cdnavater wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:42 am
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.
A “decrease” seems already happens gradually here (warm air aloft drawing from southeast … toward North) experienced after right turn toward the 3000’fix and toward threshold. The “wind” ier performance (brief stronger hdwnd period) seems to be over rwy during this landing affecting this flare delaying touch down.
How exact can you keep track of TODA when sprung with re-judging a latent touchdown point in your landing from an ‘exaggerated flare’ where already well into ‘occupying’ the rwy length.
pdw,
The procedures for dealing with gradual wind changes are the same in any aircraft from your 172 up to the A380, you increase or decrease thrust or power as needed to keep a constant airspeed. Gusty winds are more challenging as the changes are more rapid, needing a more rapid response from the flying pilot, windshear is obviously something that needs to be dealt with on a more urgent basis, which we have procedures for.
If a crew didn’t properly deal with a gradual change in temperature or wind changes, they could have drifted of the stable profile and should have initiated a go around before they used up half the runway before touching down, of course I wasn’t there so I don’t know what happened and anything other than that is pure speculation.
Seriously, a friend of mine has flown all of the airbus product, he says the A340-600 is the most susceptible to tail strikes due to its length he has flown, think he meant on TO maybe….
Since this took place after landing the wind does not appear to be a factor in the tailstrike.
Pilots sometimes want pitch up to 15 degrees much too quickly on go-around. Perhaps it is instinct to get away from the ground in a problem situation. One can end up striking the tail even after they have gotten airborne.
My theory is that one will likely not fly the go-around procedure perfectly. Therefore, better to err on the side of to low pitch rather than too high.
After all, your max landing weight is well below a heavy takeoff weight, so you should have decent climb performance even with pitch below ideal target.
Aircraft type and it’s susceptibility to tail strike is a factor to consider.
Since this took place after landing the wind does not appear to be a factor in the tailstrike.
If the mini function had 8kts tailwind example for 2, instead of the 50kts hdwnd, and “tower wind “ 250M 9kts would be nearer numbers for this approach (n/s wrm front at surface passing to the north from W to E very swiftly 1800-00Z). Pilots don’t see the actual approach component numbers. (see fine print on link /bottom of page)
8tail to 20kts would be net 28 increase (sustained) initiating glide slope after 3, showing pilots a “low energy” as throttle slowly added (same as for the 50kts in the link example), the airspeed only gradually trending higher at first .. then here the overrun speed alarm sounds over the runway.
Yes touchdown occurs 10 sec/1000ft prior to tail strike sequence, so varying approach components in no way affecting tail-ground contact incident itself (yet imo consider gust abatement there as Cdnavater “decrease” suggests.)
Since this took place after landing the wind does not appear to be a factor in the tailstrike.
If the mini function had 8kts tailwind example for 2, instead of the 50kts hdwnd, and “tower wind “ 250M 9kts would be nearer numbers for this approach (n/s wrm front at surface passing to the north from W to E very swiftly 1800-00Z). Pilots don’t see the actual approach component numbers. (see fine print on link /bottom of page)
8tail to 20kts would be net 28 increase (sustained) initiating glide slope after 3, showing pilots a “low energy” as throttle slowly added (same as for the 50kts in the link example), the airspeed only gradually trending higher at first .. then here the overrun speed alarm sounds over the runway.
Yes touchdown occurs 10 sec/1000ft prior to tail strike sequence, so varying approach components in no way affecting tail-ground contact incident itself (yet imo consider gust abatement there as Cdnavater “decrease” suggests.)
Ok … drawing an arrow from the middle of l.Ontario towards the nearest lowest pressure you can see on the map ..
That means the air from over the east of the lake also heads in that direction .. held warm by the water it moves that way because all around the lake cold air flows downhill onto it (flows to the lowest point off all the sourrounding land).
With the trough stretching well north of the airport it saps this warmed lake air across the warmer GTA underneath this approach path as the front (1800z gfa) sweeps by from west to east ..
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pdw on Fri Mar 15, 2024 3:46 am, edited 3 times in total.
Ok, there is no more CYKZ, so the nearest airport-grade metar data (at least ten meters up) E of YYZ is Trenton Ontario. Archived GFA 211800-0000Z maps are enough to identify directions of circulation drawn in by trough.
Edit
post below reminds me of ‘don’t shoot messenger’
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pdw on Sat Mar 16, 2024 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
lownslow wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:39 am
I wonder if we’ll get to see a Beluga deliver a new fuselage section to YYZ
I doubt it - but It would depend on how big the tailcone is (if it's being replaced) The skin sections and tooling containers for Transats plane were delivered in a Cargojet 767. The fuselage skin sections for the 350 would probably fit a 67 as well.
