Accident: LATAM Brasil B773 at Milan on Jul 9th 2024, tail strike on departure

Reader Comments: (the comments posted below do not reflect the view of The Aviation Herald but represent the view of the various posters)

By Anonym on Tuesday, Jul 23rd 2024 05:23Z

Tik tokers on flight deck is not good for aviation.

TSP again
By 30west on Saturday, Jul 20th 2024 12:12Z

Dear Horstroad,
I exactly meant that: TSP was assumingly operational and armed but when it comes for the system to decrease rotation rate to protect from strike we may reasonably assume that as VR was much lower then actual for TOW system couldn't react timely and properly (I say again "assume") as manufacturer does not provide any info about that super abnormal condition...
Yes, overpowering flight control protections is possible on 777 but again Boeing does not say if that is possible for TSP (that I assume NOT as it would void the meaning of such protection).
To make a long story short: TSP tries to decrease rotation rate but aircraft seats down in an effort of crew to be airborne (though impossible yet)...
That is just a personal opinion of course.

Incident photos
By Horstroad on Wednesday, Jul 17th 2024 20:00Z

I have seen some photos, too. If these photos are indeed of this tail strike, the video made it look a lot worse than it actually was.
Basically only the tail skid was ripped off, without any obvious major structural damage.
Search for "aeroporti lombardi forum latam tail strike"

First picture is released!
By Man-Fly on Wednesday, Jul 17th 2024 12:54Z

First picture of the tailstrike is available.

+LATAM +Tailstrike in picture search

First you'll get a few pics of the damaged LATAM 321. Then there's the picture of the 777.

APU is clearly visible, as is everything else inside the tail.

I've never seen anything like it!

By Horstroad on Tuesday, Jul 16th 2024 19:23Z

One more addition:

"as rotation has most probably happened at lower Vr then required by actual TOW we DO NOT KNOW what TSP does in real life"

TSP is armed with the following conditions (for take off):
- PFC in normal mode
- Mach less than 0 . 45
- RA less than 60
- GS less than 65kt
- VS, GS, RAD ALT, Mach valid
- A/C on ground

So we can assume the TSP function was active and the pilot tried their best to fight it. As you pointed out, there's no way to deactivate it, but like most (all?) protection functions on Boeing aircraft, it can be overpowered.

By (anonymous) on Tuesday, Jul 16th 2024 19:13Z

Enrique just made Samantha Chen more visible and famous! Had to googled her and found nothing wrong. Quite the opposite, I�m now a follower and think she does a terrific job! Kudos for Samantha! And, of course, thank you

@30west on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 18:59Z
By Horstroad on Tuesday, Jul 16th 2024 12:58Z

I would like to add the following:

"After the tail strike logic arms, the tail strike protection function can give a command to the elevator. A command can go to the elevator if the computed tail skid rate to the runway is too much. A command can also go to the elevator if the calculated skid height is less than 1. 5 feet.
The tail strike protection command has a maximum limit of 10 degrees of elevator movement. The pilot can pull the column farther aft to do an override of the tail strike protection. This makes sure the pilot can do a rotation or flare of the airplane. If there is a tail strike protection command, it goes away when the tail starts to move away from the runway."

From a technical training document.

@chrisgilgen
By Matt108 on Tuesday, Jul 16th 2024 12:16Z

I think you were very polite to Enrique. His comments have absolutely nothing to do with the event.

LATAM First Officer Boeing T7
By chrisgilgen on Tuesday, Jul 16th 2024 10:16Z

Good morning,

Reacting to Enrique's comment about a new female T7 FO of LATAM
called Samantha Chan. You made me curious and I have googled her. Frankly, I don't find her being "over the top" as you say - neither self-centred.

Sure, I saw several videos/post of her, including one where she talks about women in aviation - to an all female audience in Brazil. Of course there are many women that are very pationate about this subject - and I can kind of understand them. It's still very much harder to make career in aviation (and especially in the cockpit) if you are a female (especially in Latin American countries where machism is still very present).

Even if Samantha Chan is possibly (only) a bit "self-centred", maybe also a bit FEMINIST. But I am sorry - are very badly placed here (sitting on the same page where we discuss a severe incident of LATAM). So, kind of making a link with it towards her professionalism and her general attitude that you put (with your remarks) in question...

My opinion.

@ Bates
By Boefei on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 23:22Z

I�ll come off the topic of tailstrikes and weights for a minute here, because I want to put Mr Bates straight on a few points:
The tech crew of SR111 was very aware of the definition of MLDW, its implications, and the option of landing above it. I find it disturbing and disingenious to construe causality between a perceived lack of knowledge on Urs Zimmermann�s part and the loss of 223 lives. Repeating a myth that has been proven incorrect does not make it true, but for some reason Mr. Bates keeps trying�

Tail Strike and around.
By 30west on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 18:59Z

It would be greatly appreciated if non pros tried their best to avoid spreading incorrect informations here.

Tail Strike Protection

During takeoff or landing, the PFCs calculate if a tail strike is imminent and decrease elevator deflection, if required, to reduce the potential for tail strike. Activation of tail strike protection does not provide feedback to the control column.

That is the correct Boeing FCOM quoting AND there is NO way for the crew to switch it off or deactivate it. Unless they are insane and turn off the PFCs to transit to Flight Control Direct Mode.
Now: as rotation has most probably happened at lower Vr then required by actual TOW we DO NOT KNOW what TSP does in real life as Boeing does not provide such information. Righfully. As it is not conceivable such a condition. (as long as many others resulting by crew error).
BTW: TSP is a condition that trigger immediately a text message via ACARS to manufacturer and airline OCC.

@Capt Walt Bates
By frequentflyer on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 18:21Z

Curious where you information about max landing weight comes from considering the manufactures, NTSB, and FAA all say that it is because of the design of the landing gear itself and the stress imposed on it during landing at proper descent rates.

Also, the Canadian TSB determined that Swissair 111 would not have made it to the airport before their system failed even if they had headed directly to land. It crashed because the insulating blankets burned and the pilot didn't know the plane was on fire.

By Horstroad on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 16:46Z

I'm surprised this aircraft flew already. Even with the pressure bulkhead undamaged (which I suppose it was, as a flight at FL380 has to be pressurized), there's a lot of critical structure in the unpressurized area behind it, supporting the horizontal and vertical stabilizers.
From looking at the video it's hard to believe that the structural damage in this area isn't substantial.
I hope the video made it look worse than it actually was and they didn't take a risk bringing this aircraft home.

Sao Paulo - a LATAM repair base?
By Ralf B on Monday, Jul 15th 2024 08:49Z

Was that flight a transfer for repair? Asking, given it was flown as "JJ9549" which is not the usual flight number "LA8073".
Thanks for any insights!

wow
By Lee on Sunday, Jul 14th 2024 20:59Z

Yes, its in the air as we speak - FL380, flying over the ITCZ.

Thats truly impressive that after that debacle of a take off - the inspection revealed no damage to the lower part of the rear pressure bulkhead.

By Ze on Sunday, Jul 14th 2024 20:48Z

The aircraft (PT-MUG) is already back in the sky, currently flying back to SBGR (must be light on payload judging by the unusual high flight level for a 777-300). That was a quick repair!

@ClouDAction on Sunday, Jul 14th 2024 06:44Z
By Horstroad on Sunday, Jul 14th 2024 12:10Z

There is a tail strike protection function in the primary flight control system in normal mode, but the pilot can override it

What about tailstrike protection?
By ClouDAction on Sunday, Jul 14th 2024 06:44Z

I see a tailskid in photos of the airplane, so there is no FBW tailstrike protection, right?

Max Lndg Weight
By Cap Walt Bates on Sunday, Jul 14th 2024 01:47Z

Re Max Landing Weight.

That "max" weight has nothing to do with safety. It is an agreed upon number between the manufacturer and the airline and affects the warranties on the brakes. The lower the weight limit, the cheaper the premium and vice versa.

If Swissair 111 Captain Zimmerman had known that, he would have landed straight in at Halifax and saved over 200 lives. At my major airline we were not required to dump fuel if over "max". Fuel is expensive and unless there were other mitigating factors involved, we didn't dump. Rare single events did not affect the cost of the warranty.

Incompetence or neglect ?
By zacky on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 22:08Z

TWO more openings for pilots at LATAM.

Overweight landing
By Ricardo Scheible on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 19:31Z

During my long years involved in airline operations and training I�ve always discussed in which circumstances should an overweight landing be considered. In my modest opinion we could begin renaming it to Normal Maximum Landing Weight, NMLW. Having said so, no flight is allowed to departure planning a landing above NMLW. If any abnormal situation arises, landing should be considered in case performance permits, and according to the appropriate checklist. If being airborne poses a threat, than overweight landing is paramount. In other words, and in my opinion, only performance should prevent an overweight landing to be accomplished.

anonymous
By Freddy Figglebottom on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 12:19Z

Thanks heavens you aren't an employer. Atrocious attitude.

What I usually don't get...
By AlexG on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 09:16Z

Sorry to bother the pro's again but in cases of wrong performance calculations (talking in general, must NOT necessarily apply to this flight!) I as a non-pilot usually am wondering how this can happen. Or better, why it can go undetected. I would assume that if you flew a specific type of aircraft for years, and you know your flight distance, your load, the approx. length of the runway at this airport and the current wind conditions: shouldn't there be some natural gut feeling that detects any thoroughly miscalculated speeds as not being appropriate for the situation at hand?

I mean if you usually get Vr speeds of 155kn for a heavily loaded long distance flight, but today you calculated just 140kn, would you say "Hmm, strange, but well, it's a Tuesday. Let's go for it!" Wouldn't incorrect numbers immediately ring a bell in an experienced pilot's head?

By (anonymous) on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 05:30Z

This is serious level of incompetence and unprofessionalism. I truly hope they get fired and end up selling burgers together with that Emirates triple7 �turbo� who forgot the SID stop altitude land descending after T/O.

By Boyd on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 04:11Z

Wrong flap setting perhaps?

Re: on Pooche�s comment
By Enrique on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 02:20Z

@Pooches
It could be, there is an latam new 777 FO who loves to post herself on the seat, very self centered. Her posts are cringe. One thing is to be proud of your job, but she goes over the top. Samantha Chan, look her up.
For me it�s important our colleagues fly well, rather than pose well for the likes. Anyways, this was a ver prolonged tsilstrike, curious on the findings.

Let it fly off.
By Jim Murray on Saturday, Jul 13th 2024 01:24Z

Competent pilots would rotate to normal lift off attitude and let the A/C fly off, not caring what the V2 bug was set at, because with 2 engines you will be above V2. But these pilots might have been competent and something like a cargo shift or flight control error caused this early and continued over rotation. One last possibility is seat sliding back. Unlikely but it has happened in GA and big jets. I can't envision the pilots trying to "horse it off" like that.

Incorrect FMC Entries - past incident
By Boeing Guy on Friday, Jul 12th 2024 21:48Z

March 2003 Singapore Airlines Boeing 747 suffered a tail strike during take off from Auckland.

When the captain rotated the airplane for lift-off the tail struck the runway and scraped for some 490 meters. The tail strike occurred because the rotation speed was 33 knots less than the 163 knots required for the airplane weight, mistakenly calculated for an airplane weighing 100 tonnes less than the actual weight of the plane. The jet sustained severe damage and was scrapped.

It initially remained on the ground, in contact with the runway and scraped for about 7 seconds over a distance of about 490 m giving off white smoke.

A key finding in the investigation final report stated, the crews� incorrect data FMC entries, overriding FMS calculated V speeds:

� The FMC accepted an erroneous ZFW entry into its GR WT field.�

Tail strike?
By Alex on Friday, Jul 12th 2024 20:11Z

That's not a momentary tail strike. It's dragging its posterior like a dog with worms.

@MB on Friday, Jul 12th 2024 16:56Z
By Horstroad on Friday, Jul 12th 2024 17:59Z

17L has the displaced threshold, not 17R.
What you described would fit a take off from runway 35R, but they took off from runway 35L. The threshold of 17R is right at the end of the runway, except for a blast pad.

(anonymous) on Friday, Jul 12th 2024 11:47Z
Acewos on Friday, Jul 12th 2024 04:57Z

Incorrect take off data would result in incorrect thrust setting AND incorrect Vr, right?
So they would accelerate more slowly and rotate at a lower speed, which might be at the correct location on the runway.

Only the most recent 30 comments are shown to reduce server load. Click here to show the remaining comments