It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

JTSB inquiry after JAL 777 tail strike

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
On March 31, 2012, a Japan Airlines 777 landed at Tokyo Haneda. The captain believed that the aircraft had bounced and was floating after the touchdown, and ordered a go around, despite the first officer activating reverse thrust. The first officer apparently had control of the aircraft at the time. The captain ordered the go around, took over, cancelled the reverse thrust and pushed the power up.

The aircraft at that point had been down for 10 seconds and was down to 180 knots. During the time it took the engines to spool up, the nose rose dramatically, and six seconds later a tail strike warning was initiated. There was substantial damage to the lower aft fuselage as a result.


Japanese investigators believe that a Boeing 777-200 struck its tail after the captain ordered a go-around despite the first officer’s having already initiated reverse thrust.

The captain of the Japan Airlines aircraft believed the aircraft had bounced and was floating after the touchdown at Tokyo Haneda on 31 March 2012.

Japan Transport Safety Board indicates that this perception arose from fluctuations in vertical acceleration as the 777 settled, having landed initially on its right main gear.

While the first officer, who was flying, had activated the speedbrakes and raised the reverse-thrust levers after touchdown, the inquiry says this was probably unnoticed by the captain because he was looking out of the cockpit window to confirm the aircraft’s attitude.

www.flightglobal.com...




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Video here.

I like how the reversers are out while the tail strike is happening.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

They have GOT to get the CRM issue under control. That was a stupid decision to go around after the reversers were deployed, and the copilot should have spoken up.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
What makes this so scary is that this is how JAL 123 started. They had a tail strike that damaged the aft bulkhead. When it was replaced it wasn't replaced correctly, and it blew out in flight, resulting in the vertical stabilizer blowing off in flight, killing 520 of 524 people on board.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Is that the one where the Boeing engineers only fitted one row of rivets to the repair?



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
What makes this so scary is that this is how JAL 123 started. They had a tail strike that damaged the aft bulkhead. When it was replaced it wasn't replaced correctly, and it blew out in flight, resulting in the vertical stabilizer blowing off in flight, killing 520 of 524 people on board.


JAL123 was the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: justwanttofly

They have GOT to get the CRM issue under control. That was a stupid decision to go around after the reversers were deployed, and the copilot should have spoken up.


I have had friends who trained JAL pilots and even worked there. You are totally correct about CRM and the way the Captains should not be questioned or made to lose face. I had hoped it had gotten better but maybe not; either way the wrong decision was made judging by the damage.. Plus when the aircraft is trimmed for landing and the power is poured on, the nose is going to pitch up rather abruptly unless the down trim is being ridden hard or big arms are applied to the yoke to counteract the thrust of the pylon mounted engines and rapid increase of speed..
edit on 3-1-2015 by 727Sky because: ...



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   
They should really put some wheels in the tail section so that nothing is damaged.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

The C-17 has a small wheel of two for tail strikes. It was a genius design.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Yes. They repaired the aft pressure bulkhead wrong, and several years later it failed in flight.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Most aircraft have a skid back there, but it's really there for light tail strikes. This one slammed the tail down.




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

Concorde used wheels too.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Similar to China Airlines on flight 611 in 2002 with a loss of 225 souls. That 747 had a tail strike in 1982 and was repaired using a Doubler Plate against Boeing's SRM guidelines, 20000 take of and landings later the tail section unstitched itself due to cracks behind the Doubler that were not detected, this despite the FAA recommendations in 1988 after the incident with an Aloha Airlines 737 unstitching itself.

Remind me not to fly on any 777's for the next 20 odd years, unless you have a serial number of this one?


edit on 2015-01-03T13:41:59-06:002015Sat, 03 Jan 2015 13:41:59 -0600bSaturday4101America/Chicago151 by corblimeyguvnor because: Clarity and last Paragraph



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I really don't see that happening unless there is some kind of major chain of events. Many times the only people in the positions to be able to do anything about it (usually experienced US pilots hired as check airmen or sim instructors) are fired by the airline for speaking up(oh the irony) and/or not passing a student even when the student obviously shouldn't be flying the airplane.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

This is a good write up from someone who's been there done that.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: justwanttofly

This is a good write up from someone who's been there done that.

Remind me also not to fly KAL or Asiana, in saying that, structural failures and incompetence of ground engineers does not help even the most experienced driver



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Funny my experience with JAL maintenance, replacing or working on anything that needed attention upon landing in Japan was always first class, quick and complete.. From parking at the gate to cleaning the aircraft everything they always did for my flights was done with pride and a certain choreographed style.

I pulled into the gate once and as I was enroute to do paperwork I told maintenance to hit the nose wheel strut with a shot of nitrogen for it was going flat and bottoming out. 10 minutes later when I returned, to my horror, the nose gear assembly from the oleo strut down was off the aircraft as the birds nose section rested on a jack. With only having a short ground time I figured we would be delayed however, they replace the seals and rings put everything back together in record time and we departed on schedule..

The 747 aft pressure bulkhead that blew and took out all the hydraulic lines was a horrible situation and should have never happened, I agree.. I think Boeing put out an AD for a reroute on some of the lines after the accident but I really don't remember.

Also you have to wonder if the guys who directed the fix and the one who signed off on the repair committed seppuku or something ?



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

The JAL maintenance director did. The actual repair was performed under a Boeing tech rep supervision.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
A friend of a friend got a job working for JAL or ANA sometime in the 90's. The guy was Finnish and on one of his first flights the pilot did something incredibly stupid ( I can't remember it specifically). The Finnish guy questioned him and corrected the error. Apparently he was called in and reprimanded for questioning a senior officer's authority.

He handed in his resignation that same day.

I feel like the hierarchical structure and obedience culture in Japan work great for so many things, but it can foster dangerous arrogance and is a horrible way of dealing with the responsibility of hundreds of lives.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: justwanttofly

This is a good write up from someone who's been there done that.



That article is terrifying.

I have visited Asia, and enjoyed it greatly, but as an engineer, I have always felt the Asian cultures lack the ability to think outside the box. They seem to lack the sort of "why not?" mentality that leads to amazing innovations.

I don't want to be racist or whatever about it, I think it's more to do with the social structure rather than any intellectual defeciency, but the West just has this sort of counter-culture thing that foster's a rebellious attitude of innovation against all naysayers.

That fiercely independent thinking I feel is largely responsible for the incredible record of innovations in the west, and is also linked to better problem solving on the fly.

Relating this to my own industry (automotive) I can point to dozens and dozens of Japanese engine and chassis designs that are direct copies of British, American and German designs. They are amazing craftsmen and are the masters of refining a design to perfection, but not so often great at totally new designs.



.
edit on 3-1-2015 by 8675309jenny because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join