Emirates A340 Tail Strike
- Thread starter SeanD
- Start date
Orange Anchor
New Member
Don't know about the -340 but it takes some work to get a tailstrike on takeoff. We had lots of problems with guys trying to yank the 737-400 into the air when it first came out.
SeanD
Well-Known Member
I was wondering about that. Im not sure if this was the A340-600 version but that is one long airplane. Would that make it easier for this to happen?
c172captain
Well-Known Member
I was hoping for pictures :bandit:
tlewis95
I drive planes
I think the -500's got better range, but that's a Max question. Actually, I think he got eclipsed by COA787!
It does.
Me too.
coa787
Unknown Member
I think the -500's got better range, but that's a Max question. Actually, I think he got eclipsed by COA787!
The -500 most certainly does have longer range. Generally, it carries less people and is shorter (less weight = more availabe fuel capacity), so it can fly further.
Orange Anchor
New Member
No doubt but then that's why they get the big bucks. I think the clearance on the old -400 was less than a foot with PROPER rotation. The notes I have seen indicate the usual rotation is (3deg/sec to 12-13 nose up.
And that is reportedly why the 707 was unable to be stretched like the DC-8.. wouldn't be able to rotate without lots of changes to lots of stuff.
And this is the A340-500 which is not the longest one (which is the -600) On other sites it is suggested they may have had incorrect T/O data, that there was a CG miscalculation, that there was a cargo shift or a combination. At any rate, they took out part of the localizer at the end of the runway and the F/As said there was smoke in the cabin. That suggests the aft pressure bulkhead was crushed and that is $$$.
ASpilot2be
Qbicle seat warmer
That reminds me of an episode of Worlds Toughest Fixes where the fix one on a 767. That is quite a project
anic:
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
There are a number of plausible expanations for this happening. One is that an error in the takeoff performance data was not caught by the crew; the second is a load shift (containers) during takeoff rotation; and the third would be windshear. We'll have to wait for the investigation to get a full explanation.
I believe the A340-500 has software in the flight control system that warns of an impending tail strike. The B777-300ER, and I believe the A340-600, have software that reduce the potential for tail skid contact by decreasing elevator deflection when an imminent tail strike is sensed.
Typhoonpilot
I believe the A340-500 has software in the flight control system that warns of an impending tail strike. The B777-300ER, and I believe the A340-600, have software that reduce the potential for tail skid contact by decreasing elevator deflection when an imminent tail strike is sensed.
Typhoonpilot
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
I think the -500's got better range, but that's a Max question. Actually, I think he got eclipsed by COA787!
Lol..he can have it..
Atta boy..way to make me proud!
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
Actually less weight means lower fuel burn, not necessarily more available fuel capacity.
Typhoonpilot
Orange Anchor
New Member
That reminds me of an episode of Worlds Toughest Fixes where the fix one on a 767. That is quite a project
Shortly after we got our 767s at the old Piedmont, one of our notorious Capt's got a tailstrike at LAX. Dean had a history of rogue behavior including such antics as opening the over-rides and deploying the reversers IN FLIGHT on the 737-200. The other was pulling the throttles to idle around 50-75ft and running the trim full nose up. Touching down BEFORE the shaker was a failure for Dean. I sat right seat through one were we were at or just below 100kts when we touched down. Going to the Chief Pilot would have done little as everyone knew Dean was a loose cannon. This was all pre-1st edition CRM.
Anyway, Dean got the tailstrike, crushed the for-all-intents a brand new aft pressure bulkhead. Dean was given the option to retire with full benefits or be fired. But either way, he would never sit in another PI cockpit. Dean retired. I heard later, rightly or wrongly, that Dean was involved in an incident damaging a Citation. Some never learn nor benefit from the reprieves they are given.
cloudman
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange Anchor
That suggests the aft pressure bulkhead was crushed and that is $$$.
That reminds me of an episode of Worlds Toughest Fixes where the fix one on a 767. That is quite a project
__________________
"When the world gets in my face, I say "Have a nice day!""
I saw that. It was really neat how Boeing responded to an AOG.:rawk:
Originally Posted by Orange Anchor
That suggests the aft pressure bulkhead was crushed and that is $$$.
That reminds me of an episode of Worlds Toughest Fixes where the fix one on a 767. That is quite a project
__________________
"When the world gets in my face, I say "Have a nice day!""
I saw that. It was really neat how Boeing responded to an AOG.:rawk:
coa787
Unknown Member
Lol..he can have it..
Atta boy..way to make me proud!
:laff:
That is also true. However, Airbus (I think this is the reason, at least) took advantage of the fact that the decreased aircraft and payload weight could be made up with the weight of more fuel, so the -500 has a higher maximum fuel capacity than the -600.
Orange Anchor
New Member
I am fairly sure ALL the OEMs have go-teams to repair their stuff. The first BIG repair I remember was a JAL 7 47 that weathervaned on an icy taxiway at ANC and was blown off the taxiway. Cost to repair a whoppin' (at that time) $20mil. And then Air France took an almost brand new 747 off the runway in Tahiti and it too was repaired.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930912-1
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19751216-0
Minuteman
“Dongola”
Similar threads
