What aircraft was involved and where did it happen?

The accident on 1998-08-28 involved a British Aerospace BAe 146-300, at Hof, DE.

What was the probable cause of the accident?

The primary cause was an unstable, steep, and short visual approach that the pilot was unable to control, leading to an excessive pitch-up maneuver during the flare.

Tail Strike During Visual Approach in Hof

A British Aerospace **BAe 146-300** sustained significant damage to its fuselage after the tail struck the runway during a steep visual landing in Hof.

What happened

On August 28, 1998, a BAe 146-300 was performing a visual approach to runway 27 at Hof. During the flare maneuver, the aircraft's tail struck the runway surface, resulting in approximately 3 meters of significant damage to the underside of the fuselage. There were no injuries to the occupants, though the aircraft sustained heavy damage.

The investigation

The BFU investigation focused on the analysis of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), as the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) was unavailable due to the time elapsed since the event. The FDR data provided a detailed 54-second window of the final approach, from the interception of the approach centerline to the moment all three landing gear units were firmly on the ground.

Data revealed that the aircraft intercepted the approach centerline at an altitude of approximately 500 feet AGL with a 30-degree heading offset. While the aircraft was configured for landing with airbrakes fully extended, it was flying above the established 3.5° glidepath. The investigation noted that the aircraft was only on the approach centerline 23 seconds before touchdown. The descent rate was calculated at an average of 1,000 ft/min, resulting in an actual glide angle of approximately 4°.

Five seconds before touchdown, the pilot briefly adjusted the pitch from -6° to -1°. Immediately following this, the pilot applied continuous back pressure on the control column to arrest the high sink rate. This caused the pitch to rotate rapidly from -1° to +7°. Because the clearance under the fuselage was only sufficient for a maximum pitch of approximately +5°, the tail struck the runway.

Findings

The approach was characterized by a steep and unstable glidepath that deviated from the 3.5° established path.
The pilot's rapid pitch input to counter the high sink rate caused the aircraft to rotate beyond the safe longitudinal limit.
The short duration of the final approach prevented the crew from establishing a stable landing configuration.
The investigation noted that the second pilot may have been overwhelmed by the unstable approach, potentially exacerbated by a seating position that may have restricted visibility and delayed the realization of the aircraft's position relative to the runway.