#1
|
|||
|
|||
Emirates A345 tail strike
From the ABC
Quote:
link to the pprune photos here http://www.pprune.org/d-g-reporting-...strike-ml.html The ATSB report may be a intersting read when its released. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
those pictures seem to show some pretty significant damage!
now start the rumours lol
__________________
Next Flights: 08/7 PER-DRW QF | 15/7 DRW-PER QF // 14/8 PER-MEL JQ | 15/8 MEL-PER JQ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Oops.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Another factual report from Avherald
This report is from the Avherald at http://avherald.com/h?article=416c9997&opt=0
Quote:
__________________
Philip Last edited by Philip Argy; 21st March 2009 at 11:35 PM. Reason: Added PPRune rumour |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I always was under the impression that Airbus (FBW) aircraft weren't able to over-rotate, amongst other things?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The choice between grabbing a whole lot of elevator, scraping the tail then dumping some Jet-A and returning to discuss the issue or ending up as a smoking pile of wreckage in the gullies of Keilor Park.. pretty simple decision in many ways. The question why the 'bus had not become an Airbus by the end of the runway.. interested on the real answer to that. Cheers |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
I'm thinking about thousands of litres of Kerosine dumped "overhead the ocean at Port Phillip Bay"
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
More facts needed
Each report seems to raise more questions than it answers. Right now over weight and unbalanced load seems plausible, but where the hell were they at V1? An RTO might have been safer than a tail scrape, but I agree a tail scrape was better than Keilor Park or southbound on the Calder Freeway.
__________________
Philip |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mike,
When fuel dumping in flight is required, it must (where possible) conduct a controlled dump in clear air above 6000ft and in an area nominated by ATC. This requirement means that from above 6000ft the fuel would have vapourised before hitting the ground/water. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Phillip, unfortunately if they were overweight, then V1 is a useless figure. It is highly dependant on weight, so when they got to their V1 point, depending on if Emirates calculate it as a "stop" or "go" speed, it may well have already been too late to stop on the runway.
That said, in order to achieve this the aircraft would have to be a LOT heavier than they thought, or a very significant tailwind above what they had calculated as they tried to get airborne (eg windshear). An extra 5 tonne or so is unlikely to cause this. If the load shifted during rotate, they may not have had any notice until they were trying to actually get airborne, in which case there isn't much they can do but try and wrestle it into the air and make it fly. That said, the troubling part is that it used up every inch of runway (and a few more!). Freight shifting could certainly cause a tailstrike, but I can't see how it would lengthen the takeoff by the rather signficant amount that it did. Mike W, would you rather them attempt to dump fuel over a clear area (where possible above a height where it vapourises before it reaches the ground) or would you rather jeapodise the safety of an aircraft? The jet needed to dump fuel to return. Its not ideal, but when it has to be done, it has to be done. |
|
|