History of the Flight
The aircraft was operating a routine passenger flight from Zurich to London Heathrow. Weather conditions were benign with light and variable winds and no low cloud. The pilot flying, in the right seat, was undergoing line training after recently converting to the A320 series. The commander, an experienced Type Rating Examiner, acted as pilot monitoring.
The approach was stable with full flap selected. The co-pilot initiated the flare smoothly at the correct height, but at approximately 10 ft radio altitude, he made an additional nose-up sidestick input. This resulted in an unusually high pitch attitude, and as airspeed decreased, the aircraft began to sink. The co-pilot made another nose-up input as the main landing gear touched down. The ground spoilers deployed automatically, and the pitch attitude continued to rise to a maximum of 12.3°, causing the tail to strike the runway.
The commander attempted to counter the rising pitch by applying a large forward sidestick input, but did not press the ‘take over’ button. Consequently, the flight control software summed the inputs from both sidesticks. As the co-pilot reduced his nose-up input, the aircraft pitched down to 0° in three seconds.
After landing, the aircraft taxied clear of the runway. The right engine was shut down to allow inspection by the Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS). They identified paint damage and scratching on the aft fuselage. The commander decided not to start the APU. The aircraft was then positioned to its gate for passenger disembarkation and subsequently withdrawn from service for repairs.
Aircraft Damage
A detailed survey revealed that the lower fuselage skin, frames, and butt splice between frames 67 and 72 were abraded by contact with the runway. At frame 70, deformation of the lower pressure bulkhead was noted 250 mm either side of the centreline, and a 190 mm long crack was found on the lower ring frame assembly.
Co-pilot Experience
The co-pilot had 292 hours total flying experience, with 138 hours on type. He was in the latter stages of the operator’s training programme. A review of his training records showed normal progress with at least ‘acceptable’ standards. Minor comments regarding the touchdown aiming point were noted in October 2013, but nothing unusual for a trainee of his experience.
Operator Safety Actions
The operator evaluated the actions of both pilots. The co-pilot received additional simulator and supervised line flying. Intervention and coaching strategies were reviewed, considering the commander’s performance, and ‘take home’ messages were disseminated to other training pilots. Information about the incident was provided to all of the operator’s Airbus flight crew.
Discussion
The co-pilot joined the operator with no previous commercial experience and was making acceptable progress towards the end of the training programme. The use of experienced training captains provides a safety net to prevent or mitigate the consequences of errors. A relatively small error of skill, which the commander was unable to capture, resulted in the tail strike. The actions of the crew and airfield staff following the incident removed any residual risk from undetected damage.