What happened
On 16 June 2003, an Airbus A320, registration C-GTDK, was operating a passenger flight from Bristol Lulsgate to Corfu. The aircraft and crew were part of a wet-lease agreement operating from Bristol for the summer season. During the return sector to Bristol, the crew decided to conduct a manual flight exercise. The co-pilot, who was undergoing a period of line training, intended to practice flying the aircraft without the assistance of the autopilot, autothrust, or flight directors.
As the aircraft approached Runway 09, the pilots were vectored by air traffic control. During the final stages of the approach, the aircraft drifted slightly right of the runway centerline. To correct this, the co-pilot transitioned from instrument references to visual cues. During this maneuver, a shift in wind direction introduced a slight tailwind, which reduced the aircraft's airspeed.
The landing was characterized by a firm touchdown followed by a bounce. During the second touchdown, the aircraft's pitch increased significantly, resulting in the tail contacting the runway. The impact caused a 20-foot long scrape on the underside of the fuselage, penetrating the skin near the pressure bulkhead and damaging the APU inlet.
The investigation
The AAIB investigation examined the flight recorders, which revealed that the aircraft's airspeed had decreased toward the end of the approach. The investigation also looked into the flight crew's control inputs. It was found that during the bounce, the commander applied nose-down input while the co-pilot maintained nose-up input. Because neither pilot utilized the sidestick priority takeover pushbutton, their inputs were combined, failing to effectively reduce the pitch.
Engineers inspected the aircraft and identified heavy abrasion at several frame locations. While the pressure bulkhead remained intact, the external skins were abraded through to the underlying structure. The investigation also reviewed the training status of the crew, noting the co-pilot's extended period of line training and the commander's recent appointment as a line-training captain.
Findings
- The primary cause of the tail strike was the attempt to control the bounced landing through conflicting sidestick inputs.
- A change in wind direction introduced a tailwind component, reducing airspeed and flare potential.
- The crew's focus on centerline correction led to a lack of monitoring regarding airspeed and descent rate.
- The lack of use of the sidestick priority takeover button prevented the commander from effectively overriding the co-pilot's nose-up input.
- The topography and slope of Runway 09 may have obscured critical visual cues during the final moments of the approach.