A321 tail strike

The aircraft under tow was cleared for the towing movement and the A321 was holding position in accordance with clearance. Both aircraft were found to have been operating in accordance with their acknowledged ATC clearances issued by the same controller. The incident happened on Saturday morning when the… The airplane operated on a flight from Sharm el Sheikh International Airport (SSH) to Saint Petersburg-Pulkovo Airport (LED). Three of the cabin crew sustained minor injuries but the remaining 90 occupants were uninjured.On 28 February 2013, the initial night landing attempt of a Ural Airlines Airbus A321 at Hurghada was mishandled in benign conditions resulting in a tail strike due to over-rotation. The incursion was not noticed by ATC but the crew of a Boeing 737 taking off from the same runway did see the other aircraft and initiated a very high speed rejected take off stopping 360 metres from it.

There were no unusual or sudden manoeuvres during the event and no injuries to the occupants.On 29 February 2004, a Boeing 737-200 crossed an active runway in normal daylight visibility ahead of a departing Airbus A321, the crew of which made a high speed rejected take off upon sighting the other aircraft after hearing its crossing clearance being confirmed. An alert was generated by the TWR conflict detection system but it was only visually annunciated and had not been noticed. A subsequent second approach proceeded to an uneventful landing. The Investigation noted that a stabilised approach had been flown by the First Officer but found that the prescribed recovery from the effects of a misjudged touchdown had not then been followed. Then the First Officer saw the damaged wing tip of the 747 and informed ATC about the possible impact. A321, Hurghada Egypt, 2013 (On 28 February 2013, the initial night landing attempt of a Ural Airlines Airbus A321 at Hurghada was mishandled in benign conditions resulting in a tail strike due to over-rotation. The Investigation found that the hard touchdown had been recorded as in excess of 3.3g and that the return flight had been “risky and unsafe” after failure of the Captain and maintenance personnel at the Operator to recognise the seriousness of the hard landing.On 21 January 2002, an Airbus A321-100 being operated by All Nippon Airways on a scheduled passenger flight from Nagoya to Hakodate encountered sudden negative windshear just prior to planned touchdown and the pitch up which followed resulted in the aft fuselage being damaged prior to the initiation of a climb away to position for a further approach which led to a normal landing. In service since 1994. Some models in the Boeing commercial airplane fleet experience tail strike more often than others and, almost without exception, the cause is elusive to the flight crew. By this time the A321neo accounted for 32% of all A320neo family orders, whereas the original A321 represented just 22% of A320ceo family orders. A couple of awkward moments in the difficult conditions of 2 March 2018. Tail strike, which occurs when an airplane tail contacts the runway during takeoff or landing, is an event that can be encountered by virtually all transport airplane designs. Various mitigations against incursions at this position have since been implemented.On 8 September 2016, an Airbus A321 en route in Bulgarian airspace at FL 350 was given and acknowledged a descent but then climbed and came within 1.2nm of a descending Boeing 737. AI has been advised to remove the cockpit voice recorder (CVR),” said a senior DGCA official.AIRLIVE.net is supported by a team of aviation enthusiasts.Japan Airlines Boeing 777-300 skin keychain (tail #JA8943)DIAMOND D-777 AIRBAND CIVIL AND MILITARY RECEIVING VERTICAL ANTENNADIAMOND D-777 AIRBAND CIVIL AND MILITARY RECEIVING VERTICAL ANTENNAI LOVE JFK New York Airport Premium Short-Sleeve Unisex T-Shirt Sebi Aviation 297 views Noting that the event had occurred at the time of a routine twice-daily runway configuration change and two previous very similar events in 2012 and 2014, further safety recommendations on risk management of runway configuration change were made.On 21 May 2011, a Monarch Airlines A321 taxiing for departure at Dublin inadvertently taxied onto an active runway after failing to follow its taxi clearance. This early rotation led he Airbus A321 to have a tail strike, with its undercarriage getting damaged, but the plane took off safely. I'm sure it's just coincidence they involve the same airline and aircraft. The radome was detached and the cockpit windshield was cracked due to impact with Hail.On 24 August 2010, an Airbus A321-200 being operated by British Midland on a scheduled public transport service from Khartoum to Beirut experienced, during cruise at FL360 in night IMC, an electrical malfunction which was accompanied by intermittent loss of the display on both pilots’ EFIS and an uncommanded change to a left wing low attitude. It was also found that despite an STCA activation of the collision risk, the controller, influenced by a Mode ‘S’ downlink of the correctly-set A321 cleared altitude, had then added to the risk by instructing the 737 to descend.On 21 February 2006, an Airbus A321-200 being operated by China Eastern on a scheduled passenger flight from Daegu to Shanghai Pudong failed to follow the marked taxiway centreline when taxiing for departure in normal daylight visibility and a wing tip impacted an adjacent building causing minor damage to both building and aircraft. An investigation into the causes is continuing but it is already known that blockage of more than one AOA probe resulted in unwanted activation of high AOA protection which could not be stopped by normal sidestick inputs until two of the three ADRs had been intentionally deactivated in order to put the flight control system into Alternate Law.On 26 September 2013, an Airbus A321 approaching Deauville in day VMC was advised that only a GNSS instrument approach - for which the crew were not approved - was available for the active runway.