Tutti
← Back to Squawk list
Air Canada tail-strike pilot was conducting first 777 flight
Investigators probing an Air Canada Boeing 777-300ER tail-strike at Hong Kong have disclosed that the landing was the pilot’s first on the 777, outside of a simulator. (www.flightglobal.com) Altro...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Pilot induced dutch roll? I guess the training Captain was along for the ride rather than being ready to assume control, very poor?
Is the 773 prone to PIO's in roll HF?
Yes, but nowhere as bad as the B727.
Hi DAL498, I think this might be a little more than a minor tailstrike. Right wing low, crosswind from left, nose high, drifting right after "late" change from 07L to 07R. Report doesn't say whether the 12 knot xwind was the 90 degree component. Report seems dated 13 Feb, incident date 11 Dec, report says a/c is "currently u/s undergoing major repair". Interesting, I don't know current AirCan policies but I find it difficult to believe that F/O's first ever landing in type was a revenue flight with 393 souls on board. I think this one was worth an AIB look.
I don’t know about an AIB look, but it is typical of the type of pilot today who use the rudder pedals for footrests instead of controlling yaw, especially when switching parallel runways late in the approach, crosswind and all......this is where the training Captain should have anticipated an issue? Having flown the B777-300, allowing the nose attitude to get too high in the flare is always cause for concern! First flight with revenue pax is more the norm today right out of the sim.
Hi Highflyer1950. Thank you sir for the benefit of your 773 experience and for correcting my misconception that the right seat on a revenue flight for a first world airline with 393 aboard, filled by someone with no actual time in type, would not handle a landing, especially anything other than straight in. I don't believe this would have happened in the 1970s. I have personal experience of what happens when I let the the nose get too high in a turn at low airspeed; the inside wing stalls first while the outside wing still generates lift. As for rudder bars, I was taught to "kick the ball" until its centered, or more correctly to use my foot to caress the ball side pedal, to prevent yaw. Also to use the pedals to slip in when I'm too high and, importantly, for stall recovery (see "nose too high in a turn", above) except I was surprised when I got into an Aeronca and there weren't any pedals. Me : "How do you recover from a spin ?". Aeronca owner: "You don't get into one".
I believe you are referring to the Aircoupe/ Ercoupe built in 1937 that had an aileron/rudder interconnect which theoretically made it stall/spin proof. While your comments about aerodynamics in a turn are sound I wouldn’t call switching parallel runways outside the FAF as turning but more to an experienced Captain letting an aircraft get ahead of or a PF get behind and fail to take corrective action! He may have only one flight left, but the FO had the rest of his career. Sometimes you just have to exercise your PIC status and take over, I’m sure that is how the Chief Pilot saw it? BTW, I when was a junior FO on a stretch 8 and while my bravado said I could handle a 80 degree Xwind at 25 G 35 kts the experienced 4striper wasn’t about to let me tag the number three engine nacelle on the runway.
Hi Highflyer, you are correct, it was an Aircoupe, not Aeronca (excuse my memory). As you noted sometimes the check pilot has to take over, as with your stretch-8 experience, and I don't know the circumstances but it seemed to me that may have been the prudent course in the 773 incident as, from the description, the a/c got away from the PF. That said, your stretch-8 80 degree 35 kt gusts seem to my inexperience to be a touch beyond the edge of the safety envelope. I also imagine with that (for the time) long fuselage the turning moment of a gust on the fin could be an added concern. [I once had an interesting illusion (?) in a stretch-8 as a pax right at the back in moderate turbulence it seemed, looking forwards, that the long narrow fuselage was flexing like a porpoise.]
You mentioned your PIC's concern about you scratching the paint underneath number 3 with the tarmac. I assume this means the xwind was from the right. Were the inboard pylons longer than the outboard on 8s ? I would have thought number 4, or even the wingtip, would have been gouging the runway before number 3 nacelle contacted the concrete. But, overthinking this, if the wing is still generating lift, its going to be flexed upwards relative to the fuselage, at least until the wheels touch.
You mentioned your PIC's concern about you scratching the paint underneath number 3 with the tarmac. I assume this means the xwind was from the right. Were the inboard pylons longer than the outboard on 8s ? I would have thought number 4, or even the wingtip, would have been gouging the runway before number 3 nacelle contacted the concrete. But, overthinking this, if the wing is still generating lift, its going to be flexed upwards relative to the fuselage, at least until the wheels touch.
back in the 70s you went out twice a year and FLEW... instead of a simulator
Unfortunately these days it seems the overriding concern is cost, and sim time appears to be cheaper than air time....until you have an AOG for 2 months.
