A B757 flight crew reported a tail strike during a go around when during touchdown from an unstable approach the ground spoilers did not deploy.
Synopsis
A B757 flight crew reported a tail strike during a go around when during touchdown from an unstable approach the ground spoilers did not deploy.
Narrative
When we arrived at the aircraft in ZZZ1; the left hydraulic system was being serviced. The inbound crew had reported a significant drop in hydraulic quantity on the left system during their flight. Maintenance performed the required checks and the aircraft was returned to service. We departed on scheduled. We monitored the system before; during and after the flight. The pressure and quantity were normal during all phases of the flight. The center and right systems were also normal. Thus there was no expectations or concerns that the ground spoilers would not operate as designed on landing. It was a normal approach on a clear day with light winds to Runway XXC in ZZZ. The First Officer was the pilot flying and the Captain was pilot monitoring. It was a well flown stable approach. The system generated aural altitudes were heard. Although the rate of descent was perhaps higher than normal; all 10 foot increments were audibly heard and the First Officer made adjustments to decrease the rate of descent but a firm touchdown was made. Although the touchdown was well within the parameters of a normal landing; when the auto ground spoilers did not deploy; the aircraft bounced and the decision for a balked landing was made. As the Captain and pilot monitoring; I felt the decision to call for the go around was safer than manually deploying the ground spoilers as there was reasonable doubt to the state or position of the aircraft. The timing of the call to go around was almost synonymous with the pilot flying unlocking of the thrust reversers. This created a startle effect in the go around due to the struggle to restow the thrust reversers so that the thrust levers could be advanced. Once available; additional thrust was given in an effort to compensate for the delay and decaying performance. That unfortunately created a higher pitch angle and the efforts to reduce that pitch were regrettably not enough to prevent the tail skid from making contact with the runway. There was no indication felt by the pilots and the TAIL SKID alert on the EICAS did not display. ATC assigned us vectors and stepped us to 8000' for a return to land. Due to the potential contact with Runway XXC; it was closed until inspections could be made. Crew was informed that no debris was found. The runway was changed to XYR. The First Officer continued to be the pilot flying. Both of us verified that the ground spoilers were armed again. The approach was stable and the transition and touchdown was much smoother. The ground spoilers again failed to auto deploy. The aircraft did not settle so as the Captain and pilot monitoring; I felt this time it was safe to slowly manually deploy the ground spoilers and the aircraft settled nicely for an overall smooth landing. We exited off the runway and came to a complete stop. ARFF (Airport Rescue and Firefighting) inspected the tail. No visible signs of damage were discovered at that time. We received a new gate from operations; made a PA to our customers and informed them everything was okay. We thanked our flight attendants for their help and taxied safely to the gate. It was during the post flight inspection that the scrapes on the tail skid were seen. We wrote an ELB (Electronic Logbook) entry for the twice failed auto deployment of the ground spoilers and a separate ELB entry for the tail skid contact. We worked with Maintenance directly and contacted the chief pilot. After saying goodbye to all of our customers and thanking our flight attendants again; we were told it was okay for us to head to our overnight hotel.
Second reporter narrative
The Captain and I had recently flown together and I had just been to ZZZ twice over the past couple of days. As we showed up to the plane in ZZZ1; the previous crew reported a steady loss of HYD Quantity from the left hydraulic system. Maintenance refilled and cleared the aircraft and we had a normal departure out of ZZZ1. On arrival into ZZZ; we setup and briefed ILS XXC as a backup for the Visual Approach. Conditions were clear and mostly calm as we came into ZZZ. Configuration was normal with all stabilized criteria gates being met conservatively. Upon hearing the 50 foot call; I recognized my descent rate was slightly higher than I desired and attempted to arrest the descent. I anticipated a firm; but completely normal touchdown. Upon feeling the main gear touchdown; I engaged idle reverse. Almost immediately afterwards; I felt lightness on the controls and recognized the feeling of the speed brakes not auto deploying. As I looked down at the speed brake handle to confirm; the Captain called the bounced landing and for a go around. As I pushed the throttle levers and went for the Go Around switches; in the startle I didn't recognize that my thrust reversers were not stowed; thus not allowing me to advance the throttle levers. Once I got the reversers stowed; I advanced the throttles to maximum thrust in an attempt to prevent ground contact and begin the go around. I did not feel the tail skid contact the runway; nor did our Tail Skid light illuminate. After a step climb in the go around; we completed a box pattern to XYR. Priority handling was requested and Tower reported no debris on the runway. We deemed it safe to return for landing. Configuration on the second approach was completed efficiently and a normal approach was made. On the second landing; the spoilers failed to deploy a second time and the Captain engaged them manually. A normal touchdown and landing was made; exiting the runway where ARFF (Airport Rescue and Firefighting) inspected the tail and reported no visible damage. We taxied to the gate and completed normal shutdown procedures. Upon the post flight walk around; the sacrificial material on the tail skid was seen to be shaved down with no other visible marks or damage.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.