EWRflyr

They did do that.

XHooker

The tail strikes on the -900ER aren't on takeoff, they're on landing. And most -900ER pilots probably won't experience a tail strike, either. That doesn't mean it's not an issue. When we got 757-300s I know that tail strikes were a big area of concern.

The landing tail contact attitude of a 737-9 is a little over eight degrees. The real problem is tail strikes in the -900ER have occurred with touchdowns of less than six degrees nose up and speeds of greater than Vref minus five. The spoilers deploy, shifting the center of lift forward, the nose pitches up, and voila... tail strike. The pilots might not even know it happened.

I agree with your view that this is a technique issue, but you've got to know it's an issue to emphasize it. Until I flew with an FO who had one, I didn't know we had any tail strikes on the -900ER and assumed if the pitch at touchdown was under eight, you were OK... not so.

In the 737 RTO braking will not occur until 90 knots.

Regularguy

X:

The majority of the tailstrikes on the B767 are also on landing. Anything above 8.5 DGNU is questionable and flaps less than 30 will highly increase the likely hood. It was the same with the 727 and if you look back I tried to emphasize landing technique is the issue.

I flew the B737-200,300 for thousands of hours in both seats and because of the length of the fuselage tail strike were only for the severely slow and high pitched on landing. The problem is/was if one gets used to "flaring" the airplane on to get a "smooth" landing and then changes to a -900, well let's say old habits are hard to break.

As far as all the auto stuff goes the reason UAL originally chose 80 knots was because it all starts to happen near there. Originally we had pilots calling 90 or 100 knots and some even had the 3000' acceleration check of 90 knots (727) to make sure the airplane was really acceleration normally. So for standardization and letting the designed auto stuff do what it is supposed to 80 knots was chosen as the standard.

Let's say you notice a generator light come on at 85 knots or prior to your 100 knot call and by the time you react and reduce thrust the airplane is over 90 knots, won't the RTO engage with full brakes? The MEL, at least on 757/767, says if rejected takeoff engages RTO the airplane must return and have maintenance inspection.

I think I like the earlier 80 knot call better, but if the "experts" change the SOP I will follow.

XHooker

Exactly! The thing is, I don't know if we've had any tail strikes in the -900, even though we've had it longer (though there are fewer) than the "ER". The "ER" has a slower approach speed and, I believe, different ground spoilers. This results in a situation where being a couple of knots below ref, even if you're well below the ground contact pitch angle at touchdown, can result in a tail strike due to the pitch up from spoiler deployment. This is all stuff I was unaware of until I flew with an FO who told me about their tail strike.

I've done both and prefer the 100 KIAS call as 80 seems to happen so quickly after brake release. We continue for a fire light in the high speed regime and I like the extra 20 knots before I get there. Like you, I'll do whatever the powers that be come up.

chuckyt1

At UA, we do not.

SoCalGuy

Supposedly in the 'new' UAL.....the engine "FIRE" in the HIGH SPEED regime (100kts+) WILL become an abort, unlike what CAL has now = GO.

Just what a B756 Ck Airman shared on the line last week.....stay tuned.

chuckyt1

I surely do hope so. Taking a burning airplane into the air seems like a bad idea to me. I would add - any fire light, not just an engine fire. Now, at UAL, we will abort for any fire light in the high speed regime.

Like you said, stay tuned. Lot's of change is a 'comin...

XHooker

I'd heard the same thing and that we'd also go to an 80 KIAS call. We'll see.

XHooker

I don't know... what's the likely greater danger... a fire light or an abort just below V1? That's not rhetorical, I really wonder. We've got fire bottles and you can get an airplane back on the ground within 10 minutes IMC, about half that VMC. How many fire lights are false indications? I'm not wedded to any particular course of action, I just hope what the Star Chamber comes up with is based on logic. Like the rest of us, I'll try to do what they tell me to do.

Coto Pilot

Take a look at the Concorde accident, if they had the opportunity to abort they no doubt would have and the outcome may have been different. The Quantas A380 is another example. It didn't happen on the ground, but an uncontained engine failure nearly brought the plane down. I forget the number, I think something like 56, ECAM messages that they had to deal with. If it's possible to stay on the ground safely, I'm staying on the ground.