Tailstrike Serious incident Boeing 737-8HX (WL) LV-FUA, Monday 13 February 2017
ASN logo
 
This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information. If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information.

Date:Monday 13 February 2017
Time:c. 13:00
Type:Silhouette image of generic B738 model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different    
Boeing 737-8HX (WL)
Owner/operator:Aerolineas Argentinas
Registration: LV-FUA
MSN: 40548/4995
Year of manufacture:2014
Fatalities:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 139
Other fatalities:0
Aircraft damage: Substantial
Category:Serious incident
Location:San Carlos de Bariloche International Airport, RN (BRC/SAZS) -   Argentina
Phase: Landing
Nature:Passenger - Scheduled
Departure airport:Buenos Aires-Jorge Newbery Airport, BA (AEP/SABE)
Destination airport:San Carlos de Bariloche International Airport, RN (BRC/SAZS)
Investigating agency: JIAAC
Confidence Rating: Accident investigation report completed and information captured
Narrative:
Aerolineas Argentinas flight AR1672, Boeing 737-800, sustained a tail strike during an attempted landing at San Carlos de Bariloche International Airport in Argentina.

The flight went smoothly until the beginning of the final approach to runway 29 in Bariloche, which the captain (Pilot Flying) performed in manual mode, with the autopilot disconnected. The aircraft's trajectory management was out of phase with respect to the stabilized approach parameters established by the company, and the landing attempt on runway 29 resulted in an Abnormal Contact with the Runway (ARC) followed by a bounced landing. As a consequence of the bounced landing, the spoilers were automatically deployed, which led to a second abrupt contact with the runway (hard landing) at 3.08g. Although the aircraft remained on the surface of the runway after the second touch down, the crew initiated a go-around manoeuvre. The new approach and landing were completed smoothly. On the ground it appeared that the aircraft had suffered a tail strike.

Conclusions referring to factors related to the incident:
- During the flight, approach and landing attempt which culminated in the incident, the commander fulfilled the function of PF while the first officer fulfilled the function of PM.
- The flight went smoothly from its takeoff from Aeroparque to the beginning of the final stretch of the approach to runway 29 in Bariloche.
- The PF executed the approach to runway 29 in Bariloche manually, supported by the ILS and the PAPI of runway 29.
- At a distance of 5.8 km from the touch point of runway 29, the aircraft was 500 feet above the reference height established by the 3º glide path for visual approach to runway 29.
- When crossing 1000 feet of height, the aircraft was 250 feet above the reference height established by the 3° glide path for visual approach to runway 29.
- The aircraft's descent rate exceeded 1000 feet per minute below 1000 feet above the TDZE, and reached a peak of 1608 feet per minute approaching 500 feet above the TDZE.
- The speed control was within the stabilized approach values.
- The CVR did not record callouts of stabilized or destabilized approach by the crew at 1000 feet above TDZE.
- The CVR did not record callouts associated with deviations in crew-stabilized approach values.
- The first contact of the aircraft, with thrust superior to idle and without transition between the approach regime and the landing regime, resulted in an ARC that caused a bounced landing up to a height of 4 feet above the runway.
- The extension of the spoilers, after the reduction of thrust to idle, was probably due to the compression of a shock absorber of the landing gear and/or the rotation of the wheels at a speed higher than 60 knots, product of the first touch.
- During the rebound and with the aircraft in the air, the reduction of thrust to idle produced the extension of the spoilers and consequent abrupt loss of lift, causing the second touch of the aircraft with the surface of the runway, with a vertical acceleration of 3.08 g, resulting in a hard landing.
- After the hard landing the aircraft remained on the surface of the runway.
- The association by the flight crew of the possibility of the automatic activation of the spoilers as a result of the reduction of the thrust of the engines to idle with the condition of aircraft in the air after a rebound with thrust of engines superior to idle, is not intuitive.
- The information provided by Boeing in the FCTM on the possibility of automatic activation of spoilers as a result of the reduction of engine thrust to idle with the condition of aircraft in the air after a rebound with engine thrust greater than idle is explicit as to the probability of occurrence, but not to the reasons why it may occur.
- With the aircraft on the surface of the runway, the moment of positive pitch resulting from the deployment of spoilers, added to the rotation to initiate the go-around maneuver, caused contact of the rear ventral area of the fuselage with the surface of the runway.
- The contact of the tail of the aircraft with the surface occurred with a pitch angle of 8.6 º, which is lower than 9.2 º, which according to information from Boeing is the minimum pitch angle that can generate a tail strike.
- The pitch angle measurement interval, and the fact that due to the vertical acceleration of 3.08 g during the second touch, the undercarriages of the main landing gear could have been compressed beyond their operational envelope are potential explanations, individually or collectively, by the tail strike to a pitch angle value lower than that indicated by Boeing.
- The empirical evidence available to the investigation did not make it possible to reliably determine why the tail strike occurred at a pitch angle lower than that established by Boeing.
- The empirical evidence available to the investigation did not allow excluding conclusions as to whether the tail strike was a consequence of the destabilized approach, or was a result of the ARC and the bounced landing.
- Contextual analysis of the evidence supports the following as the most sustainable conclusion
that the tail strike of the AR1672 in Bariloche was the consequence of a chain of events including the destabilised approach, the ARC and the bounced landing, which culminated in the tail strike, and which were combined without any intermediate factors breaking the chain.
- The operational performance of the flight crew reflected a departure from the institutional expectations embodied in the SOPs.
- The analysis of the circumstances of the event explains -without justifying- the gap between the operational performance of the crew with respect to the institutional expectations embodied in the SOPs.


The incident aircraft was ferried back to Buenos Aires on Mach 3, 2017.

Accident investigation:
cover
  
Investigating agency: JIAAC
Report number: 
Status: Investigation completed
Duration: 2 years
Download report: Final report

Sources:

https://jiaac.gob.ar/files/58720-17.pdf

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/lv-fua#c72c20b
https://twitter.com/JIAAC_AR/status/831228846145990656
http://www.lacapital.com.ar/un-avion-aerolineas-argentinas-rozo-la-pista-la-parte-trasera-su-fuselaje-bariloche-n1339582.html

Images:


Flight track of AR1672 (c) Flightradar24

Media:

Revision history:

Date/timeContributorUpdates
13-Feb-2017 20:00 harro Added
14-Feb-2017 07:31 harro Updated [Source, Embed code, Narrative]
14-Feb-2017 19:22 harro Updated [Embed code, Photo, ]
03-Mar-2017 20:02 harro Updated [Time, Total occupants, Source, Damage, Narrative]
15-Feb-2019 15:25 harro Updated [Narrative, Accident report, ]

Corrections or additions? ... Edit this accident description

The Aviation Safety Network is an exclusive service provided by:
Quick Links:

CONNECT WITH US: FSF on social media FSF Facebook FSF Twitter FSF Youtube FSF LinkedIn FSF Instagram

©2024 Flight Safety Foundation

1920 Ballenger Av, 4th Fl.
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
www.FlightSafety.org