digits_ wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:43 am
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?
Skid plate would add a lot of weight - simpler not to strike the tail in the first place!
There is a deliberate tailstrike during VMU testing. A skid plate is installed to prevent damage.
They may not have had a skid plate, but did they not have a tail strike caution light? Did they even know they had a tail strike? They didn’t say anything to ATC about a tail strike. They just said they were trying to avoid a long landing.
I was taxiing on Alpha to runway 23 a few nights ago and I saw it in the AC Hangar. Is it being worked on by AC engineers, or did Airbus / AF send out its people from France?
RoAF-Mig21 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:43 pm
I was taxiing on Alpha to runway 23 a few nights ago and I saw it in the AC Hangar. Is it being worked on by AC engineers, or did Airbus / AF send out its people from France?
airway wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 12:00 pm
They may not have had a skid plate, but did they not have a tail strike caution light? Did they even know they had a tail strike? They didn’t say anything to ATC about a tail strike. They just said they were trying to avoid a long landing.
Don't fly the A350 - none of the other airbus types I have flown have a tailstrike warning.
It's certainly possible the crew were unaware - they were suddenly in an unexpected high workload situation.
It's possible they were getting a Red CONFIG warning when applying TOGA thrust if full flaps were selected.
The final report should clarify a lot of things.
airbus used to have a "TOGA 10" procedure in case of a balked landing - TOGA thrust and max 10 degrees of pitch until the aircraft is climbing. This procedure was designed to prevent exactly what happened to this aircraft. It is no longer in the manuals.
---------- ADS -----------
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
airway wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 12:00 pm
They may not have had a skid plate, but did they not have a tail strike caution light? Did they even know they had a tail strike? They didn’t say anything to ATC about a tail strike. They just said they were trying to avoid a long landing.
Don't fly the A350 - none of the other airbus types I have flown have a tailstrike warning.
It's certainly possible the crew were unaware - they were suddenly in an unexpected high workload situation.
It's possible they were getting a Red CONFIG warning when applying TOGA thrust if full flaps were selected.
The final report should clarify a lot of things.
airbus used to have a "TOGA 10" procedure in case of a balked landing - TOGA thrust and max 10 degrees of pitch until the aircraft is climbing. This procedure was designed to prevent exactly what happened to this aircraft. It is no longer in the manuals.
It seems like there can be a real tendency for some on the go-around to forget how close they are to the ground and just pitch for 15 degrees. Why not just do a nice shallow pitch initially until well clear of the ground. That was the reason for the TOGA ten procedure. Even of it is TOGA 5, just get well clear of the ground before really pitching up. One should be at a relatively light weight as they are landing, so unlikely to be struggling to climb.
As for widebodies landing on the short runway in YYZ, you will likely find yourself doing that it Paris and LA as the long runways are used for departures, so mostly irrelevant. If they were going around due to not touching down in the first 3000' of runway, they would be going around regardless of runway length(although they might be less likely to go-around on a long runway).
homesick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2024 1:30 pm
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.
“Used up” as in ‘we used up too much runway’, could have been lost in translation (in the heat of the moment) from the French language as “occupied” in English means ‘in use’ … so here saying “runway is occupied” actually means ‘runway was used up’ and “avoided a long landing” means ‘we avoided an overrun’ .
Inverted2 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:19 am
Air France and 24L don’t mix.
The O5 accident on this same rwy came through a shot of 30-40 tailwind component not too far from the threshold, with the severe wind shifts around some unusually heavy thunderstorm activity encountered at a time when a number of other flights were diverted to alternates.
In this incident, it doesn’t appear anything too unusual to see under the glide slope/approach other than a rise in air temp at the time. However I wonder about the hockey sticks trailing the short surface warm front shown on the gfa just to the north at the time. That could mean despite the clear view some extra energy was needed higher up (as In the O5 final approach) and then shaking off a brief performance shear in the flare became troublesome.
Is it true that those hockey sticks such as are depicted on the gfa 211800Z/220000Z are a Canadian thing only?
Inverted2 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 10:19 am
Air France and 24L don’t mix.
The O5 accident on this same rwy came through a shot of 30-40 tailwind component not too far from the threshold, with the severe wind shifts around some unusually heavy thunderstorm activity encountered at a time when a number of other flights were diverted to alternates.
In this incident, it doesn’t appear anything too unusual to see under the glide slope/approach other than a rise in air temp at the time. However I wonder about the hockey sticks trailing the short surface warm front shown on the gfa just to the north at the time. That could mean despite the clear view some extra energy was needed higher up (as In the O5 final approach) and then shaking off a brief performance shear in the flare became troublesome.
Is it true that those hockey sticks such as are depicted on the gfa 211800Z/220000Z are a Canadian thing only?
Nobody else had a problem I think it’s just a case of poor piloting
I noticed the ATC question about it, so it just seemed to me they were curious what that was from the pilot’s perspective….even though it might seem so very obvious to an onlooker.
Inverted2 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 4:33 pm
It’s been sitting in YYZ for 6 weeks now. Must have some significant damage.
Thats nothing.....Air Transats brand new A320 NEO that was damaged in YVR sat for something like 9 months before Airbus got out there to fix it. Then it took a couple months for them to actually repair it.
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 (higher energy approaching the rwy).
A “wind” ier performance (brief stronger hdwnd period) seems to be over rwy during this landing affecting this flare delaying touch down. Ability to change pitch quickly to adjust AOA is not as available at that point it seems (from previous explanations)
So yeah maybe if the performance increase is more of a gusty nature (in that case a “decrease” there would be from abatement)
How exact can you keep track of TODA/LDA when sprung with re-judging it for a latent touchdown point where already well into ‘occupying’ a rwy length.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pdw on Sat Mar 09, 2024 9:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
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.
