Sydney Airport Message Board Sydney Airport Message Board  

Go Back   Sydney Airport Message Board > Aviation Industry News and Discussion > Australia and New Zealand Industry


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 21st March 2009, 10:40 AM
damien b damien b is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 223
Default Emirates A345 tail strike

From the ABC

Quote:
A plane has been forced to return to Melbourne Airport overnight after smoke was noticed in the cabin.

The tail of the Emirates flight struck the tarmac as it was taking off late last night, and later returned to the airport after smoke was noticed inside the aircraft.

An airport spokesman says the plane landed safety and none of the 225 passengers were injured.

The cause of the smoke appearing is not yet known.
There are photos of the damage on PPrune and it looks like the fuselage skin was 'removed' in places as some stringers are certainly visible. Some more information is on the site as well including a possible heavy landing and damage to the landing gear.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 21st March 2009, 12:29 PM
Rhys Xanthis Rhys Xanthis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 992
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 21st March 2009, 09:24 PM
Owen H Owen H is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 365
Default

Oops.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 21st March 2009, 11:33 PM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Strathfield
Posts: 1,402
Post Another factual report from Avherald

This report is from the Avherald at http://avherald.com/h?article=416c9997&opt=0

Quote:

Accident: Emirates A345 at Melbourne on Mar 20th 2009, tail strike and overrun on takeoff
By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Mar 20th 2009 23:11Z, last updated Saturday, Mar 21st 2009 08:12Z
An Emirates Airlines Airbus A340-500, registration A6-ERG performing flight EK-407 from Melbourne,VI (Australia) to Dubai (United Arab Emirates) with 225 people on board, experienced a tail strike on takeoff from Melbourne's runway 16 (length 3657 meters/12000 feet) at around 22:30 local (12:30Z), hit the runway end lights and the localizer antenna past the end of runway 16. The airplane climbed out safely, went to dump fuel overhead the ocean at Port Phillip Bay but returned for an immediate emergency landing when smoke started to fill the cabin about 30 minutes after takeoff. The airplane landed heavily on Melbourne's runway 34 and was able to taxi to the apron after being checked out by emergency services.

Severe abrazions occured to the tail skin and several access panels were ripped off during the tailstrike, the landing reportedly caused additional damage to the gear.

The Melbourne Airport confirmed, that several runway end lights were damaged in the accident, too, and needed to be replaced. NOTAMs (NOTices for AirMen) state, that the ILS runway 16 will not be available until March 23rd: "F2248/09 - ILS RWY16 'IMS' FREQ 109.7 NOT AVBL. 20 MAR 16:10 2009 UNTIL 23 MAR 07:00 2009 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 20 MAR 16:10 2009"

In daylight Saturday morning it was established, that the airplane was still on the ground when it passed the runway end during takeoff, according gear tracks were found in the soft ground past the runway end.

PPRune mentions a rumour that freight shifted to the rear on rotation - that potentially adds an interesting element to the factual matrix and perhaps shifts the focus to the loadmaster more than the flight crew.
__________________
Philip

Last edited by Philip Argy; 21st March 2009 at 11:35 PM. Reason: Added PPRune rumour
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22nd March 2009, 12:42 AM
Daniel M Daniel M is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 329
Default

I always was under the impression that Airbus (FBW) aircraft weren't able to over-rotate, amongst other things?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 22nd March 2009, 01:12 AM
Chris Griffiths Chris Griffiths is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel M View Post
I always was under the impression that Airbus (FBW) aircraft weren't able to over-rotate, amongst other things?
I believe all airliners have a minimum "unstick" capability that often entails scraping the tail.
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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 22nd March 2009, 06:23 AM
Mike W's Avatar
Mike W Mike W is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pymble, NSW
Posts: 746
Default

I'm thinking about thousands of litres of Kerosine dumped "overhead the ocean at Port Phillip Bay"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 22nd March 2009, 07:53 AM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Strathfield
Posts: 1,402
Question 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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 22nd March 2009, 07:59 AM
Chris B. Chris B. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 104
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 22nd March 2009, 08:22 AM
Owen H Owen H is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 365
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 08:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Sydney Airport Message Board 1997-2022
Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the Conditions of Use and Privacy Statement