IMHO, they’re very lucky this didn’t become another crash sliding down the runway upside down.
By: HP81 - 28th January 2013 at 20:24
Most airliners have a skid on the tail to minimise damage should it have a tail strike. Unless it was stalling I doubt it would crash and burn.
Not sure about the skid theory. A lot of airliners have a device on the bottom of the rear fuselage to indicate if there has been a strike. But they give very little, if any, protection. The MD11 has no such device.
Time will tell how badly damaged this aircraft is and whether or no it is repaired. Personally I hope it is as it was was the second MD11 that I flew in (unfortunatly I don’t remember the registration of the first one).
By: Mr Merry - 28th January 2013 at 17:57
Most airliners have a skid on the tail to minimise damage should it have a tail strike. Unless it was stalling I doubt it would crash and burn.
By: MSR777 - 28th January 2013 at 09:02
Another feather in the hat for the Forum Accident Speculation Team.
If you simply read the initial link it states the crew called the tower pulling off the runway reporting a tail strike.
Simply amazing question.
Geez man, take it easy………and ‘er, have a nice day:rolleyes:
By: Ship 741 - 28th January 2013 at 00:57
How do you convert a tail strike into a nose over ass or vice versa? :confused:
Must have been some late parcels on Thursday and no coffee for the post interview. 😉
Perhaps: get a little slow on final, develop high sink rate, pull back on yoke, airplane rotates but still falls from sky, one of the main gear breaks off, slams down on the wing, which breaks off, and the beast rolls over on her back.
By: Dazza - 27th January 2013 at 23:04
If you simply read the initial link it states the crew called the tower pulling off the runway reporting a tail strike.
Exactly where in the link does it say that the crew called the tower saying they’d had a tailstrike? You must be reading a different link to everyone else…
-Dazza
By: ThreeSpool - 27th January 2013 at 15:14
Interesting. :rolleyes:
By: Mono-plane - 27th January 2013 at 14:56
My facts are correct and I’ll leave it at that.
Continue your speculation.
By: ThreeSpool - 27th January 2013 at 14:34
If your going to correct someone, make sure you get the facts right!
While the aircraft was vacating via high speed exit onto taxiway M an airport operations vehicle reported the aircraft may have had a tail strike on landing. The crew reported they have had a hard landing but were not sure about a tail strike.
By: Mono-plane - 27th January 2013 at 14:24
Wow! ‘ Were the crew unaware of a tail strike of that magnitude?
Another feather in the hat for the Forum Accident Speculation Team.
If you simply read the initial link it states the crew called the tower pulling off the runway reporting a tail strike.
Simply amazing question.
By: MSR777 - 27th January 2013 at 14:13
Wow! A few hours work for the ‘body shop’ Were the crew unaware of a tail strike of that magnitude?
By: Newforest - 27th January 2013 at 12:04
How do you convert a tail strike into a nose over ass or vice versa? :confused:
Must have been some late parcels on Thursday and no coffee for the post interview. 😉
Sign In
January 27, 2013 at 9:26 am