37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 233990 |
Time | |
Date | 199302 |
Day | Tue |
Local Time Of Day | 1801 To 2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : sju |
State Reference | PR |
Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | Widebody, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
Navigation In Use | Other Other |
Flight Phase | landing other |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : first officer |
Qualification | other pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 180 flight time total : 7700 flight time type : 1500 |
ASRS Report | 233990 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
Qualification | pilot : atp |
Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 18800 |
ASRS Report | 234459 |
Events | |
Anomaly | other anomaly other |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
Consequence | other |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
We were executing a visual approach to runway 8 at sju. All parameters of the approach were normal. Speed and sink rate were consistent with a stabilized approach. Threshold crossing was at normal ht and aircraft altitude. As the captain began the flare, all parameters appeared normal. Just before touchdown, I noticed pitch attitude was becoming slightly excessive. I called 'be careful' and almost immediately called '12 degrees' (indicating our pitch attitude). Almost immediately we touched down. The touchdown felt completely normal. We commented that although we thought it was pretty close we were glad the tail skid had not contacted the runway. We were later advised by maintenance that the tail skid had in fact contacted the runway. This incident happened so rapidly and so close to the ground that corrective action by the PF could not be taken in time. Although I felt I responded correctly as the PNF, per our company procedures, I wish that under a situation which developed rapidly, such as this, our procedures would allow or even encourage the PNF, first officer in this case, to physically manipulate the controls to lower the pitch attitude. When it happens rapidly there is not enough time to advise the other pilot, allow him to interpret what was said and react. As the PNF I had a better picture of what was occurring with respect to this single aspect of the flare. Also, on advanced aircraft, such as the one I fly, a verbal warning and/or a nose down input from the flight computers would be helpful. This is not unrealistic in consideration of the various other warnings and flight control automatic inputs already available to us. Supplemental information from acn 234459: following a normal approach to runway 8, a high sink rate was noted at the end of the flare. The nose was raised to arrest the sink and the tail skid struck.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: TAIL SKID STRIKE DUE TO NOSE HIGH ATTITUDE ON TOUCHDOWN.
Narrative: WE WERE EXECUTING A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 8 AT SJU. ALL PARAMETERS OF THE APCH WERE NORMAL. SPD AND SINK RATE WERE CONSISTENT WITH A STABILIZED APCH. THRESHOLD XING WAS AT NORMAL HT AND ACFT ALT. AS THE CAPT BEGAN THE FLARE, ALL PARAMETERS APPEARED NORMAL. JUST BEFORE TOUCHDOWN, I NOTICED PITCH ATTITUDE WAS BECOMING SLIGHTLY EXCESSIVE. I CALLED 'BE CAREFUL' AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY CALLED '12 DEGS' (INDICATING OUR PITCH ATTITUDE). ALMOST IMMEDIATELY WE TOUCHED DOWN. THE TOUCHDOWN FELT COMPLETELY NORMAL. WE COMMENTED THAT ALTHOUGH WE THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY CLOSE WE WERE GLAD THE TAIL SKID HAD NOT CONTACTED THE RWY. WE WERE LATER ADVISED BY MAINT THAT THE TAIL SKID HAD IN FACT CONTACTED THE RWY. THIS INCIDENT HAPPENED SO RAPIDLY AND SO CLOSE TO THE GND THAT CORRECTIVE ACTION BY THE PF COULD NOT BE TAKEN IN TIME. ALTHOUGH I FELT I RESPONDED CORRECTLY AS THE PNF, PER OUR COMPANY PROCS, I WISH THAT UNDER A SIT WHICH DEVELOPED RAPIDLY, SUCH AS THIS, OUR PROCS WOULD ALLOW OR EVEN ENCOURAGE THE PNF, FO IN THIS CASE, TO PHYSICALLY MANIPULATE THE CTLS TO LOWER THE PITCH ATTITUDE. WHEN IT HAPPENS RAPIDLY THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO ADVISE THE OTHER PLT, ALLOW HIM TO INTERPRET WHAT WAS SAID AND REACT. AS THE PNF I HAD A BETTER PICTURE OF WHAT WAS OCCURRING WITH RESPECT TO THIS SINGLE ASPECT OF THE FLARE. ALSO, ON ADVANCED ACFT, SUCH AS THE ONE I FLY, A VERBAL WARNING AND/OR A NOSE DOWN INPUT FROM THE FLT COMPUTERS WOULD BE HELPFUL. THIS IS NOT UNREALISTIC IN CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIOUS OTHER WARNINGS AND FLT CTL AUTOMATIC INPUTS ALREADY AVAILABLE TO US. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 234459: FOLLOWING A NORMAL APCH TO RWY 8, A HIGH SINK RATE WAS NOTED AT THE END OF THE FLARE. THE NOSE WAS RAISED TO ARREST THE SINK AND THE TAIL SKID STRUCK.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.