Monarch A321 tailstrike

As the risk of tailstrikes go, you have to wonder how many close shaves occur with this bird.

There can’t be that much room for manoeuvre there!

The IL 62 has a tailwheel, but that is extended when the aircraft leaves the runway, and is retracted at a speed high enough (on TO) to let the elevators push the nose down. Because of the acceleration force, the tailwheel is even more needed on take off. This is all because of the heavy weight of the engines.

Tailstrikes occur more often on landing when pilots are trying to pull off soft touchdowns by arresting the sink rate by too much flare. Also, a sudden downdraft can cause the pilot to correct the sink rate with pitch rather than power. Now couple these with the fact that the aircraft has (in some cases quite a significant) downward motion, the main gear suspension will compress on touchdown further reducing the tail clearance. On the 757-300 the maximum allowable pitch angle in the flare was just 6 degrees before the PNF would shout at you. This is just one of many reasons why the training is so extensive.

6 degrees! That not much! What’s the norm? about 10?

Wouldn’t a tail (fourth) wheel be worth fitting instead of risking that sort of damage? Concorde was one aircraft that did have one. When they are certifying a new type, rubbing strips (of wood?) are fitted when the tail is dragged along the runway at the minimum take off speed tests.
mmitch.

The IL-62M has a fourth wheel too but I don’t think it’s for tail strikes.

The only time I’ve heard of tailstrikes is associated with poor piloting. The pilot gets way too slow and has the nose way too high. With little airspeed the aircraft controls are less effective which often brings the whole thing down rather abruptly and under minimal control. There was a EMB-145 a few years ago at a different company that did just that. The images looked similar to this Airbus in that there were 6 foot scraps along the tail cone. I believe it ended up totaling (or near totaling) the airplane. Upon further inspection it was realized that the tail strike had bent the aft fuselage and broke most stringers along it’s length.

As wysiwyg said, the tail isn’t made for any sort of abuse which leads to a lot of damage even in the smallest situations.

If I was PNF on the 753 and the other guy reached 6 degrees in the flare I would have called ‘pitch, pitch’ in accordance with TCX (ie Lufthansa) SOP’s.

Tail bumpers and usually tailstrike indicators not damage prevention devices due to the loads that can be exerted which I mentioned earlier. Redesign the back end to be able to take the force of a tailstrike as the norm and you would end up witha phenomenally heavier airframe with less payload carrying capability.

FBW doesn’t prevent tailstrikes. I don’t know why…it could be that the tolerances are just too small to be able to get a computer to be able to decide when a normal landing is about to become a tailstrike. I don’t know, I’m just guessing, I’m just the driver!

It aint too bad, but if the A321 has a tail bumper, looks like it completely slided away.
What’s the callout by the PNF for a tailstrike? How come the FBW system doesn’t avoid a tailstrike?

I remember that Japanese 747 crash many years ago. It was used on short haul and made many landings. After a heavy tail strike it was not repaired properly and eventually the rear pressure bulkhead gave way blowing some of the tailplane off. I’m sure they check (and repair) far more throughly now.
mmitch.

If the tail hits the ground it could well hit with a magnitude of many tonnes of force. As the area is not designed to be landed on it would cause structural deformity in other areas of the rear fuselage regardless of what was fitted at the back. What many longer aircraft have fitted at the back is an indicator unit to provide info to the pilot of back end contact and in some cases the force of the contact. Concorde was a bit of an oddball in that it had no low speed devices and approached at an angle of attack that would have put conventional aircraft past their stalling angle. Concorde had very little flare at the end of the approach.

Wouldn’t a tail (fourth) wheel be worth fitting instead of risking that sort of damage? Concorde was one aircraft that did have one. When they are certifying a new type, rubbing strips (of wood?) are fitted when the tail is dragged along the runway at the minimum take off speed tests.
mmitch.

Tailstrikes occur more often on landing when pilots are trying to pull off soft touchdowns by arresting the sink rate by too much flare. Also, a sudden downdraft can cause the pilot to correct the sink rate with pitch rather than power. Now couple these with the fact that the aircraft has (in some cases quite a significant) downward motion, the main gear suspension will compress on touchdown further reducing the tail clearance. On the 757-300 the maximum allowable pitch angle in the flare was just 6 degrees before the PNF would shout at you. This is just one of many reasons why the training is so extensive.

If it is G-OZBE, it is the second aircraft in a matter of a couple of months that I have been on an aircraft that has had a crash(G-JMAB is the other one).

Crash? Come on, behave yourself there! 😡

Hey Dusseldwarf, be sure to let us know how much that scuff is gonna cost to repair

I was surprised to hear that tailstrikes can happen on landing, I must admit. 🙁

Can happen with over rotation or a sudden windshear.

Tailstrikes are more likely on landing than take off.

I was surprised to hear that tailstrikes can happen on landing, I must admit. 🙁

Tailstrikes are more likely on landing than take off.

It is G-OZBE, It didn’t crash, it had a tail scrape on landing. No injuries, just major programme disruption.

Collided with a lamp post on its way in to the apron at Lyon. It was out of service for a few weeks. I’m surprised you didn’t read the thread on it.

If it is G-OZBE, it is the second aircraft in a matter of a couple of months that I have been on an aircraft that has had a crash(G-JMAB is the other one).

I think the word “crashed” is a tad to strong, perhaps mishap is more fitting.

If it is G-OZBE, it is the second aircraft in a matter of a couple of months that I have been on an aircraft that has had a crash(G-JMAB is the other one).

It looks quite like G-OZBE to me too.