Typo Officially Confirmed To Have Caused Airliner Tail-Strike on Takeoff

Crew Typed in Wrong Aircraft Take-off Weight into Laptop

2 min read
Typo Officially Confirmed To Have Caused Airliner Tail-Strike on Takeoff

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) released its final report last week of an United Arab Emirates (UAE) aircraft tail-strike incident at Melbourne Airport, Victoria, Australia on the 20th of March. I blogged a bit about this back in May.

The UAE Airbus A340-541 aircraft was leaving on a 14 hour flight to Dubai with 257 passengers, 14 cabin crew and 4 flight crew.

According  to the final report, "During the reduced thrust takeoff, the aircraft’s tail made contact with the runway surface, but the aircraft did not begin to climb. The captain commanded and selected take-off and go-around engine thrust and the aircraft commenced a climb. After jettisoning fuel to reduce the landing weight, the flight crew returned the aircraft to Melbourne for landing."

The ATSB confirmed its preliminary findings that determined that "the pre-flight take-off performance calculations were based on an incorrect take-off weight that was inadvertently entered into the take-off performance software on a laptop computer used by the flight crew."

The aircraft's first officer typed in the aircraft's weight as being 262.9 tonnes, the only problem being that the true weight was 362.9 tonnes.

The captain did not discover the discrepancy, and thus the incorrect aircraft weight was entered into the aircraft's flight management and guidance system.

The aircraft's tail struck the runway three times as well a distance beyond the end of the runway. The aircraft's landing gear also apparently struck a strobe light and localizer antenna off the runway as the aircraft tried to get airborne (there are photos and animation screen shots in the ATSB report).

The ATSB report says that Emirates has "undertaken a number of procedural, training and technical initiatives across its fleet and operations with a view to minimising the risk of a recurrence. In addition, the aircraft manufacturer has released a modified version of its performance-planning tool and is developing a software package that automatically checks the consistency of the flight data being entered into the aircraft’s flight computers by flight crews."

The two crew members resigned from the airline soon after the incident.

The Conversation (0)

Why Functional Programming Should Be the Future of Software Development

It’s hard to learn, but your code will produce fewer nasty surprises

11 min read
Vertical
A plate of spaghetti made from code
Shira Inbar
DarkBlue1

You’d expectthe longest and most costly phase in the lifecycle of a software product to be the initial development of the system, when all those great features are first imagined and then created. In fact, the hardest part comes later, during the maintenance phase. That’s when programmers pay the price for the shortcuts they took during development.

So why did they take shortcuts? Maybe they didn’t realize that they were cutting any corners. Only when their code was deployed and exercised by a lot of users did its hidden flaws come to light. And maybe the developers were rushed. Time-to-market pressures would almost guarantee that their software will contain more bugs than it would otherwise.

Keep Reading ↓Show less
{"imageShortcodeIds":["31996907"]}