Have you ever noticed rolls or skids on the tail of aircraft? They are called tail skids, and are meant for the protection of the tail. Aircraft have systems to protect them from all possible risks during a flight. Aircraft usually face the risk of a tail strike, especially during the takeoff phase. To mitigate this risk, it is common for aircraft to have tail strike protection. However, not all aircraft have tail strike protection. In this article, we explore why some aircraft do not have tail strike protection.
Some aircraft designs do not require tail strike protection. For instance, aircraft with a short fuselage do not need tail strike protection as they have a lower risk of tail strike. Such aircraft have minimal risk of the tail hitting the ground, even at high pitching angles. Therefore, they are not equipped with a tail strike protection system. However, all aircraft with a long fuselage are equipped with tail strike protection because the tail has a high risk of hitting the ground, especially during takeoff maneuvers.
The advancements in technology have also reduced the need for physical tail strike protection systems. For instance, current avionics systems are well equipped to provide warnings during takeoff and landing. Additionally, modern flight control systems can prevent excessive pitch angles during takeoff and landing. Such technologies significantly reduce the risk for tail strike. Therefore, most modern aircraft do not have the need for a physical tail strike protection system. Additionally, some aircraft have a high clearance because of their landing gear provides enough clearance between the fuselage and the ground. Also, some aircraft have a high wing, offering high clearance between the fuselage and the ground. Such aircraft have a low risk of tail strike, and do not need tail strike protection.
Weight and cost considerations also influence the decision to include tail strike protection for aircraft. The tail strike protection systems add aircraft weight and complexity, increasing the cost of the aircraft. In cases where these aircraft have a low risk of tail strike, such as the
short fuselage aircraft, the benefit of the tail strike protection does not justify the additional weight and cost.
Lastly, the regulatory framework makes room for missing tail strike protection in some aircraft. The certification standards for new aircraft designs do not mandate having the tail strike protection system. The regulators evaluate whether the aircraft design, as is, meet all safety standards. Aircraft that meet the set safety standards get certification, even if they do not have a tail strike protection system. Therefore, aircraft with the design features discussed above will get certified as safe. For this reason, not all aircraft designers include a physical tail strike protection system.
So, what are the key takeaways from this read? Foremost, it is vital to protect the aircraft tail from impact during takeoff and landing when the pitching angles present a risk of impact. However, not all aircraft have a tail strike protection system, because of a variety of reasons.
These reasons include short aircraft fuselage, high clearance from ground because of high wing or landing gear design, technological advancements, and regulatory frameworks. However, a missing tail strike protection system is not an indication of lower safety standards. Instead, it only means that the particular aircraft has a low risk of tail strike.
