|
|
|
#31
10th May 2010, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I drive past the QF Jet Base quite regularly (2-3 times each way per day) when at work and correct me if I'm wrong but N128UA looks like it has a punctured fuselage just below the rear left door.
Looking at the UA 747 seat map it looks to be around that region or am I just seeing things ? Brad 
|
|
#33
10th May 2010, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ATSB investigation under way.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...-2010-029.aspx
|
|
#34
11th May 2010, 12:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Tailstrike Report obligations under Transport Investigation Regs
It's interesting that tailstrike is not expressly prescribed as reportable matter under the relevant legislation (the TRANSPORT SAFETY INVESTIGATION REGULATIONS).
To be 'immediately reportable' a tailstrike incident has to be within the description 'the aircraft suffering serious damage, or the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the aircraft has suffered serious damage'. The next category down, which is routinely reportable, does not include the immediacy requirement. It includes 'the aircraft suffering damage that compromises or has the potential to compromise the safety of the flight but is not serious damage' and also 'operation outside the aircraft's approved flight envelope'. I'm a bit surprised that tail strike isn't explicitly prescribed as immediately reportable matter. If the extent of damage isn't immediately apparent to anyone required to report the matter to ATSB, it may be hard to fit it into an immediately reportable matter category. Something along the lines of 'contact with the runway by any part of the aircraft other than the tyres/skids' would cover the sort of strike I have in mind.
__________________
Philip
|
|
#35
11th May 2010, 09:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why the immediacy requirement?
Just because it isn't in the "immediately reportable" category doesn't mean the ATSB don't hear about it. Immediately reportable has to be telephoned to the ATSB within 24hrs, with a follow up written report in 72 hours. A Routinely reportable matter just needs the written report within 72 hrs. I'm sure the ATSB don't want to know by telephone about every minor tailstrike, and if it is a major one then it fits into the immediately reportable by serious damage.
|
|
#36
11th May 2010, 09:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
How do you know
Who decides whether a tail strike was serious or minor - what criteria can be applied by crew, ATC, ground staff, observers when the seriousness is not visually obvious? Was the UA tail strike serious or not?
With increased performance available in modern aircraft the rotation angles are increasing, which may increase the chances of tailstrike.
__________________
Philip
|
|
#37
11th May 2010, 10:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
United is a U.S carrier, operating under an FAA AOC - as such, the crew is bound by United reporting policy, which would be ICAO / IOSA compliant being an FAA carrier.
As such, the event is an event to be reported - to the carrier, by the crew. They would fill out an Aviation Safety Incident Report (as it is an operational occurence - "ground contact during landing or takeoff, including tail strike/over rotation and pod or wing strike"). The report would go to United Flight Safety. United Flight Safety would do an assessment and decide whether it should be reported to the NTSB (if the Pilot in Command has not ticked the "report to NTSB" box). Once it has been received by the NTSB, they would then do their own assessment as to whether they wish to engage an investigation under Annex 13 (that is, the ATSB would investigate the matter, as it occurred in Australia) or whether the NTSB simply wished to be advised of the result of an internal United investigation (and United will do an investigation regardless). Simultaneously, Air Services have to fill out an ESIR, which is the Air Traffic Control version of an ASIR, which may ultimately end up being reported through to the ATSB. The ATSB and the NTSB will follow the protocols as set out in the ICAO Annex and the ATSB most likely will be guided by the NTSB given the carrier is a US carrier. Whether the NTSB wishes to have an external investigation will depend on many matters ie does United B744 operations have a higher propensity for tail strikes than other Part 121 B744 operators in the U.S, as one example. That is the way the system works in simple terms.
|
|
#39
11th May 2010, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#40
11th May 2010, 11:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It depends on what you define as 'serious'. Was half of the tail left on the runway? Did it affect the flyability of the aircraft? Were any passengers/crew in any danger? blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc.
__________________
I am always hungry for a DoG Steak! :-)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
