Did the SIA 777 (Carrying 400 pax!!!) have a tail strike or not, Control Tower says yes - sparks and smoke sighted, Pilot says no, Airline says sensors would have indicated, flight proceeded to Singapore, Melbourne runway closed for 30 minutes during strong winds and checked for damage, no report from SIA saying when aircraft landed in Singapore tail was found in perfect condition.
I was at the airport catching a midday flight yesterday and our pilot said there was an incident with another airline earlier so the runway was shut for a while hence our flight was delayed, along with many other flights. Apparently it was a SQ cargo plane taking off and tail touched the runway.
I was at the airport catching a midday flight yesterday and our pilot said there was an incident with another airline earlier so the runway was shut for a while hence our flight was delayed, along with many other flights. Apparently it was a SQ cargo plane taking off and tail touched the runway.
the cargo according to reports was a squashy 400 people...
Tulla was closed for 3 hours yesterday re the 'hurricane style' winds. 8 planes had to abort & re-circle for landings. My flight from BRI>MEL (VA) 15:00 was cancelled and rebooked onto the 20:00hrs flight. The BRI VA lounge was heaving - full of tension and panic eating the hot chicken rice. Most amusing - hair pulling and queues to get the last mouthfuls.... It was an amusing way to sit in a lounge for 6 hours. VA got me home safe though - bit of turbulence on approach but still alive.
Did the SIA 777 (Carrying 400 pax!!!) have a tail strike or not, Control Tower says yes - sparks and smoke sighted, Pilot says no, Airline says sensors would have indicated, flight proceeded to Singapore, Melbourne runway closed for 30 minutes during strong winds and checked for damage, no report from SIA saying when aircraft landed in Singapore tail was found in perfect condition.
SQ doesn't have 777s that carry 400 pax. It was a cargo plane B747.
There is a report of a tail strike incident published on Aviation Herald. 777-300 operating SQ238. The tail skid assembly is being replaced in Singapore.
There is a report of a tail strike incident published on Aviation Herald. 777-300 operating SQ238. The tail skid assembly is being replaced in Singapore.
There is a report of a tail strike incident published on Aviation Herald. 777-300 operating SQ238. The tail skid assembly is being replaced in Singapore.
for what its worth, go and have a read of the relevant post by Ben Sandilands on Plane Talking. And read the comments. Assuming there was no EICAM alert, its a non-story!
I read the story, not so convinced, it's a bit like saying the plastic bumper on my car got crashed in, but the body is still ok. My brother is a Jetstar pilot, he tells me company policy of 'suspected' tailstrike is turnback, I imagine the same applies to Qantas and I am AMAZED it's not the SIA procedure. (sparks and smoke sighted by tower). What if the rear pressure bulk head blew out, on the way to Singapore, Ka Boom...
I read the story, not so convinced, it's a bit like saying the plastic bumper on my car got crashed in, but the body is still ok. My brother is a Jetstar pilot, he tells me company policy of 'suspected' tailstrike is turnback, I imagine the same applies to Qantas and I am AMAZED it's not the SIA procedure. (sparks and smoke sighted by tower). What if the rear pressure bulk head blew out, on the way to Singapore, Ka Boom...
The comparison in policy regarding tail strike perhaps should take into account the type of tail protection on the aircraft. Jetstar aircraft may not have the built-in warning system (which is sensitive to impact severity) that is on SQ's 777s. All the same, I would prefer to know that I am travelling with an airline that takes a conservative view of such incidents. Reminds me of the QR 777 that flew from MIA to DOH after taking out the landing instruments at the end of the runway !
Do ANY of you fly the 777-300? For the benefit of those that don’t….please read.. “Operators are encouraged to review their procedures for 777 tail strikes (or tail-skid contacts) that occur during takeoff.
For a tail-strike event resulting in the TAIL STRIKE EICAS message, follow the TAIL STRIKE procedure in the QRH.
The absence of the EICAS caution message TAIL STRIKE ensures that the pressure hull is not damaged. If the flight crew are made aware of a tail-strike event during takeoff, but there is no EICAS caution message TAIL STRIKE, Boeing recommends the following actions:
For the 777-200, crews should accomplish the TAIL STRIKE checklist and land at the nearest suitable airport. Any tail-strike event will result in damage. Damage to the non-pressurized aft fuselage without the EICAS caution message TAIL STRIKE is possible for pitch attitudes above 12.3 degrees with the airplane near the ground.
For the 777-300, crews should continue the flight. The 777-300 tail skid protects the fuselage from damage during tail-strike events. Damage to the non-pressurized aft fuselage without the EICAS caution message TAIL STRIKE is extremely unlikelyâ€
So therefore, unless they had an EICAS message stating “Tail Strikeâ€â€¦.The Boeing recommendation is clear…end of.
The question is therefore, was there an EICAS message? All the rest of the speculation on here is mere drivel.
SGB, you can be as 'not convinced' as you like but the Boeing SOP is pretty clear...
Do ANY of you fly the 777-300? For the benefit of those that don’t….please read.. “Operators are encouraged to review their procedures for 777 tail strikes (or tail-skid contacts) that occur during takeoff.
For a tail-strike event resulting in the TAIL STRIKE EICAS message, follow the TAIL STRIKE procedure in the QRH.
The absence of the EICAS caution message TAIL STRIKE ensures that the pressure hull is not damaged. If the flight crew are made aware of a tail-strike event during takeoff, but there is no EICAS caution message TAIL STRIKE, Boeing recommends the following actions:
For the 777-200, crews should accomplish the TAIL STRIKE checklist and land at the nearest suitable airport. Any tail-strike event will result in damage. Damage to the non-pressurized aft fuselage without the EICAS caution message TAIL STRIKE is possible for pitch attitudes above 12.3 degrees with the airplane near the ground.
For the 777-300, crews should continue the flight. The 777-300 tail skid protects the fuselage from damage during tail-strike events. Damage to the non-pressurized aft fuselage without the EICAS caution message TAIL STRIKE is extremely unlikelyâ€
So therefore, unless they had an EICAS message stating “Tail Strikeâ€â€¦.The Boeing recommendation is clear…end of.
The question is therefore, was there an EICAS message? All the rest of the speculation on here is mere drivel.
SGB, you can be as 'not convinced' as you like but the Boeing SOP is pretty clear...
I like how someone pointed out in The Australian that they asked Qantas on the procedures as if they operated the aircraft and knew the SOP for the B777-300ER. If they wanted to have a crack at SQ they should've asked another operator who utilises the B777, or better yet Boeing themselves. This whole event has been blown out of proportion by the sensationalised media, who also over-exaggerated events of the QF B737 turnaround in Darwin.
There's Company policy and Manufacturers SOP, the conservative approach would be the safest decision. I don't know what Airbus's A320 SOP is, but in Jetstar, the Company policy is if suspected tail strike, turn back.
My brother is a Jetstar pilot, he tells me company policy of 'suspected' tailstrike is turnback,
Is this the same Jetstar who (a) feel its OK for pilots to be sending text messages whilst on finals?, or (b) feel its OK to change SOP and not bother to tell CASA or Airbus?
Hi Guest, join in the discussion on
reports of SIA Tail strike Melbourne Aiport 9/10/16
sgb
sgb
Emirates Airlines - Skywards
Member since 30 Nov 2015
Total posts 419
Did the SIA 777 (Carrying 400 pax!!!) have a tail strike or not, Control Tower says yes - sparks and smoke sighted, Pilot says no, Airline says sensors would have indicated, flight proceeded to Singapore, Melbourne runway closed for 30 minutes during strong winds and checked for damage, no report from SIA saying when aircraft landed in Singapore tail was found in perfect condition.
jianga
jianga
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 07 Feb 2015
Total posts 144
I was at the airport catching a midday flight yesterday and our pilot said there was an incident with another airline earlier so the runway was shut for a while hence our flight was delayed, along with many other flights. Apparently it was a SQ cargo plane taking off and tail touched the runway.
sgb
sgb
Emirates Airlines - Skywards
Member since 30 Nov 2015
Total posts 419
the cargo according to reports was a squashy 400 people...
wozcor1
wozcor1
Virgin Australia - Velocity Rewards
Member since 28 Jul 2013
Total posts 88
Tulla was closed for 3 hours yesterday re the 'hurricane style' winds. 8 planes had to abort & re-circle for landings. My flight from BRI>MEL (VA) 15:00 was cancelled and rebooked onto the 20:00hrs flight. The BRI VA lounge was heaving - full of tension and panic eating the hot chicken rice. Most amusing - hair pulling and queues to get the last mouthfuls.... It was an amusing way to sit in a lounge for 6 hours. VA got me home safe though - bit of turbulence on approach but still alive.
Jedinak K
Jedinak K
Virgin Australia - Velocity Rewards
Member since 06 Sep 2012
Total posts 106
GregXL
GregXL
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 26 May 2014
Total posts 322
There is a report of a tail strike incident published on Aviation Herald. 777-300 operating SQ238. The tail skid assembly is being replaced in Singapore.
sgb
sgb
Emirates Airlines - Skywards
Member since 30 Nov 2015
Total posts 419
Interesting read, seems risky flying onto Singapore.
markpk
markpk
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 29 Nov 2013
Total posts 459
[/QUOTE]
markpk
markpk
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 29 Nov 2013
Total posts 459
Interesting read, seems risky flying onto Singapore.
sgb
sgb
Emirates Airlines - Skywards
Member since 30 Nov 2015
Total posts 419
I read the story, not so convinced, it's a bit like saying the plastic bumper on my car got crashed in, but the body is still ok. My brother is a Jetstar pilot, he tells me company policy of 'suspected' tailstrike is turnback, I imagine the same applies to Qantas and I am AMAZED it's not the SIA procedure. (sparks and smoke sighted by tower). What if the rear pressure bulk head blew out, on the way to Singapore, Ka Boom...
GregXL
GregXL
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 26 May 2014
Total posts 322
I read the story, not so convinced, it's a bit like saying the plastic bumper on my car got crashed in, but the body is still ok. My brother is a Jetstar pilot, he tells me company policy of 'suspected' tailstrike is turnback, I imagine the same applies to Qantas and I am AMAZED it's not the SIA procedure. (sparks and smoke sighted by tower). What if the rear pressure bulk head blew out, on the way to Singapore, Ka Boom...
The comparison in policy regarding tail strike perhaps should take into account the type of tail protection on the aircraft. Jetstar aircraft may not have the built-in warning system (which is sensitive to impact severity) that is on SQ's 777s. All the same, I would prefer to know that I am travelling with an airline that takes a conservative view of such incidents. Reminds me of the QR 777 that flew from MIA to DOH after taking out the landing instruments at the end of the runway !
markpk
markpk
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 29 Nov 2013
Total posts 459
To quote 777steve from Plane Talking:
Do ANY of you fly the 777-300? For the benefit of those that don’t….please read..
“Operators are encouraged to review their procedures for 777 tail strikes (or tail-skid contacts) that occur during takeoff.
So therefore, unless they had an EICAS message stating “Tail Strikeâ€â€¦.The Boeing recommendation is clear…end of.
The question is therefore, was there an EICAS message? All the rest of the speculation on here is mere drivel.
SGB, you can be as 'not convinced' as you like but the Boeing SOP is pretty clear...
Jedinak K
Jedinak K
Virgin Australia - Velocity Rewards
Member since 06 Sep 2012
Total posts 106
Do ANY of you fly the 777-300? For the benefit of those that don’t….please read..
“Operators are encouraged to review their procedures for 777 tail strikes (or tail-skid contacts) that occur during takeoff.
So therefore, unless they had an EICAS message stating “Tail Strikeâ€â€¦.The Boeing recommendation is clear…end of.
The question is therefore, was there an EICAS message? All the rest of the speculation on here is mere drivel.
SGB, you can be as 'not convinced' as you like but the Boeing SOP is pretty clear...
I like how someone pointed out in The Australian that they asked Qantas on the procedures as if they operated the aircraft and knew the SOP for the B777-300ER. If they wanted to have a crack at SQ they should've asked another operator who utilises the B777, or better yet Boeing themselves. This whole event has been blown out of proportion by the sensationalised media, who also over-exaggerated events of the QF B737 turnaround in Darwin.
sgb
sgb
Emirates Airlines - Skywards
Member since 30 Nov 2015
Total posts 419
There's Company policy and Manufacturers SOP, the conservative approach would be the safest decision. I don't know what Airbus's A320 SOP is, but in Jetstar, the Company policy is if suspected tail strike, turn back.
markpk
markpk
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 29 Nov 2013
Total posts 459