A British Airways Airbus A321neo had a pretty exciting landing at London Heathrow on Monday, which I think aviation geeks will enjoy. Admittedly this is being blown out of proportion in the media (”BA jet almost flipped over”), but it’s pretty cool footage nonetheless.
Continue reading: Wild British Airways Aborted Landing At Heathrow
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Fully agree that there was no tail strike. Most probably from the angle, it looked like a tail strike, most probably just millimeters from a tail strike.
On the question of a tail strike… if one were to occur, would it be safe for the aircraft to leave the ground again and attempt another landing? Under what scenario is it better to just stick with the landing (and incur damage) versus effectively taking off again with a damaged tail (which could lead to a bigger issue)?
Exactly what I wonder too, what determines if it's safer to go around or land, and how in the world does someone decide that within a fraction of a second, because that's all the time they really have to decide.
If there had been a tail strike, you would have seen sparks, or smoke, or both.
It seems like they came in kinda fast—not unusual in gusty weather—and had a long flare….seems like maybe the pilots didn’t have that much runway (it looks like they are halfway down) left to stop if they did land, which makes the go-around quite sensible.
Most issues caused by a tailstrike don't become catastrophic until much later. A lot of the issues are with metal fatigue on the aft pressure bulkhead, which wouldn't really be problematic when doing a go around. One notable incident is JAL flight 123, where improperly repaired damage from a tailstrike caused the plane to crash 7 years later.
Pilots are taught to go around if something isn't right, and in 99.9% of cases that's the right move. Unless your aircraft is uncontrollable and you're basically having a crash landing anyway (like United 232), a go around is pretty much always a safer option.
(Also to add - not a pilot, mechanic, or engineer, so, I could be wrong)
All these stretch variants have higher tailstrike risk. That's why their approach speed keeps getting faster. And in situations like this it becomes tricky. All those A321 and the MAX9 MAX10.
But it's not a design problem, just tighter operating parameters.
I'm no tailstrike expert, but this isn't Hollywood. So I don't think not seeing sparks can rule out tailstrike. Seeing the flight continue operating is a better clue, since even with no sparks, I'm sure there would be marks if tailstrike did occur and the pilot or ground crew would have spotted it.
How often do you see car accidents have sparks or smoke or both. Then count how many you see in the newer Fast & Furious series.
Why was he trying for a smooth landing. In a cross wind such as he had you plant the aircraft on. Why didn't the spoilers deploy when he touched both main gear on the runway? Perhaps he did not have them armed. As a retired pilot for a major carrier it was difficult to watch. There was no need for the theatrics.
At first I thought it laid down a new mark of blue paint on the middle of the runway at 1:08-:09, but then realized you can already see that existing mark around 1:05-:06. Of course, it comes down right on top of the existing mark(!). Was that mark a little bit bigger after? Hard to tell for certain... Still: a close call either way. Even if it did contact the pavement, it was only just barely.
Kudos to Jerry standing out there shooting all this for everyone, L-O-L!
They did. You can see them activating when both mains touch. It would seem the decision to go around was made at the same time as they don’t full extend before retracting again.