Summit tail strike May 26/14

[Donald]

Incident: Summit DH8A at Cambridge Bay on May 26th 2014, tail scrape on landing

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Jun 6th 2014 22:52Z, last updated Friday, Jun 6th 2014 22:52Z
A Summit Air de Havilland Dash 8-100, registration C-GASB performing flight SU-1082 from Yellowknife,NT to Cambridge Bay,NU (Canada) with 30 people on board, landed on Cambridge Bay's runway at 17:02L (23:02Z), however, the tail contacted the runway surface causing the tail cone bumper to be knocked off the aircraft. The aircraft rolled out without further incident.

The Canadian TSB reported that airport maintenance recovered the part and handed it to the crew. The crew inspected the aircraft in consultation with the airline's Maintenance and Operations, no other damage became apparent. The defect was deferred and the aircraft departed for the passenger flight to Kugluktuk,NU (Canada) and further on to Yellowknife. After the return to Yellowknife the airline also conducted a hard landing inspection with no further damage found.

Is it normal for a 705 crew to do a tail strike inspection?

[Illya Kuryakin]

I might be in left field here, but a tail strike could easily lead to structural damage a flight crew would be less than qualified to judge. I'd want (and would insist upon) a signature in the log book before I flew it. Especially with pax on board.
Illya

[single_swine_herder]

This situation is super-interesting to me.

Flying a damaged aircraft with passengers?

I wonder how the maintenance folks determined that it was OK and able to be deferred. I don't have a clue about the MEL for the Dash 8, but maybe somebody could help me out here.

Unless one of the crew was an AME with Dash 8 qualifications , how did all this whole process of reporting and assessment come together?

Stepping beyond this specific event, how does your company deal with aircraft damage of the primary structure ..... not described in the MEL ... while away from a maintenance base?

For example, if a pilot taxied into something like a fence post, another aircraft, a fuel bowser, etc and put a pretty subtantial dent in the wing leading edge about a foot long and 2 inches deep and maybe 3 or 4 inches high, would you just load on the passengers and head for home?

Would you consider that normal? There is communication capability available by phone or radio to reach home base ... would you consider it normal to phone an AME on call, ...... or just treat it as "ops normal," and keep on flying people around?

I'm trying to poll the collective mind of ...... as the fine Colonel Sanders calls it .... "The AvCanada Brain Trust."

[Illya Kuryakin]

Interesting situation for sure herder. In a society so dumbed down we have the clean wing concept, disallowing experience and common sense from playing a roll in our decision making process, but we can hit pavement with parts other than the tyres, and that's okay? I'm thinking your wing dent example would cause as much disruption as a thin layer of whore frost?
That said, I don't recall structural damage being discussed in an MEL?
Illya

[Liquid Charlie]

First reaction I would expect it needs a maintenance release M# item but then again if there is some sort of "witness" ring or some similar indicator (don't know dash that if un-disturb it would be OK for the crew to defer under elemental maintenance -- stranger things have happened --

[Jean-Pierre]

Northern Canada 705 second dirty little secret is that maintenance never leave their hangar for anything less than engine failure.

(The first was that the plane take off with ice on their wing in case you miss the Calm Air thread)

[freakonature]

How common are tail strikes during landing?

[frozen solid]

I don't know about the company or incident, but I do know the tail bumper on a -100 series Dash 8 is a fibreglass piece with a urethane block on the bottom, not connected by much to the rest of the structure. The report doesn't say very much about any other damage, so I can easily imagine a telephone consultation with an engineer being quite productive and conclusive depending on the nature of the damage.

I'm all for obeying the letter-of-the-law, but isn't there any room for judgement anymore? I've had my share of dings over the years, not in 705 planes to be sure, but, if we assume the damage to the fibreglass/rubber piece to have been fairly identifiable (it is a sacrificial piece after all) is it necessary to call this incident a "dirty little secret of the North"?

It would be nice to think that there is still some safety to be found in common sense, instead of just doubling-up our orange reflective smocks before screwing up enough courage to venture outside of the hangar on a nice day.

[whoop_whoop]

I checked the MEL and I could only find the following for the 300 series regarding the touched runway sensor:

(O) (M) May be inoperative provided, prior to each
flight, the underside of rear fuselage is confirmed free of damage.
[editorial note: if there is (M#) then you need an AME signature, otherwise the crew can accomplish any (O) or (M) item.]

As the previous poster said, that bumper on the 100 series is not attached by much. I would imagine that if you hit it on landing that you could conceivably not damage any other components. If someone has access to the AOM there may be something specific in supplement 41 regarding the bumper.

All in all, I doubt that it was nefarious of them to continue operating after busting the bumper!

[azimuthaviation]

I'm all for obeying the letter-of-the-law, but isn't there any room for judgement anymore?

yes, and its in the CAR's

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... 5g-509.htm

4) Following any abnormal occurrence, including but not limited to those described in this appendix, an entry shall be made in the journey log describing the event. Where possible, the entry shall include some indication of the relative severity of the incident. Prior to the next flight, the aircraft shall be inspected, preferably by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with section 571.11 of the CARs. If no such person is available, the inspection can be conducted by the captain of the aircraft. In this case, the inspection will of necessity be limited to those items which do not require a maintenance release (i.e. does not involve disassembly).

However, it goes on to say:

(5) If in the opinion of the captain, the condition of the aircraft is satisfactory for the intended flight, albeit without passengers, he/she shall make an entry in the log to that effect calling for a full inspection by a person who may sign a maintenance release in accordance with section 571.11 of the CARs when available. The captain can then proceed, at his/her discretion, on the intended flight(s) until such time as the aircraft reaches a base where the required additional inspection can be performed. No special flight authority is required under these circumstances. At the first opportunity, the aircraft shall be inspected and a maintenance release shall be issued by a person who may do so in accordance with section 571.11 of the CARs.

I cant find any other reference besides the words in bold that passengers cannot be carried.

[sportingrifle]

I work for a pretty big airline and occasionally at out stations without maintenance personnel, we have email'd photos of damage to maintenance control who have then made a determination that the aircraft could be flown based on photos and pilots description. If the tail bumper is sacrificial, and the paint on the belly skins isn't scratched, it would seem to me that waiting for an M2 to come up and see for himself wouldn't really make anything any safer not legal.

[av8ts]

I've got 16 years of flying Dashes and this is the first time I've heard of a tail strike on a 100, 300's and 400's yes but not a 100. That's a pretty nose high attitude on touchdown.

[Canoehead]

Agreed^

I'm more interested in what the lead up was to the tail strike in a -100. Must've been some serious s%#t. A tail strike in any pressurized airplane is for the engineers to deliberate over the further action required.

[Liquid Charlie]

The only foot notes to this is the good old days of "Get ér done" are gone and we live in a day of CYA that is what is so surprising about this incident -- another airline had a tail strike a while ago and proceeded with crew assessment only to find more damage when maintenance inspected -- TC was crawling up their ass for having a non airworthy aeroplane flying passengers -- and of course the crew was dodging bullets as well - created a rather large can of worms -- I'm just sayin' ------------

[sanjet]

How common are tail strikes during landing?

I haven't flown a -100 in a few years so correct me if im wrong.
I can see it happening on a 300 or a 400, but a -100 (DH8A) would require in excess of 12-13 degrees pitch attitude on landing for a tail strike to occur.

['CauseTheCaravanCan]

I'm thinking your wing dent example would cause as much disruption as a thin layer of whore frost?

It's Hoar Frost.

...unless you meant this

Whore frost - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Whore_frost
Afflicting thousands of sex-trade workers, initially in arctic and sub-arctic climates, whore frost is a terminal condition causing much anxiety to the whores who are ...

...or this

whores frost
when a slutty chick has grey and white pubic hairs
She had the whores frost growing proudly between her legs.
by JJ Bingham February 03, 2014

...or this?

Urban Dictionary: Whore frost
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whorefrost
Whore frost. The effects of cold temperature upon the scantily clad. Seen as lacey pattens of ice upon the bare calves, arms, lower back and upper breasts ...

mwah.

[Donald]

The only foot notes to this is the good old days of "Get ér done" are gone and we live in a day of CYA that is what is so surprising about this incident -- another airline had a tail strike a while ago and proceeded with crew assessment only to find more damage when maintenance inspected -- TC was crawling up their ass for having a non airworthy aeroplane flying passengers -- and of course the crew was dodging bullets as well - created a rather large can of worms -- I'm just sayin' ------------

Would this be what you are referring to?

Accident: First Air AT43 at Pangnirtung on Apr 5th 2010, "cosmetic" change after landing bounce

By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Apr 7th 2010 20:11Z, last updated Wednesday, Apr 7th 2010 20:11Z
A First Air Aerospatiale ATR-42-300, registration C-FTCP performing flight 7F-824 from Iqaluit,NU to Pangnirtung,NU (Canada) with 15 people on board, was approaching Pangnirtung in good weather conditions. The airplane touched down firmly, bounced and rolled out.

The crew performed a postflight inspection, noticed "cosmetic" damage to the COMM2 antenna, and decided to continue their planned schedule.

The Canadian TSB reported, that after completing several more sectors the airplane arrived back in the airline's maintenance base Iqaluit, where maintenance personnel identified substantial structural damage to the tail of the aircraft.

[Meddler]

Northern Canada 705 second dirty little secret is that maintenance never leave their hangar for anything less than engine failure.

Right...I guess it depends which operator your working for. I can't think of any that statement is true of offhand though.

Sounds like it was covered through use of telephones, MELs, and the dreaded common sense in this case however.

[Liquid Charlie]

Northern Canada 705 second dirty little secret is that maintenance never leave their hangar for anything less than engine failure.

I never had a problem getting an engineer to "bum fuk no where" north of 6330 if needed -- and usually they were pretty close at hand -- my only question is if this was such a minor "rub" why didn't it happen a "home base" -- sorry my bad -- we have evolved out of that --

My only advice from personal experience is that once the cat is out of the bag just sit back and let it take it's course - don't offer any suggestions unless asked and make sure there is an entry in the logbook and if you are not certain if it can be signed by you get an email or fax from someone stating that the aircraft is airworthy and legal to fly and it can be released through pilot elementary maintenance program -- CYA boys because when the dust settles I can almost guarantee you will likely be waiting for an engineer to come and inspect and release the airplane -- if you let someone blow smoke up your ass you have unknowing removed the cover ----

[Illya Kuryakin]

LC, myself, and a few others here have, in the "good old days" brought one or two birds home, that today we'd sit and wait for a "pen". Not that there was ever any question about safety (we've always been cowards at heart) but in the new era, where everything is very rule oriented, and common sense and experience have been removed from the equation, one's ass must always be covered in paper, it's better to pass the buck.
Illya