Tail Strikes From A Pilot's Perspective

Every now and then, we get reports of aircraft suffering from a tail strike during landing.
A British Airways tail strike case that took place in early 2022 has already been investigated and the reason behind the incident was attributed to pilot error. And this is a common finding in almost all tail strike events that have occurred in the past.
Considering the fact that the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 are the most advanced aircraft in the skies today, with so many built-in protections, including systems to prevent tail strikes, it’s interesting that tail strikes can still take place with these aircraft types.
This shows the important role the pilot plays in keeping the tail of the aircraft safe during both take-offs and landings. Let’s examine these types of incidents in today’s video - particularly from the perspective of a pilot…
Article: simpleflying.com/tail-strikes...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyin. .
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflying. .
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: [e-mail]

[@joecrammond6221]

think the scariest thing i've heard about tail strikes is how some planes weren't repaired properly afterwards leading to crashes later on, for example Japan Airlines Flight 123 and China Airlines Flight 611

[@tpr1808]

More than a decade after the tailstrike of the JAL 747

[@AaronShenghao]

JAL used only one row of bolts while manual called for two. The Taiwanese China Airlines didn’t follow manual either, they used patches while they supposed to cut out and replace the whole panel…
Read the manuals…

[@tpr1808]

@@AaronShenghao It was so unwise they didn't listen to Boeing, the manufacturer. It cost innocent people their lives

[@joecrammond6221]

didn't Japan hire a team of Boeing engineers to fix their 747?

[@tpr1808]

@@joecrammond6221 They were advised to replace the part but they only patched it up. I wonder who's idea it was

[@MagicalBacon]

1:35 “Over 65% happen during landings, and 25% during takeoffs.” Where do the other 10% happen? Or is it just unrecorded data?

[@KingGiac]

it can also happen during loading and unloading, especially in an incorrectly loaded cargo plane.

[@KingGiac]

@@nigelmarvin1387 Yes in my company if the rear steps aren't there on the 800 cc take extra precautions to make sure there aren't too many pax all sitting at the back due to the risk of tipping aft. For the 900 i imagine it must be even worse.

[@NBLCGBLN]

I know two notable instances of a tail strike: the KLM 747 trying to lift off at Tenerife before ramming the Pan Am 747 and that Emirates 777 leaving Melbourne.

[@SmaranSastry5521]

Emirates A340-500 not 777

[@anonymoususer3012]

It was an a340, not a 777

[@Raphael54433]

It was a a340 at Auckland

[@BrycePensabene]

It was an A340-500

[@anonymoususer3012]

@@Raphael54433 No, it was Melbourne, all right. Some investigation official even said in response to the incident that, "this was the closest we came to having a major aviation accident in AUSTRALIA"

[@KeemBeckford]

Love how informative this is 👍🏽 great job

[@Desire123ification]

Informative Video! Thx.

[@davidefinland6886]

This is a masterpiece. Bravo!

[@XPLAlN]

I do not think Vr is “directly proportional to weight”. A look through the take off V speed tables confirms this. I don’t think there is a simple way to calculate this speed, you just have to look it up. But if you only wanted to know the unstick speed at some limiting pitch attitude, that would simply vary with root W. And take off run varies, to a good approximation, with V squared. A look through the speed tables shows that operational Vr does not vary as the root of weight either, but a little more. That makes sense as the heavier airplane also has to get a bit nearer to its minimum drag speed (which already increased by root W) in order to get the minimum regulated climb gradient (2.4% for twins assuming one engine out).

[@GayithDissanayaka]

Wow man!...

[@mrcannotfindaname]

I know a captain friend who prefer to start rotating at Vr +3 (to 5) kts. This is to reduce tail strike should there be any miscalculation.

[@kelly2631]

(Speaking as a student, so take it with four truckloads of salt)
There is this idea that we have in aerospace engineering where we *can* design an aircraft that would be nearly impossible to stall, spin, etc. but we instead design aircraft to be capable of stalling and spinning in case the pilots need to sacrifice a bit of performance in that moment to get out of a hairy situation, and we trust the pilots flying the aircraft to not push the aircraft past its limits when it is not needed. We could build in tailstrike protections, but there may always be a time where a tailstrike is preferred to the outcome that could occur when a tailstrike can be prevented, i.e. excess rotation at low speed to avoid another aircraft on the runway. We just trust the pilots flying the aircraft to not push the aircraft to tailstrike conditions when it is not necessary.

[@TW19567]

It’s amazing isn’t it that tail strikes are always usually human error and yet the aviation world seems to believe we should be flying jets by hand everywhere. The automation can fly the aircraft far more accurately and react quicker and perform very very accurate takeoffs and landings but we still only use it for airspace management and lowering workloads.

[@qwl4363]

Hmmmm its a mixed bag as what if the automation in question is faulty? Kinda like that MCAS on the Max

[@jsmute]

Uh… do you want pilotless airplanes? I can tell you while flying Airbus… sometimes the automation does some peculiar things… if we as the pilots aren’t there… that plane would have done some interesting things… airplanes need pilots at the controls. Always.

[@TW19567]

@@jsmute better ground all those UAV’s then immediately.

[@qwl4363]

@@TW19567 its fine as ur not gambling on human lives right?

[@TW19567]

@@qwl4363 look shall we look at the statistics on how many crashes are caused by human error vs automation?

[@eamonahern7495]

I don't recall being on a plane that had a tail strike. I'm surprised that they happen more often on landing given the nature of the take off roll.

[@user-cz9jf1ec8s]

I’m saying this out of ignorance, but maybe tail strikes would occur less often if aircraft weren’t designed to maximize the number of people we can stuff inside them. Long-ass tubes aren’t the best shape for getting airborne, staying airborne, or landing.
What if future airports were (re)designed with much wider airstrips and passengers were arranged horizontally along the fuselage of a giant flying wing, instead of a toothpaste bottle?

[@BetweenTheEvergreenTrees]

65% during landing… 25% during take off… what are the other 10%??

[@Titot182]

I was left sore upon landing when the first office gave me multiple tail strikes when I went to use the loo

[@grahamnash9794]

There's a lot to be said for tail wheels... LOL

[@itzfaroff456]

65% during landing and 25% takeoff ok... then where did the rest 10% go?

[@jamiebrowne6913]

I guess go arounds

[@anonymoususer3012]

Might be improper loading of pax/cargo (cg too far back)

[@v1_rotate638]

Improper cargo loading, tons of videos of airplanes tipping on their tail during loading

[@comndanty2568]

atr pilot say there is to kind of atr pilots ones who had a tail strike and others who will have a tail strike 😂😂

[@ryan_n05]

1:39 65% and 25% don’t make 100%… so when’s the other 10% if tailstrikes?

[@171trains]

Improper cargo loading- the plane can tip backwards if the back is heavier

[@ryan_n05]

@@171trains ah, so the 737-900’s tailsitting issue is that remaining 10%

[@ryan_n05]

@@nigelmarvin1387 yeah it’s kinda obvious i would know that if i know of the tailsitting issue

[@ihatemegatron216]

65% of tail strikes occur on landing, 25% occur on takeoff. What about the remaining 10%?

[@171trains]

Improperly loading the cargo, may be heavier at the rear of the plane

[@haroldfletcher5493]

Anyone who doesn’t understand why you have tail strikes has never flown an airplane. If they haven’t flown one, they probably don’t give a darn about tail strikes. Now go away!

[@mrtommyboy926]

Stopped watching this very interesting video because of the loud and anoying and completely unnecessary music