Hacker News Reader

Comment by ApolloFortyNine | Hacker News Reader

Watching the video someone else linked [1], the tail strike seems incredibly obvious. Why did the crew have to be notified at all? I know in some cases a tail strike can be slight, but here you can both hear it and see that it clearly affected the plane in some way as the cameraman dropped the phone.

Also, that the B350 crew was able to report it is also suspect. I'm guessing they thought they had right away as they were descending (I'm not a pilot, but someone here definitely had priority I'd assume) but if you can see a plane taking off at you well enough to see the tail hit the ground, surely you should go around?

Seems like the classic 'both parties were in the wrong' situation. Not reporting such a harsh tailstrike does seem rather wild though. Mistakes happen, ignoring them on the other hand is something else.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TKAPAo602w

View on HN

Tail in back, pilots in front, 120ft away.

I have no idea why the crew in the back didn't let the pilots know.. you'd think there would be a culture of overcommunication when it comes to airline safety. Esp. as the pilots kept ascending..

The plane literally shook, watch the video, it wasn't just a loud noise, it was enough to drop a phone. Rather abnormal for takeoff.

The dude was holding his phone selfie style with a decently extended arm. That's a recipe for shaky crap video no matter what is going on. It's a fool's errand at best to try and evaluate the violence of the tail-strike from the video alone. Maybe if you line up timestamps and could correlate against data recorder sensor readings.

It's a balance. As they say, "aviate, navigate, communicate" in that order. Maybe they assumed the pilots were busy staying in control of the plane and waited for them to ask?

But on the other hand, we also have evidence that the power gradient on a plane is fairly strong and this means lower-ranked crew are less likely to report problems, as much as they try to create a culture where they would.

I'm just surprised there isn't some kind of pressure plate sensor in the tail to let the pilots know this happened, especially since tail strikes are not 1 in a million event.

>I'm guessing they thought they had right away

It's actually "right of way".

I don't know the rules but the aircraft on the ground should have the right of way since they're nowhere near as maneuverable as the airborne plane? At least it seems that way to me. That said, I wouldn't want to approach, land, or go around with a much larger plane departing in my direction. Maybe if you offset by a ton but a whole different direction (90 deg if possible?) would be my preference.

Landing aircraft have right of way over planes on the ground at non-controlled airports, but you're right, they were also in a better position to change their course. I'm not sure how a safety investigation would rule fault.

> Watching the video someone else linked [1], the tail strike seems incredibly obvious.

I must be watching a different video, because that one shows a plane landing hard, not taking off.

>JetBlue flight 1748, an Airbus A320, suffered a tailstrike on takeoff from Hayden Airport, Colorado on January 22,

The pilots of the A320 may not have known there was a tail strike.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com