Air France A350 suffers tail strike during go around at Toronto
- Thread starter Wild_Weasel
- Start date
Skåning
Well-Known Member
I mean it’s preferable to crashing after a long landing like they did there in ‘05.
en.m.wikipedia.org
But you’d think Air France pilots would know going full send on back stick isn’t a good idea.
Air France Flight 358 - Wikipedia
But you’d think Air France pilots would know going full send on back stick isn’t a good idea.
Wild_Weasel
Well-Known Member
I noticed that as well regarding the reversers. Sounded like they engaged them for a half second before aborting.
Here's the ATC recording at [19:35] - https://archive.liveatc.net/cyyz/CYYZ-Twr-Jan-21-2024-2130Z.mp3
The pilot stated the reason for the go around was due to a late touchdown... which is odd because they appear to have landed within the normal touchdown zone.
scooter2525
Very well Member
Yes but how can we tie this about a door?
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
They surrendered too quickly
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
GOT EEM
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Every jet I’ve flown has a written rule that once you land and engage TRs, do not attempt to takeoff again.
They just took a nothing burger and made it into a real problem.
They just took a nothing burger and made it into a real problem.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
The view from the passenger window appears to show a touchdown, followed by a nose pitch-up and the sound of the tail hitting the runway, then the sound of the engines throttling up.
I know in the A300 when the spoilers deployed there was a definite nose pitch-up which you had to arrest with forward yoke...not sure if that's part of the equation with the A350.
Perhaps it is a go-around that had the PF increasing the pitch attitude well before the thrust/airspeed supported the airplane actually flying.
One of the posts on the Aviation Herald says the go-around was for a runway incursion of some sort, but I haven't seen anywhere else reporting that, and it obviously doesn't jive with what the PM said on the radio was the reason for the go around.
I know in the A300 when the spoilers deployed there was a definite nose pitch-up which you had to arrest with forward yoke...not sure if that's part of the equation with the A350.
Perhaps it is a go-around that had the PF increasing the pitch attitude well before the thrust/airspeed supported the airplane actually flying.
One of the posts on the Aviation Herald says the go-around was for a runway incursion of some sort, but I haven't seen anywhere else reporting that, and it obviously doesn't jive with what the PM said on the radio was the reason for the go around.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
They didn't shut the runway down for an inspection? Did nobody other than this spotter realize what had happened?
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
Sounds like a good possibility, because it appears they touched down well inside the zone.
BravoHotel
Well-Known Member
The door master warning indicator, annunciator, and triple chime distracted the PF while the PM called the go around?
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
I’d rather risk a decelerating down the runway or right/left rudder input to go off the runway at a slower speed, as opposed to stowing TRs and opening full throttle for a go around to avoid a plane.
Accident history shows in a scenario like this, the PM rarely positions flaps for a go around, and the aircraft attempts the takeoff at landing flaps (eg, Air India 810).
Once the TRs are deployed, slam the brakes and max TRs. On a dry runway, one might be surprised how quickly it can stop (and I mean max pressure brake, max TR).
Powering up while continuing towards an incursion plane? Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. If you gotta hit someone, I’d rather it be lower speed.
Regardless. Moot point. 24L at YYZ is the outermost landing runway. I don’t see how it’s physically possible to have an incursion of a plane getting onto this runway while one is landing 24L?
Accident history shows in a scenario like this, the PM rarely positions flaps for a go around, and the aircraft attempts the takeoff at landing flaps (eg, Air India 810).
Once the TRs are deployed, slam the brakes and max TRs. On a dry runway, one might be surprised how quickly it can stop (and I mean max pressure brake, max TR).
Powering up while continuing towards an incursion plane? Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. If you gotta hit someone, I’d rather it be lower speed.
Regardless. Moot point. 24L at YYZ is the outermost landing runway. I don’t see how it’s physically possible to have an incursion of a plane getting onto this runway while one is landing 24L?
TR deployment is indeed the kind of “committed to rollout” time. Even when doing a touch and go when beating up the pattern in these jets, the TRs are obviously never used or even unlocked nor are the spoilers armed, as the power is getting advanced very soon as the flaps are selected/positioned for takeoff and rotation initiated.
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Agree on the TR's/spoilers and G/A. And that being said, who even knows what structural damage has occurred after such an event. Obviously these planes are designed to be able to survive a tail strike, but only to a point. I'm not sure if you would know the difference up on the flight deck between a tailstrike, and a really bad tail strike, at least not in the few seconds you have to decide if you want to commit to a G/A or not.
Similar threads
