blues deville Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 There may have been some windy conditions at YYZ contributing to this event but I do not understand the crew's analysis of the EICAS message and their decision to continue to destination, only to return later after discussion with maintenance. http://www.aeroinside.com/item/6333/air-canada-b763-at-toronto-on-aug-19th-2015-tail-scrape-on-departure?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=20150919 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Unlike these folks who went 13 hours ..http://avherald.com/h?article=48c78b3a&opt=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 The 767 procedure for that EICAS message, as I recall, is to remain unpressurized and either continue to destination unpressurized or land. I don't expect that has changed.EICAS was developed to eliminate the flight engineer's position. Crews need to believe in its messages and act accordingly. Some years ago, a senior engineer in Gatwick tried to convince me the BATTERY CHARGER (I can't remember the exact message) EICAS message was only advisory and not a true indication of a problem. I was supposed to go to the Carribean with this aircraft. On looking at the electrical page, the presumably fully charged battery was still charging. I asked him to go down into the EE bay to investigate. He came back, white as a sheet, having nearly burned his nand on the battery which was in the early stages of thermal runaway.Believe in the messages; ACT on the messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted September 19, 2015 Author Share Posted September 19, 2015 The report (if accurate) states the EICAS message was "Tail Skid". Which according to the Boeing QRH means "not in the commanded postion". However a "Tail Strike" is a much more serious event with the knowledge of the tail hitting on the runway (or something) and requires immediate action and land asap. So I suppose their further discussion with operations resulted in a return to YYZ and investigating. Good call I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 The QRH for a TAILSKID EICAS on the 767 just states that the tail skid is not in the commanded position. There is no further guidance or recommendation regarding pressurization or landing short. There is no expanded abnormal for this message. I have been on a DC-8 when we hit the tail, and it was quite clear that we had done so. Nobody really thought anything about it at the time, though. I would assume that the decision to land was out of an abundance of caution, and well thought.edit.... posted at virtually the same time as Blues' post. Great minds think alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted September 19, 2015 Author Share Posted September 19, 2015 I'd be curious to know more about the details of their takeoff roll on 23. As many here know, this runway passes through the crowned ends of both 15L/33R & 15R/33L. Departing 23 at heavy weights for this type of aircraft usually has a Vr speed which coincides with the second hump. At least that has been my experience. Several times I've had to check my initial rotation because the aircraft has bounced slightly passing over this spot with high/heavy weight speeds. Add in a gusty crosswind condition and you have a nasty little threat before you're even airborne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 blues...same thing for the 320 out of SFO off the 1's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted September 19, 2015 Author Share Posted September 19, 2015 blues...same thing for the 320 out of SFO off the 1's...Exactly. One runway always loses on the merge process. SFO's 28L/R are not a problem. Perhaps not an issue with this recent 767 departure but who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.