Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emirates A340 Tailstrike at Melbourne Airport

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Emirates A340 Tailstrike at Melbourne Airport

    Heard it from a mate (whose mother was on the plane), then it was on the news. Anyone have more info?

  • #2
    Airbus A340-541 A6-ERG had a tail strike on departure from Runway 16, also impacting the localiser antenna beyond the end of the runway.

    Whilst dumping fuel to return smoke entered the cabin at which time an emergency was declared and the aircraft returned on to Runway 34.



    Comment


    • #3
      A big jerk on the yoke?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
        A big jerk on the yoke?
        No, on the sidestick.
        However, there MUST be more to thyis story than just a big jerk.

        Certification standards require the airplane to achieve V2 and 35ft of altitude over the runway threshold even if the most critical engine fails at the worst possible time, and to climb with a minimum required gradient thereafter.

        Taking that gradient and substracting a safety margin (that is, assuming that the climb gradient will be worse than required), the airplane must be able to clear obstacles by at least 35ft vertically, and that would include the localizer antena.

        Speculation starts now:

        An engine didn't fail, or we would know by now.
        With all engines running, the airclraft should easily exceed the above stated requirements by a large margin. But it didn't.
        That means that the performance was degraded. Two options:

        - The engines didn't deliver all the thrust they were supposed to, or
        - The airplane was grossly overweight, thus diminishing the acceleration and requiering more speed to lift off.

        In any case, the pilot noted that the end of the runway was getting unexpectedly close and the PNF hadn't yet called "rotate". It was clearly too late to abort, so he pulled hard back on the sidestick in an attempt to get the airplane flying before the end of the runway. It worked, but not without a tail strike, a localizer antena strike, and a dose of luck.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          N
          Speculation starts now:

          An engine didn't fail, or we would know by now.
          With all engines running, the airclraft should easily exceed the above stated requirements by a large margin. But it didn't.
          That means that the performance was degraded. Two options:

          - The engines didn't deliver all the thrust they were supposed to, or
          - The airplane was grossly overweight, thus diminishing the acceleration and requiering more speed to lift off.

          In any case, the pilot noted that the end of the runway was getting unexpectedly close and the PNF hadn't yet called "rotate". It was clearly too late to abort, so he pulled hard back on the sidestick in an attempt to get the airplane flying before the end of the runway. It worked, but not without a tail strike, a localizer antena strike, and a dose of luck.
          There were some reports that there was more than one tailstrike, which would suggest some sort of pitch oscillations. What caused those oscillations would be the big question.

          Comment


          • #6
            It took out a bunch of runway lights too. We drove past it a few times as it has been parked on the freight line which we go past to and from work. Quite funny as they had tried to cover up the damage with big sheets of plastic taped to the fuselage, but have been torn by the wind so you could see plenty. And a security guard has been posted under the tail.

            We would drive past really slowly and the poor guys would wave us on trying to get us to move off. We would all wave back.

            340s have had trouble at melbourne, a couple of years ago a Thai 340-600 hit the runway all crossed up blowing tyres and gouging the runway. a fews weeks later the went back to 777s to melbourne.

            One of our pilots was on approach as the Emirates 340 took off and said they used the whole runway to get airborne.

            I reckon they were too heavy and perhaps did not use full length.
            To put into perspective all the heavies including A380s and 747s are normally wheels up crossing over the threshold and easily few hundred feet up. Runway 16 is 3657m in length. Have never seen anything struggle to get up.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm not sure but I think the A340 has pitch protection to prevent a tail drag. Once airborne (main wheels off the ground) pitch protection reverts to the Alpha floor.

              If SPAD13's report of pitch oscillations is true, things were not normal. But why did the aircraft hit the localizer antenna? Weight & balance, engine problems, thrust selection or a combination are suggested.
              Don
              Standard practice for managers around the world:
              Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

              Comment


              • #8
                Could of been a shifting cargo load which upset the balance in the first place. Don't know anything about the cargo people down under.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Read this morning that the possibility of an "engine surge" is being investigated. Interesting.
                  Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/flyingphotog

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The crew were on a plane back to Dubai within three hours of landing. A rather hasty departure

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Theoddkiwi View Post
                      The crew were on a plane back to Dubai within three hours of landing. A rather hasty departure
                      I've heard that is just a rumour, that the crew (pilots at least) are in Melbourne assisting the ATSB.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Flight International is reporting that the pilots have 'resigned' from Emirates:
                        From Flight International
                        By Kieran Daly

                        The pilots flying the Emirates Airbus A340-500 that suffered a severe tailstrike at Melbourne on 20 March have left the airline.

                        A spokesman for the carrier says: "I can confirm that they have resigned." He declined to give any further explanation.

                        The aircraft (A6-ERG) remains in Australia after being extensively damaged on take-off from the 3660m (12,000ft) runway 16 during which it suffered at least one tailstrike and is reported to have struck antennas just beyond the runway end.

                        It climbed to an intermediate altitude before dumping fuel for about 30min and then returned to Melbourne instead of continuing to Dubai. It landed without further incident.

                        No further information on the cause of the accident has been released, although ATI understands that suggestions of a problem with one of the four Rolls-Royce Trent 500 engines have been ruled out, despite passenger reports of seeing sparks or flame from one of them during the take-off run.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          more rumours....

                          Aircraft maywell be written off, it is still hidden in the hangers and Melbourne airport with the damage disguised with cardboard painted over with white. The aft pressure bulkhead was apparently crushed and as it is composite no one has ever damaged one before, and a repair could prove to be difficult.

                          We had expected them to try to fly it out at low altitude, but no its still there.

                          No wonder they resigned.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Initial report:

                            http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200901310.aspx

                            The core of it:

                            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.
                            Told ya!

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              A human error of 100 tons (220,000 pounds)! In other words they forgot about most of the 757 (240,000 pounds) they had loaded on board.

                              Here is where some input from an automated scale would be valuable or some kind of a double check when inputting data into the lap top.
                              Don
                              Standard practice for managers around the world:
                              Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X