A United Boeing 737-900, registration N34460 performing flight UA-1591 from Philadelphia,PA to Chicago O'Hare,IL (USA), landed on Chicago's runway 27L at 07:52L (13:52Z), but touched down hard with the tail contacting the runway surface.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A hard landing.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostDid they died?The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.
Comment
-
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one, and any landing in which you can use the aircraft again is a great one. I guess this one is somewhere between the two.
On a serious note, however, I'm glad nothing more catastrophic occurred. The article said the crew exited the runway and proceeded to taxi as if nothing happened. Is it be possible the crew didn't realize a tail strike had occurred? I would assume that the severity of the strike would correlate to whether or not it would be felt (i.e. if a few millimeters of the undercarriage brushed against the runway v. the entire rear section of the aircraft made contact with the ground).
-Chris
Comment
-
Originally posted by z740 View PostThe article said the crew exited the runway and proceeded to taxi as if nothing happened. Is it be possible the crew didn't realize a tail strike had occurred? I would assume that the severity of the strike would correlate to whether or not it would be felt (i.e. if a few millimeters of the undercarriage brushed against the runway v. the entire rear section of the aircraft made contact with the ground).
-ChrisBe alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Originally posted by elaw View PostTrue... although that (the 2nd) accident was attributed to improper repairs made after the tail strike. The "improper" determination having been made, of course, with the use of 20/20 hindsight.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Forgive me Brian, I was not familiar with the JAL 123 incident. By no means was my statement intended to be anything more than a lighthearted remark. I read an article about the JAL flight and was curious what would happen if a 787 suffered a tail strike similar to the one the 747 suffered since the fuselage is constructed of a single piece of carbon fiber? Would there be a way to replace the damaged area or would it have to be written off? Just a question that popped into my mind.
-Chris
Comment
-
Originally posted by elaw View PostBut is that necessarily the wrong course of action? They might have known the plane was bent (to an unknown degree), but presumably the engines, steering, and brakes were still functioning and there was no indication of fire or the danger of fire (like electrical anomalies). I don't see anything that would indicate that taxiing would be a problem, although it might have been prudent to stop the plane on the runway and get someone to look it over from the outside.
While not common, tailstrikes on the 739 are definitely possible, and Boeing planned for that by putting a fairly robust tailskid on the airplane. It's entirely possible that the crew did not even know they had struck the tail. Other airplanes I'm familiar with (models of the 757 and 767) have had similar tailskid installations. Basically, the skid consists of a crushable cartridge on the inside and green and red indicators on the outside. If the skid has been hit and all you see on the preflight is the red indicator, maintenance has to look at it. I don't know their exact procedure, and there are probably limits to the amount of compression, but I think in most cases they replace the cartridge, do an inspection, and the airplane is ready to go again.
It's my understanding from talking to people in the 737 community that the 739 has about an eight degree pitch limit on landing--about the same as the 757-300 or 767-400 (not sure about the 777-300, but I suspect it's about the same). I've heard that a common scenario for a tailstrike is a bounced landing. On touchdown the wheels spin up, which deploys the spoilers. The airplane goes back into the air and the natural tendency is to pull back for the next landing. Unfortunately, the airplane is much slower and has spoilers deployed (which not only destroys lift but also adds a pitch up moment as well). In a scenario like that, the best course of action is to cob the power (which also retracts the spoilers) and go around. I'm not saying that's what happened in this incident...there are other factors like windshear or wake turbulence that could contribute to a tailstrike as well. I'm just passing on information I've heard in talking with friends who have flown the airplane.
I'm sure they'll investigate to find out what happened. I don't know how much data will be publicly available, but I've got a good friend who flies the 739 for an airline in the Pacific Northwest. I'll see if he can get any info on this.The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.
Comment
Comment