]

Would that cause substantial damage? Obviously it looks bad, but aren't they designed to take a certain beating?

Yes - as posted above I would expect a lot of damage to the underlaying structure. Structure is designed for aerodynamic loads - not for ground impact.

There is an aft bulkhead - the rest of the tailcone is unpressurised.

I suspect the damage runs forward of this bulkhead. Major structural repairs if that's the case.

[Donald]

Audio:

https://youtu.be/KSZgDsSA2qc?si=QcoZrSP8U1qPG_eR

[digits_]

Would that cause substantial damage? Obviously it looks bad, but aren't they designed to take a certain beating?

Yes - as posted above I would expect a lot of damage to the underlaying structure. Structure is designed for aerodynamic loads - not for ground impact.

There is an aft bulkhead - the rest of the tailcone is unpressurised.

I suspect the damage runs forward of this bulkhead. Major structural repairs if that's the case.

That makes sense. I guess I was expecting a plane of this size to have a skid plate. Would a skid plate be /have been sufficient to catch this type of damage?