Qantas B738 at Sydney on Aug 1st 2014, data input errors result in tail scrape

Last Update: November 16, 2015 / 14:58:59 GMT/Zulu time

Bookmark this article
Incident Facts

Date of incident
Aug 1, 2014

Classification
Report

Airline
Qantas

Flight number
QF-842

Departure
Sydney, Australia

Destination
Darwin, Australia

Aircraft Registration
VH-VZR

Aircraft Type
Boeing 737-800

ICAO Type Designator
B738

A Qantas Boeing 737-800, registration VH-VZR performing flight QF-842 from Sydney,NS to Darwin,NT (Australia) with 146 passengers and 6 crew, had departed Sydney's runway 34L in gusting conditions rotating at the computed 146 KIAS and was climbing through FL110, when the captain (ATPL, more than 10,000 hours total, more than 1800 hours on type), pilot flying, turned off the fasten seat belt sign and a member of the cabin crew informed the flight deck that she had heard a squeak noise during rotation for takeoff. The crew levelled the aircraft off at FL280 and initiated the checklist for suspected tailstrike on departure, in the absence of any abnormal indication, the cabin having pressurized normally, and after consultation with the airline's maintenance the crew decided to continue the flight to Darwin, where the aircraft landed safely. A post flight examination revealed some paint had been scraped off the tail skid assembly.

The ATSB released their final report concluding the probable causes of the incident were:

- During the take-off, the aircraft was rotated at a speed about 10 kt lower than required for the aircraft's actual weight, which was sufficient to overpitch the aircraft, resulting in a tailstrike.

- During the calculation of the take-off weight, both the captain and the first officer made independent inadvertent errors in their calculations, which resulted in the same, but incorrect, weight figure being used to calculate the take-off speeds.

- The Flight Crew Operating Manual procedure for crew comparison of the calculated Vref40 speed, while designed to assist in identifying a data entry error, could be misinterpreted, thereby negating the effectiveness of the check. [Safety issue]

The ATSB reported that following the landing and discovery of the paint scraped off the tail skid assembly the captain phoned the airline's duty captain and was asked during that phone call to check the takeoff figures used. The first officer (more than 10,000 hours total, more than 7000 hours on type), pilot monitoring, then discovered that they had entered performance data indicated 10 tons less than correct takeoff mass, 66,400kg of takeoff mass had been used to compute the takeoff performance rather than the correct 76,400kg, which resulted in a Vr of 9 knots less than needed, 146 KIAS instead of 155 KIAS.

The ATSB reported the crew had used the company provided iPad to compute the takeoff performance, the crew had about 4 years of experience with this Onboard Performance Tool (OPT). Both flgiht crew members are required to enter their data independently and compare the results with 1 knot difference in the resulting speed permitted. In this particular occurrence the captain inadvertently dropped the leading 1 from the fuel figure resulting in an incorrect takeoff mass of 66,400kg instead of 76,400kg. The first officer on the other hand had computed the takeoff mass correctly at 76,400kg but when transferring the takeoff mass to the OPT made a transposition error and keyed in 66,400kg. The results matched, hence the errors were not detected.

The ATSB analysed that a further line of defense against such errors was missed when the crew compared the OPT computed performance figures with the FMC computed figures. While the OPT computed a Vref40 of 139 KIAS, the FMC had computed the correct figure of 149 KIAS. The flight crew operations manual required the values to match within +/- 1 knot. During the testimony the captain, as well as the first officer, told the ATSB that as result of this procedure it was quite normal to compare the last digit of those figures only, and that last digit did match. The first officer was surprised to find out that a 10 ton mismatch in takeoff mass resulted in a 10 knot difference of the Vref40 speed.

The ATSB wrote: "This focus on the last digit, combined with an expectation that any error would be apparent in the last digit, reduced the effectiveness of this check."
Aircraft Registration Data
Registration mark
VH-VZR
Country of Registration
Australia
Date of Registration
LcqiiAcbbblb Subscribe to unlock
Airworthyness Category
Ihhgghqmhi dcilbhh Subscribe to unlock
TCDS Ident. No.
IiAfq Subscribe to unlock
Manufacturer
THE BOEING COMPANY
Aircraft Model / Type
737-838
ICAO Aircraft Type
B738
Year of Manufacture
h d Subscribe to unlock
Serial Number
Mqikg Subscribe to unlock
Maximum Take off Mass (MTOM) [kg]
Kj bi Subscribe to unlock
Engine Count
J Subscribe to unlock
Engine
Qjgeppjqpmginhlb fikpqngqnhdclplbchAdqedAcmn Subscribe to unlock
Main Owner
hnp AllqmhnbjmfdmkedqijAAlcgggbebjqgqpecfddnmdnAbdbplicgpnfkmncclAdplcedbdflg Subscribe to unlock
Main Operator
GeAljhglefknimkmghlbcqdikq hflkbAfAkemqemfqlicfcbemmhAiffAcdghcfqiicmhAebllp k Subscribe to unlock
Incident Facts

Date of incident
Aug 1, 2014

Classification
Report

Airline
Qantas

Flight number
QF-842

Departure
Sydney, Australia

Destination
Darwin, Australia

Aircraft Registration
VH-VZR

Aircraft Type
Boeing 737-800

ICAO Type Designator
B738

This article is published under license from Avherald.com. © of text by Avherald.com.
Article source

You can read 2 more free articles without a subscription.

Subscribe now and continue reading without any limits!

Subscribe now
Are you a subscriber? Login
Subscribe

Read unlimited articles and receive our daily update briefing. Gain better insights into what is happening in commercial aviation safety.

Compare our plans

Send tip

Support AeroInside by sending a small tip amount.

Send tip

Related articles

Newest articles

Subscribe today

Are you researching aviation incidents? Get access to AeroInside Insights, unlimited read access and receive the daily newsletter.

Pick your plan and subscribe

Partner

ELITE Logo

ELITE Simulation Solutions is a leading global provider of Flight Simulation Training Devices, IFR training software as well as flight controls and related services. Find out more.

SafetyScan Pro

SafetyScan Pro provides streamlined access to thousands of aviation accident reports. Tailored for your safety management efforts. Book your demo today

AeroInside Blog
Popular aircraft
Airbus A320
Boeing 737-800
Boeing 737-800 MAX
Popular airlines
American Airlines
United
Delta
Air Canada
Lufthansa
British Airways