Narrative:

Chief pilot informing me that a tail strike occurred on the airplane I flew from dtw to buf. Outbound crew noticed damage (scraped) to tail skid. I made both takeoff and landing. Both takeoff and landing appeared normal and per SOP. Landing in buf was stable approach, flap 40 degrees with no unusual float, used very light reverse due to light aircraft weight. Takeoff was at light weight, 15 degrees with normal rotation. All 3 flight attendant's stated no unusual noises or 'feels.' the flight recorder is being analyzed at this time. The first officer did walk around before our flight. Per SOP, all he had to do with reference to tail skid was insure the indicator was horizontal and saftied. Maintenance found both in normal position, but the tail skid itself was ground down. I and first officer strongly feel we did not cause this. Chief pilot stated that he will suggest that the manual be changed for SOP to add that the preflight include inspection of bottom of tail skid for scraped paint. Supplemental information from acn 282416: upon walk around first officer found the tail skid plate had been scraped. Captain contacted dispatcher and asked to be patched in with maintenance control (mc). Captain described the situation to maintenance control and dispatch. Maintenance control and captain agreed the flight was safe to continue to dtw where they could fix or replace the plate. The practice of waiting to write up a maintenance item until we get to a maintenance base has become so common, due to the economics of having to ship parts to an outlying station, cancel flts, leave passenger stranded etc, that I actually thought as long as the aircraft was 'safe' to fly that it would be ok to continue to operate to a maintenance base and write it up or fix it there. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: dispatcher thought tailskid was on the MEL and could be deferred to next stopover. She approved flight on that basis. Later she learned it was non-deferable. She did say that communications were difficult between the flight crew and maintenance in that no one really knowledgeable was present that understood flight or maintenance limitations. She now has a better understanding of these limitations.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT OF DAMAGED ACFT.

Narrative: CHIEF PLT INFORMING ME THAT A TAIL STRIKE OCCURRED ON THE AIRPLANE I FLEW FROM DTW TO BUF. OUTBOUND CREW NOTICED DAMAGE (SCRAPED) TO TAIL SKID. I MADE BOTH TKOF AND LNDG. BOTH TKOF AND LNDG APPEARED NORMAL AND PER SOP. LNDG IN BUF WAS STABLE APCH, FLAP 40 DEGS WITH NO UNUSUAL FLOAT, USED VERY LIGHT REVERSE DUE TO LIGHT ACFT WT. TKOF WAS AT LIGHT WT, 15 DEGS WITH NORMAL ROTATION. ALL 3 FA'S STATED NO UNUSUAL NOISES OR 'FEELS.' THE FLT RECORDER IS BEING ANALYZED AT THIS TIME. THE FO DID WALK AROUND BEFORE OUR FLT. PER SOP, ALL HE HAD TO DO WITH REF TO TAIL SKID WAS INSURE THE INDICATOR WAS HORIZ AND SAFTIED. MAINT FOUND BOTH IN NORMAL POS, BUT THE TAIL SKID ITSELF WAS GND DOWN. I AND FO STRONGLY FEEL WE DID NOT CAUSE THIS. CHIEF PLT STATED THAT HE WILL SUGGEST THAT THE MANUAL BE CHANGED FOR SOP TO ADD THAT THE PREFLT INCLUDE INSPECTION OF BOTTOM OF TAIL SKID FOR SCRAPED PAINT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 282416: UPON WALK AROUND FO FOUND THE TAIL SKID PLATE HAD BEEN SCRAPED. CAPT CONTACTED DISPATCHER AND ASKED TO BE PATCHED IN WITH MAINT CTL (MC). CAPT DESCRIBED THE SIT TO MAINT CTL AND DISPATCH. MAINT CTL AND CAPT AGREED THE FLT WAS SAFE TO CONTINUE TO DTW WHERE THEY COULD FIX OR REPLACE THE PLATE. THE PRACTICE OF WAITING TO WRITE UP A MAINT ITEM UNTIL WE GET TO A MAINT BASE HAS BECOME SO COMMON, DUE TO THE ECONOMICS OF HAVING TO SHIP PARTS TO AN OUTLYING STATION, CANCEL FLTS, LEAVE PAX STRANDED ETC, THAT I ACTUALLY THOUGHT AS LONG AS THE ACFT WAS 'SAFE' TO FLY THAT IT WOULD BE OK TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE TO A MAINT BASE AND WRITE IT UP OR FIX IT THERE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: DISPATCHER THOUGHT TAILSKID WAS ON THE MEL AND COULD BE DEFERRED TO NEXT STOPOVER. SHE APPROVED FLT ON THAT BASIS. LATER SHE LEARNED IT WAS NON-DEFERABLE. SHE DID SAY THAT COMS WERE DIFFICULT BTWN THE FLC AND MAINT IN THAT NO ONE REALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE WAS PRESENT THAT UNDERSTOOD FLT OR MAINT LIMITATIONS. SHE NOW HAS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THESE LIMITATIONS.

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.