Talk:Tailstrike

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

What is not a tailstrike

What defines a "tailstrike"? Can a taildragger suffer one? Some observations:

The term "tailstrike" is used primarily in the context of safety incidents involving tricycle undercarriage. But it is also used in other, only loosely related circumstances, for example to describe a helicopter tail striking a power cable.[1]
The classic taildragger landing technique is the "three-point landing". To some pilots its perfection is elusive and the tailwheel has touched down first on a great many occasions, without any hint of "tailstrike".
I have not noticed any taildragger strikes reported in Flight.
Flight first used "tailstrike" only as late as 1990, although the two-part noun "tail strike" goes back at least to 1983 - not much further, really.[2][3]

So on the whole, I would suggest that "tailstrike" means what it sounds like, which is any unintended and potentially damaging impact of the empennage with a relatively static obstacle. The aircraft configuration is not directly significant although obviously the term's particular use depends on the particular context. For such reasons, I think it unhelpful to try and say what a tailstrike is not, as it would be difficult to avoid committing original research. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC) [Update] But I think we can say that is is a safety-related term in air accident and incident reporting. While it does not seem to be used anywhere else, we do not need to say that, we should just cite the safety usage. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need to avoid OR here. In Canada both the RCAF flight safety (example) and the TSB (example) use the term. I think the real issue here is that a tailstrike causes unintended damage to an aircraft. From the RCAF ref above: "Upon touchdown, the lower aft portion of the fuselage struck the runway (commonly known as a "tailstrike"). The aircraft damage level was assessed as serious." - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is now pretty good as you have it. It used to say "Physically impossible" on a tricycle undercarriage. An IP editor then changed it to include taildraggers, which I reverted. After discussion with colleagues I was given an account of somebody hurting the tailwheel after over-enthusiastically slamming it down to effect an over speed, dramatic TO for display and I realised that maybe you really could have a tailstrike on a taildragger, so I relented and put "usually". I have never seen or heard of any other case. E x nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia's particular problem with that incident is that, without any RS to show whether it was classed as a tailstrike or not, we cannot classify it either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In flight safety investigation, slamming down the tailwheel on a taildragger and damaging the wheel or the tail structure would be normally described as a "hard landing", not a "tailstrike". - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On takeoff? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, okay, I have to admit I never investigated any taildragger "hard take-offs". These are usually classified as "loss of control on take-off". - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]