Chinese Prang a Boeing 777

Art VanDelay

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
2,409
Location
Del Boca Vista
Display Name

Display name:
Art VanDelay
Not too impressive :

"Improper aircraft handling led to tail strikes during landing and go around of a Boeing 777F cargo plane, according to a Danish investigation report.

On April 17, 2011 a Boeing 777-F6N cargo plane, of China Cargo Airlines sustained substantial damage in a tail strike accident at Copenhagen Airport, Denmark. A normal final approach was flown with the autopilot off and the auto throttle engaged.

During the flare the pilot flying started to correct the rate of decent by increasing the pitch attitude. At touchdown the pitch attitude was 4.6°, the computed airspeed was 143 knots, the vertical speed was 160 feet/min.

The aircraft touched down and bounced three times. After the first bounce, the ground spoilers automatically retracted and the auto braking system disarmed. A second bounce occurred followed by a third bounce. After the third bounce, the speed brakes handle was pulled either by the pilot flying or by thrust reverser command, which deployed the ground spoilers and the thrust reversers.
The reversers were deployed in 11 seconds. During the deceleration, the pitch angle gradually increased to 10.5° and the aircraft suffered a tailstrike. At the same time the pilot flying felt an increasing pitch up attitude and decided to initiate a go-around.

An initiation of a GA after thrust reverser activation is very risky and not an option according to the Boeing 777 Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM) and the Boeing 777 Flight Crew Training Manual (FCTM).
After the ground spoilers were retracted and the reversers were stowed, the pitch angle was decreased to 7.0°. At that time, the indicated airspeed was 117 knots. Engine power was applied and as the airspeed increased. The increase of the forward engine thrust caused a further nose up pitch moment, resulting in an increasing pitch angle of 11.9°.

During lift off the indicated airspeed (IAS) was 140 knots, which was 8 knots below the V2 calculated speed. The lower speed gave less lift and kept the main landing gear compressed. The result was less aft tail belly clearance, leading the second tail strike. During initial climb, the flight crew noticed a beeper aural warning and the tailstrike caution on the upper Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) display. The flight crew performed a tail strike Malfunction Check List and a Go Around Check List. The pilot not flying informed ATC about the go around and the tailstrike indication and that the pilots didn't have control problems with the aircraft. A new approach was requested to runway 22L.The aircraft landed without further problems.

The damage in the belly section 47 and 48 was substantial and covered the area between stations 1980 in the front to station 2286 in the rear (approximately 8 meters). Several places on the fuselage skin were broken up and the inside of the aircraft was visible. The area at the aft dome pressure bulkhead was worn into the frame of the dome pressure bulkhead and there was visible damage in the frames and structure inside the aircraft."

www.aviation-safety.net
 
Interesting Story though. Would have loved to watch that landing.
 
I'm not Dr. Bruce, but I diagnose this as another unfortunate case of Retractable Gear Phobia.
 
The single most deadly aircraft crash was indirectly caused by a tailstrike.

Japanese 747 fully loaded. The aft pressure bulkhead was damaged by a tailstrike a few years before. The damage was not adequately repaired and the repair was not inspected regularly as it should have been (they would have likely spotted cracks before it failed). Aft bulkhead failed at altitude, blew the elevator and rudder off of the plane. It flew around out of control for 20 minutes before crashing into a mountain at 400 mph.. somehow there were 2-3 survivors.

I got this all from watching a TV show (air disasters) so it may be slightly to completely inaccurate :rofl:

It was not discussed but I wonder if moving a bunch of passengers to the rear of the airplane might have enabled them to slow it down and lower gear/flaps and at least stabilizing at a speed that would allow for a really ugly but more survivable landing. IIRC the vertical stabilizer and horizontal stab were still attached, just the rudder itself and the elevator blew off
 
Last edited:
I believe that there was more damage to the tail, including the loss of most of the verticle stabilizer. The crew did manage some form of control using thrust, but clearly not enough to get close to a runway. Loss of life was increased when the Japanese government chose to call off American help. This delayed rescue until the following day. Some of the victims had survived the crash only to sucome to shock or exposure.





The single most deadly aircraft crash was indirectly caused by a tailstrike.

Japanese 747 fully loaded. The aft pressure bulkhead was damaged by a tailstrike a few years before. The damage was not adequately repaired and the repair was not inspected regularly as it should have been (they would have likely spotted cracks before it failed). Aft bulkhead failed at altitude, blew the elevator and rudder off of the plane. It flew around out of control for 20 minutes before crashing into a mountain at 400 mph.. somehow there were 2-3 survivors.

I got this all from watching a TV show (air disasters) so it may be slightly to completely inaccurate :rofl:

It was not discussed but I wonder if moving a bunch of passengers to the rear of the airplane might have enabled them to slow it down and lower gear/flaps and at least stabilizing at a speed that would allow for a really ugly but more survivable landing. IIRC the vertical stabilizer and horizontal stab were still attached, just the rudder itself and the elevator blew off
 
Why can't you go around after reverser deployment?
 
Why can't you go around after reverser deployment?

Not a big shot jet pilot but I would assume it's because at that point you're pretty damn committed to landing and you're slowing down. Changing from a big-ass slowing land vehicle to a big-ass accelerating land vehicle and then to a big-ass airplane takes a lot of damn time. Time that is rather precious at their higher speeds.
 
Why can't you go around after reverser deployment?

Just guessing here, but it might be the way reversers work -- they get into the jet blast, then are subjected to a massive amount of blast from both airflow and the engine. I know that reversers get stuck sometimes, and that would give you a pretty serious situation -- not only do you get no forward thrust out of the engine, but what air still comes through (even with the fuel cut off, it still spins and compresses air) is directed the wrong way.
 
Not a big shot jet pilot but I would assume it's because at that point you're pretty damn committed to landing and you're slowing down. Changing from a big-ass slowing land vehicle to a big-ass accelerating land vehicle and then to a big-ass airplane takes a lot of damn time. Time that is rather precious at their higher speeds.

I'd say you have the analogy right. :thumbsup:
 
Just guessing here, but it might be the way reversers work -- they get into the jet blast, then are subjected to a massive amount of blast from both airflow and the engine. I know that reversers get stuck sometimes, and that would give you a pretty serious situation -- not only do you get no forward thrust out of the engine, but what air still comes through (even with the fuel cut off, it still spins and compresses air) is directed the wrong way.

See Jesse's explanation. It's about time and runway remaining.
 
160ft/min onto the runway, three bounces, two tail strikes and enough thrust to fly a pattern with damage and a way-too slow airspeed and then make a normal landing. That's an incredible airplane. I got to get me one of these things. Anything that tough would be a perfect match for my landing abilities.
 
160ft/min onto the runway, three bounces, two tail strikes and enough thrust to fly a pattern with damage and a way-too slow airspeed and then make a normal landing. That's an incredible airplane. I got to get me one of these things. Anything that tough would be a perfect match for my landing abilities.

160ft/min isn't really a hard impact by any means, that's 2 fps. I'm guessing you'd need to be greater than 10 fps for it to be considered an actual hard landing.
 
160fpm makes for a soft glassy water landing.

If you read through the whole narrative the 160 FPM isn't the problem.

He touched down hot (still a few knots above approach speed -- i.e., no flare), bounced, and reacted to the bounce really, really badly.

If that had been a higher descent rate, he would have pulled a Southwest and rammed the nosegear through the bulkhead.
 
Back
Top