Serious Dangerous SQ 777 tail strike on take off but refuse to return to airport

[Papsmearer]

[h=1]Probe launched into Singapore Airlines ‘tail strike’ flight[/h]
The air safety watchdog has launched an investigation into a “tail strike” at Melbourne airport on Sunday where a Singapore Airlines captain flew on to Singapore despite being warned by air traffic controllers of smoke or dust coming from the rear of the aircraft on take-off.

The event has raised debate in the aviation sector about the wisdom of the pilot of the Boeing 777-300, with 282 passengers and crew on board, deciding to not return to the airport to check for possible damage.
A Qantas spokeswoman told The Australian: “In the event of a confirmed tail strike, our policy is to turn the aircraft around.”

A Singapore Airlines spokesman yesterday confirmed that an engineers’ inspection of Flight 238 on its arrival in Singapore had revealed a tail strike, but said it did not risk the integrity of the plane. “The inspection in Singapore confirmed there was no contact with the fuselage, (but) there had been contact with the tail skid system,” he said. “The affected component is being repaired and the aircraft is expected to return to service (today).”
He added: “Safety of our customers is our No 1 priority.”
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigation. The aircraft took off on a day that saw wild winds, and the main runway was closed for 30 minutes as engineers inspected for damage after the *accident.
“Following advice from air traffic control that a suspected tail strike had occurred, the captain confirmed there was no aircraft system alert of a tail strike and conducted further checks,” said the Singapore Airlines spokesman. “These checks, undertaken to confirm that all aircraft systems and parameters are normal as *according to the tail strike checklist, also showed no indication of a tail strike and as such the decision was made to proceed.”
In 2009 at Melbourne airport, an Emirates Airbus A340-500 struck its tail three times, and sustained $100 million damage as it barely cleared the airport boundary fence before returning to make an emergency landing.
A tail strike led to the deadliest single aircraft accident in history in 1985 when a poorly repaired bulkhead on a Japan Airlines 747SR gave way several years later, leading to the loss of 520 people when it crashed.

 

[virus]

unconfirmed report indicated that pikachu was fighting with a kangashan before take off and stardust were sprinklered after it evolved into a raichu when there was 4500 points with 50 candies were collected. so the traffic controllers were obviously wrong.

 

[johnny333]

The SIA pilot must be fearful of the trouble he would get into with the SIA management if he decided to return.

Reminds one of the incident of SIA flight SQ368 with 222 passengers going to Milan but had to turn back & returned to Spore to catch fire on the runway. For the safety of the passengers the plane should have landed ASAP instead of returning to Spore.

One of these days such a decision will cause the deaths of SIA passengers.

 

[Papsmearer]

The SIA pilot must be fearful of the trouble he would get into with the SIA management if he decided to return.

Reminds one of the incident of SIA flight SQ368 with 222 passengers going to Milan but had to turn back & returned to Spore to catch fire on the runway. For the safety of the passengers the plane should have landed ASAP instead of returning to Spore.

One of these days such a decision will cause the deaths of SIA passengers.

The article mentioned that the engineers inspected the plane when it landed and confirmed a tail strike. And then they claimed there was not a risk to the integrity of the plane. But then how the hell is the pilots so far away in the cockpit know that there was no structural integrity problems? There is no sensors or cameras inside the plane to inspect it in flight. For the purpose of safety, they must turn back. if there was a structural problem how would the pilots know? The tail could fall off somewhere over the ocean.

 

[potato29]

But then how the hell is the pilots so far away in the cockpit know that there was no structural integrity problems? There is no sensors or cameras inside the plane to inspect it in flight. For the purpose of safety, they must turn back. if there was a structural problem how would the pilots know? The tail could fall off somewhere over the ocean.

“Following advice from air traffic control that a suspected tail strike had occurred, the captain confirmed there was no aircraft system alert of a tail strike and conducted further checks,” said the Singapore Airlines spokesman.

 

[WujiBo]

History will happen once again.