PDA

View Full Version : OT - Cause of American Airlines Flight 587 Crash



nickdanger3
10-26-2004, 01:23 PM
Thought this was very interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/26/ntsb.flight587.ap/index.html

nickdanger3
10-26-2004, 01:23 PM
Thought this was very interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/26/ntsb.flight587.ap/index.html

Lateralus_14
10-26-2004, 01:44 PM
Sad that hardly anyone even remembers this, since it was only two months after September 11th and right around the start of the war in Afghanistan.

Interesting article though. Strange that such an experienced pilot would be improperly trained on proper use of rudder.

Covino
10-26-2004, 03:01 PM
Good article and indeed it is a tragedy how one mistake leads to so many deaths.

Here's a transcript of the radio transmission from that flight if you're interested.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cvr011112.htm

BinaryFalcon
10-26-2004, 06:12 PM
A big factor was the fact that it was an Airbus too.

Airbus has always been rather big on the whole "The computer won't let you break it" selling point, and the pilots believed it. IIRC, they were below Va and "knew" that the flight computer wouldn't allow them to bust the airframe no matter what kind of inputs they applied.

Unfortunately, neither was the case. Apparently Va doesn't quite apply to transport category vertical stabilizers, and it is rather easy to generate more than enough force to snap off the tail well below maneuvering speed. Add to that the fact that the pilots were confident that the flight computer wouldn't allow them to damage the airframe (which also wasn't true in this case. Airbus screwed that bit up with respect to the tail), and they probably figured they could kick it around without fear.

Now I'm not saying this wouldn't have happened in a Boeing, because it very well could have under the same conditions. However, unless it has changed recently, Boeing's flight computer will do what you ask of it, up to and including bend/break the airframe if you "tell" it to.

Knowing that, a pilot is very likely to be much more careful about how he applies the controls, rather than just stomping them and assuming that the computer will give him maximum safe effect and no more.

Airbus isn't happy about it, but it was definitely a contributing factor.

NegativeGee
10-26-2004, 06:30 PM
Like alot of serious accidents involving aircraft this one occured due to several factors acting in unison. Remove any one of them and the plane would not have crashed.

TX-EcoDragon
10-26-2004, 11:07 PM
Actually Va is only for full and abrupt use of the elevator control. . . and not only that, it is only in the aft direction! In other words if at the Va for your weight you give full/abrupt forward stick, or if you add roll component into the full/abrupt aft stick pressure you will most probably cause structural damage or failure. In aerobatics we often use 2/3 Va for our Va. . . just to be safe.

Also, the specialist at UC Davis that I know reviewed this awful incident, and in his view the main issue was with, if I can remember, the rate and magnitude of control input that a given amount of pedal force would result in. In his testing pilots where genrally unable to damp un-intended oscillations with what they deemed normal inputs, instead they would induce PIOs (pilot induced oscillations). Actually. . . how about I just find the article. His name is Prof. Ronald Hess and here is the article as submitted to the NTSB.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/exhibits/288388.pdf

DD_NL
10-27-2004, 12:00 AM
Hmmm, I find it very hard to believe a pilot is able to snap off the tail of a large aircraft, or any aircraft for that matter. There must have been something else seriously wrong with that plane and they thought blaming it on the pilot using the rudder was a nice excuse.

Tully__
10-27-2004, 02:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DD_NL:
Hmmm, I find it very hard to believe a pilot is able to snap off the tail of a large aircraft, or any aircraft for that matter. There must have been something else seriously wrong with that plane and they thought blaming it on the pilot using the rudder was a nice excuse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A specification on all General Aviation aircraft is Va (which you'll have seen mentioned in earlier posts in this thread). It is the speed above which full elevator input will break something. While not specified for other control surfaces, the same principal applies. The higher your speed, the higher the resulting force on the airframe at maximum control deflection. If you go fast enough, that force will break something.

Generally it's not an issue as using full control deflection is generally very uncomforatble for the passengers and may damage freight. Commercial airlines are reluctant to upset their customers and discourage their pilots from applying maximum control inputs, however emergencies sometimes dictate otherwise. As is apparent from this case, that is not always wise...

LW_lcarp
10-27-2004, 04:56 AM
If from using any of your controls causes the any part of a plane to come off then im thinking they need to reconsider the design of the craft.

Even at max deflection of any control surface

Tully__
10-27-2004, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
If from using any of your controls causes the any part of a plane to come off then im thinking they need to reconsider the design of the craft.

Even at max deflection of any control surface <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best we redesign the flap assemblies on all the aircraft in the game then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BinaryFalcon
10-27-2004, 07:55 AM
Thanks for the links, EcoDragon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If from using any of your controls causes the any part of a plane to come off then im thinking they need to reconsider the design of the craft.

Even at max deflection of any control surface <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it's certainly possible to design it so that won't happen, however the vehicle won't be able to fly well, if at all. The only ways I can think of to do what you suggest are to:

1. Limit the power of the aircraft (and therefore its top speed) so much that it can't possibly go fast enough to overload the structure under any conditions. This would generally suck, as it would take forever to get anywhere, limit your service ceiling and wouldn't leave much margin, if any, for situations when you need excess power.

2. Decrease the size and effectiveness of the control surfaces to the point where they can't create enough force to damage the airframe under any conditions. This would make any aircraft a flying pig and increase the difficulties of flying them a great deal. Low speed handling would get especially dicey, and you'd likely see an increase in accident rates based on inability to control the aircraft adequately close to the ground.

3. Build them so strong that they simply can't break. Great, you're now piloting a tank with wings. It'll fly about as well as an MBT too (which is to say, not at all).

It's a limit of aerodynamics and materials technology. An aircraft is a bunch of compromises that come together to allow it to fly. You can never make it all perfect in every respect if you want it to get off the ground. It just doesn't work that way.

ploughman
10-27-2004, 08:14 AM
There's a Michael Crichton book called Airframe in which a wide body heavy is lost because the pilot's attempts to recover from a turbulence induced dive caused the jet to begin to oscillate wildly, as the pilot began overcorrecting prefious inputs, thus amplifying the problem. (What TexacoDragon said earlier). Had the pilot just left the jet's software to fly itself, it would have corrected the problem.. The cause of this fictional crash was ultimately blamed on pilot error, he hadn't been properly trained to operate a jet with this type of software package. Very prescient of Mr Crichton, don't yer think?

Chuck_Older
10-27-2004, 08:35 AM
Looks like a couple A&Ps are in our midst

good posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gerd_Schopfel
10-27-2004, 09:47 AM
Very good point BinaryFalcon. I find your argument the best one in regards to this post.

If only the vertical stabilizer was ripped from the plane, then how come the plane went down, when we very well know that a plane can stay in the air without the vertical stabilizer (VS). I guess when the VS was flung off the airframe it severely damaged the horizontal stabilizer controls which lead the plane to plumed to hell.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Yskonyn23
10-27-2004, 09:54 AM
About exceeding Va and breaking things off the airframe; I think you guys put it too black and white.

It's not true that if you pull hard on the yoke above Va (which is variable with weight for the record) there will certainly break something off the aircraft, there's a possibility yes, but it's more likely that something will bend or deform, disturbing the aerodynamics of the airplane.

Of course something can break under high loads, but you make it sound like something certainly breaks when exceeding Va and pulling the yoke.

ddsflyer
10-27-2004, 09:58 AM
Aircraft operated in the Normal category (such as transport aircraft) have a lower design overload factor than aircraft operated in the Utility category, which in turn have a lower design overload factor than those in the Aerobatic category. It is very rare for a Va failure to occur in the vertical stabilizer. Usually either the tail (horizontal stabilizer) fails such as was seen in the v-tail Bonanzas, or more commonly the wings fail (such as J.F.K. Jr.). Va changes with weight, generally the lighter the aircraft loading, the lower Va gets. I don't know whether the control computer on the Airbus considered this. It would seem logical that the control computer wold be able to measure the load on the control surfaces and prevent an overload. With artificially boosted controls, especially a fly-by-wire system, the pilots would have no real feel for the actual load.

Chuck_Older
10-27-2004, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
Very good point BinaryFalcon. I find your argument the best one in regards to this post.

If only the vertical stabilizer was ripped from the plane, then how come the plane went down, when we very well know that a plane can stay in the air without the vertical stabilizer (VS). I guess when the VS was flung off the airframe it severely damaged the horizontal stabilizer controls which lead the plane to plumed to hell.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I can field that

I worked for a composites firm that worked with Airbus on other things during the time of this crash

From what I recall, a single pair of bolts holds on the entire composite tail in the Airbus 300/600. There is a crawlway up there inside the tail for inspection, and it's supposed to be SOP to inspect it. Apparently, it's also SOP to either not know how to properly inspect it (pencilwhip) or just not do it at all.

When the vertical tail sheared, it took the horizontal stabilizer with it, if I recall.

Jungmann
10-27-2004, 10:51 AM
So if I read the accident report right, the co-pilot was at fault for using his controls to correct an abnormal excursion. Then the conclusion must be--pilots, do not use the controls on an Airbus. Sit there.

Cheers,

C_FA
10-27-2004, 11:28 AM
A few things for correction:

Va (design maneuvering speed) or also known as airspeed limit at which full and abrupt control inputs can be made. (with any control surface).
Va is the airspeed limit designated by aircraft manufactures for X gross weight at which these control surface inputs can be made without overstressing the aircraft (aircraft will stall first).

Also about Flight 587 crash:

Aircraft hit wake turbulence from a departing B747 which induced a rolling moment.
Aircaft was doing approx. 255 knots at the time which is approx. 20-30 knots below Va
and was in a nose-high attitude on departure.

Pilot input aggressive control action for correction which then induced what is know as a dutch-roll oscillation about the yaw axis.

Note: Inside info has it, pilot was reported twice for over-aggressive control input for upset recoveries.

As aircraft oscillations increased tail departed followed by ONE ENGINE THEN THE OTHER.

One thing to remember this aircraft has a gross weight of approx. 200,000 lbs+. When you get that much oscillating moments at that weight alot can happen real fast. It`s not a single engine plane at 3000 lbs.

As far as trying to fly an aircraft without a vertical tail it can be done but you have to be right on top of it and you need engines. This aircraft has swept wings and if a dutch roll occurs normally the yaw damper stops it.

Without a vertical tail it is very difficult to stop a violent dutch roll with just pitch, roll and differential power.

There are rudder travel limiters on transport category aircraft, being a airspeed sensor in the tail on most that inputs to a bias system that limits control surface travel. I don`t know what speed limit there is for A300 but 255 kias is not that fast.

I not in any way saying who`s at fault either, but as far as computers in transport aircraft and controlling the aircraft the only difference between most newer Boeing aircraft, and an Airbus.
Is that 1 has stick and the other a yoke for control........!

~S!

Gerd_Schopfel
10-27-2004, 11:33 AM
Everybody keeps on mentioning Va. What the hell is a Va??

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
10-27-2004, 11:47 AM
Va = design(ed) maneuvering speed

maximum allowed speed were full control-input is still possible without breaking some stuff.

NimbusPlus
10-27-2004, 12:34 PM
ANY aircraft can break if not handled appropriately.

Engines are usually held to the wing by 2 (two) "bolts". That's the way it is and it works.

Air transport pilots are professionals. Being professional implies knowing the airplane you're flying. If they fly an Airbus, pilots don't yank the stick or the rudder left and right hoping the computer will take care of it. They know (or should!) the limitations and the sytems of the specific airplane they're flying.

I find that suggesting that the NTSB put it on the back of the copilot (of a major American company) to cover the (foreign) manufacturer is quite silly. The NTSB is quite independent, these guys are good.

Chuck_Older
10-27-2004, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C_FA:
the only difference between most newer Boeing aircraft, and an Airbus.
Is that 1 has stick and the other a yoke for control........!

~S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For-real?

I'm in the biz for composites and as far as I know, a composite structure as major as the tail is not a feature of US built planes.

Has major composite structure been given the go-ahead? (I'm in process development now, not production, so I'm a little out of the loop)

darkhorizon11
10-27-2004, 01:31 PM
Some asked what Va is....Va (actually its written V sub A but you can't write it like that in wordpad) is maneuvering speed. Basically if your flying at any speed at Va or below no matter what you do to the aircraft it will stall out before you do any structural damage. Above Va (depending upon what sort of manuevers you do) you can structural damage the aircraft before it stalls, IE shear a wing or a tail off.

My friend's dad flies the A320 for NWA and he got us in a sim one time just for fun. For all the real pilots out there the amazing thing about the simulator (besides that its costs about 3000 dollars an hour to run) is that unless you have an engine failure there is almost no rudder inputs required. This is contrary to basic pilot training which teaches from the beginning that the rudder is extremely critical to keeping the plane coordinated (AKA step on the ball) and must be constantly monitored. Airbus has relatively eliminated this to the chagrin of many pilots and airlines alike. Airbus generally favors computers flying the plane over pilots, much more so than Boeing, Dornier, Dehavilland, or any other manufacturer. Its been said an Airbus pilot is manages the aircraft instead of flying it.

The computer system in military aircraft (theres a similiar but more advanced system in civilian) is called MPO. Manual Pitch Override, when this is on the computer monitors the pilots every move and physically will not let him take it out of G limits or stall it or do anything stupid. Most flight directors in commericial will not allow the pilot to bank more than 25 degrees. The system in airliners is much more complicated than in fighter jets and as far as I know it can't be completely turned off. Since I only have about 45 minutes in the A320 sim however I will give way on a higher authority on this.

As for 587, my understanding is that the first officer although not the pilot in command (so he's not fully responsible) took the blame because he was flying the plane and the captain was backing him up with radio calls and checklists. At such a lower altitude the autopilot wasn't turned on just in case of an emergency. When they hit turbulence the F/O followed his instincts. He was trained by American Airlines in the A300 (whom didn't stress the rudder sensitivity) and the first officer was following his instincts by putting to much pressure on it. To be honest I think any airliner's rudder would've shorn off by the amount a pressure that was on 587s rudder.

To this day American Airlines and Airbus are still bitter over liability in this incident. The NTSB has favored Airbus because they sent warnings to Boeing prior to the incident about training their pilots how to properly use the rudder during critical phases of flight.

C_FA
10-27-2004, 01:42 PM
I fly in the in the airline biz!

And never did I say ONE WORD ABOUT COMPOSITES!

You need to read it again it was pretaining to computer systems in aircraft.

And get the full NTSB report also the data from AA that I have.

Then you will know the pilot flying did 4 complete rudder reversals in less then 7 seconds.
And that the aircraft in question had been droppped on its tail after engine removal
before it was delivered to the airline.

And I never said it was Airbus or pilot it was combination of things. Or as they it`s not the first or the second 1 that gets you its the third.

TX-EcoDragon
10-27-2004, 02:35 PM
Yskonyn23, you're right, it isn't black and white, however to most pilots it is. They don't think "oh I am just a little over Va so I will only bend my wings/tail so what the heck" no control surface will operate after that, it aint anyone's idea of fun. In much of my flying I am pulling the maximal G that my aircraft is certified for at well above Va, many times near Vne, so for me personally it is prettty black and white. (though the Zivko Edge wing is about twice as strong as it is certified for). In Transport aircraft of course it is quite different. This aircraft was on climbout, well within Va. . . the pilot may have over reacted with the rudder input's he made, however I don't think anyone (perhaps other than those who looked at this particular aircraft) would have predicted this event given the particulars of the situation. IMHO this incident should not go down simply as pilot error. (and while I agree with BinaryFalcon's points about flying tanks, under what flight regime for a transport aircraft would that type of rudder response and sensitivty be required?)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C_FA:
A few things for correction:

Va (design maneuvering speed) or also known as airspeed limit at which full and abrupt control inputs can be made. (with any control surface).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so. This is a common misconception though, in fact so common that almost none of the pilots that I know and fly with have any idea that it is the case. That doesn't make it untrue however. In many instances for certification purposes Va is determined only based on elevator control, and only in the aft direction. This is more common than not. In addition, many aircraft are not certified for the same +G vs. -G load factors. Aft stick may produce a stall at +6G but forward stick may well exceed the design limitations in the negative direction in aircraft that may only be certified to -3G. In addition to that, imagine for a moment pulling +6G, now introduce a bit of aileron, what sorts of loads are you placing on the rising wing? Lots! Enough to break it? Quite possibly! Again, this info isn't commonly known/accepted, and certainly isn't taught to student pilots, it's not taught to CFI's, or airline pilots, and it's not taught by most aerobatics schools who really should consider it, but it's still true.

All of the other points you make I am in agreement with however. I wasn't suggesting that this aircraft was at or over it's Va either, I probably should have made that point in the first place. It is my oppinion that in this configuration that what happened is extreme, ham fisted/footed pilot or not. I could not exclusively blame the FO. This particular aircraft did have damage history to the vertical stab. The guy did do quite the jig on the rudder pedals, but these are the things that PIO's induce, and rate saturation of control actuators lead quickly to. Combine these facts with extremely light control forces (relative to all other similar aircraft including the other Airbus designs, it is less than half the force required for a given response than most) and you have the makings of a PIO. It seems to me that perhaps a little better feedback, increased rudder force, and as a last resort maybe even greater travel limitation should be considered, especially given that the rudder is so minimally used in such aircraft. Take a look at the report by Dr. Hess, it isn't about blame to me, it is about solving the problem, first you have to recognize it. I am not saying it isn't the pilot's fault, if he backed out of the PIO cycle it probably wouldnt have happened, but anyone who has flown an aircraft that was prone to PIOs through one will probably tell you that your responses are modified as you experience the deviations, and unless you recognize it as a PIO and get off the controls there is a good chance it will get worse before it gets better. If it happens in a critical moment it often feels like a form of structural/control surface failure in and of itself. . . not many pilots responses would be as smooth and modulated as usual given that sensation. If you can't synchronize with what is going on, and with actuator saturation a factor, then in that instance the aircraft is out of control and the pilot's only recourse is getting off the controls which you aren't going to do if watching and feeling a dramatic roll (bank was steepening) yaw and pitch (nose down) deviation.

TX-EcoDragon
10-27-2004, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Aircraft operated in the Normal category (such as transport aircraft) have a lower design overload factor than aircraft operated in the Utility category, which in turn have a lower design overload factor than those in the Aerobatic category. It is very rare for a Va failure to occur in the vertical stabilizer. Usually either the tail (horizontal stabilizer) fails such as was seen in the v-tail Bonanzas, or more commonly the wings fail (such as J.F.K. Jr.). Va changes with weight, generally the lighter the aircraft loading, the lower Va gets. I don't know whether the control computer on the Airbus considered this. It would seem logical that the control computer wold be able to measure the load on the control surfaces and prevent an overload. With artificially boosted controls, especially a fly-by-wire system, the pilots would have no real feel for the actual load. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, and with poor feedback, very light rudder forces, lag time in pilot input to actuator output, and a massive amount of inertia, if a pilot attempts to dampen an oscillation he will have a harder job in front of him than he should.

As far as the differences in the computers. . .there is quite a difference in some cases. Take a look here, not just between manufacturers, but even compared to other airbus aircraft:

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/300-600%20Responsiveness.jpg

IL2-chuter
10-27-2004, 02:42 PM
Engines are held on by TWO(???) bolts? I work for UAL, who shall remain nameless (oops), and I would suggest that you would need at least three bolts for stability. Actually, there are more . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I am also under the impression that the fin failure (the design of which is essentially the same on all Airbuses) was due to the combination of forces (turbulance and input) working against each other - one or the other wouldn't have caused failure.

Also, 777 has all carbon box structure for both fin and stab ala Airbus. These pieces are built in the autoclave (worlds biggest still, I believe) they used to build the largest monolithic carbon parts ever, the B-2 center section. A380 might have changed this . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif . . . anyway . . .

Gotta go pick up PF now . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NimbusPlus
10-27-2004, 03:15 PM
From what I've been told, the engine weight ultimately rests on two pins (maybe pins is a better word thant bolts). This is not to say that the engin is not stabilized by other pieces. Since it's not a first-hand account, I won't be able to argue much on that subject. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Taylortony
10-27-2004, 03:39 PM
V A

Is a Corner or maneuvering speed ft/s or KEAS Minimum speed at which aircraft can maneuver without stalling


I would just like to say on the matter that when they tested the same failure senario against a standard metal tailplane configuration such as produced by another major manufacturer, that the metal structure would fail earlier than the composite, both of which were never designed to withstand the load factors applied in this case... to simply lay a blame on a design and not the root cause seems strange, you can only build in so much strength and fail safes but at the end of the day is was mishandling that got it into the situation that caused it to fail............ I am not justifying or pointing fingers one way or the other just pointing out that if you push something past its design tolerance something will fail................ would i fly on an Airbus tomorrow? Yes would I fly on a 7*7 ? hmmmmmmmmm I have refused to in the past and till they sort out the Rudder PFCU problems which has cause several accidents and i probably will refuse again, last i saw was they were being replaced, not before time............. Concorde had one accident that killed and because it was a dozen aircraft it was grounded, the 7~7 have had quite a few but because we are talking thousands it is still flying...................

Taylortony
10-27-2004, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NimbusPlus:
From what I've been told, the engine weight ultimately rests on two pins (maybe pins is a better word thant bolts). This is not to say that the engin is not _stabilized_ by other pieces. Since it's not a first-hand account, I won't be able to argue much on that subject. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not far off the ball u are correct the Jaguar fighter incidentally is held in by a couple of pip pins and a thrust pillar that transmits the thrust to the aiframe

Chuck_Older
10-27-2004, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C_FA:
I fly in the in the airline biz!

And never did I say ONE WORD ABOUT COMPOSITES!

You need to read it again it was pretaining to computer systems in aircraft.

And get the full NTSB report also the data from AA that I have.

Then you will know the pilot flying did 4 complete rudder reversals in less then 7 seconds.
And that the aircraft in question had been droppped on its tail after engine removal
before it was delivered to the airline.

And I never said it was Airbus or pilot it was combination of things. Or as they it`s not the first or the second 1 that gets you its the third. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. See, the confusion on my part about just what you posted was revolving around the placement of a period. Reading your post, you can interpret it as the only difference is the controls have different computer inputs, or that the only difference is the computers, plus one has a yoke and one has a column.

I know not everyone speaks english fluently. You seem to have a good, but not perfect, understanding of the language.

Asking me to read your post again when the punctuation causes confusion doesn't really help. It seems you have taken offense to my post, and even taken offense to me mentioning that I'm in the composites field, and are stating your authority and greater understanding on the subject by telling me you know better; you're an airline pilot. You seem to think I challenged you on some point. I have not. Address whatever is bugging you to the person who's bugging you.

You're also acting as if I questioned your authority on control inputs, which I have not. I'm not sure I appreciate your manner. I also don't appreciate your telling me to basically get my facts straight concerning the NTSB and AA. I never have mentioned anything in this thread about either.

Whatever your problem with this thread is or what you think I posted is, it's yours and stays yours.

mucker
10-28-2004, 12:24 AM
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck,

What is it with guys like you and Badsight? Are you dudes wannabee English professors? You seem to enjoy your superiority complex as exemplified with your bs statements like the one from the above thread:

"I know not everyone speaks english fluently. You seem to have a good, but not perfect, understanding of the language." Surefire slighting, yet politically correct belittling ...

Maybe you should take the same advice you gave me earlier today: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

"mucker, you have to learn to stop letting your personal feelings about members taint your every post. I'm sure there are forums with members that meet your exacting standards"

You're a real peach Chaz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

m

Chuck_Older
10-28-2004, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mucker:
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck,

What is it with guys like you and Badsight? Are you dudes wannabee English professors? You seem to enjoy your superiority complex as exemplified with your bs statements like the one from the above thread:

"I know not everyone speaks english fluently. You seem to have a good, but not perfect, understanding of the language." Surefire slighting, yet politically correct belittling ...

Maybe you should take the same advice you gave me earlier today: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

"mucker, you have to learn to stop letting your personal feelings about members taint your every post. I'm sure there are forums with members that meet your exacting standards"

You're a real peach Chaz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

m <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet another post by you that attempts to skewer a member rather than contribute to the discussion. Do you have anything to add to the topic here, or are you reduced to trolling now?

Here is a link to the rules of conduct governing this forum. Maybe you should read it

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=686104012

BinaryFalcon
10-28-2004, 09:05 AM
More on topic...

I did a bit more reading on this last night and this morning, and based on what I read it would appear that:

1. Airbus designed a plane with an extremely powerful and overly sensitive rudder. At higher speeds, it is apparently anywhere from 3.2 to 10 times more effective than the rudders of comparable aircraft made by other manufacturers.

2. Due to this sensitivity, at higher speeds, there's really not much of a "partial" rudder input possible. It's effectively either applied too much or not at all.

3. In 1998 both Boeing and Airbus jointly advised the industry as a whole that rudder input should not be used to correct uncommanded roll, as it could be dangerous.

4. However, apparently neither Boeing or Airbus really made it clear that this was important or a potential problem. It was essentially mentioned in a manual and then left alone.

5. The FO in question was apparently trained by American Airlines, who, based on incorrect information, had trained their pilots to use rudder to correct this kind of wake turbulence upset.

6. To assist in the simulator training for upset recovery, American made unapproved (by FAA and Airbus) modifications to their simulator which likely had a side effect of training pilots to use too much rudder to correct an upset.

7. The FO on this flight was previously noted for being too quick and agressive with his rudder inputs in the past.

8. Despite all of the above, Airbus was aware of at least 4 previous vertical tail (fin) overloads by various operators on various Airbus aircraft dating back to about 1990. Two of which surpassed the "ultimate load" of the fin, which very likely could have shorn it off in flight. However, by luck, that didn't happen.

9. Airbus didn't really bother to disclose that to anyone. Someone higher up in the company may have made a tangetial reference to it in a memo to American airlines at some point after a previous overload incident, but they never came out and clearly stated the problem, or the possible results. Anything that was truly clear on the nature of the problem was confined to internal memos only.

10. Airbus knew about the problems, but does not appear to have made any real effort to solve it despite knowing for almost 15 years that it's easily possible for a pilot to apply the rudder and put the plane into an unrecoverable oscillation that will shear off the tail in as little as 6.5 seconds.

So there's plenty of blame to go around. American improperly trained the FO, who was overeager with the rudder. Which was made worse by the plane he was flying, which was made even worse by Airbus' relative inaction even though they were aware of the problem for quite some time.

Really, it's a textbook example of how accidents happen. A bunch of things that on their own may not be a problem suddenly come together to kill a bunch of people in a spectacular way.

Remove any one of those and you'd have broken the chain and prevented that accident. Fix the underlying aircraft and flight control problem and you'll probably prevent a lot more.

The FO may have "lit the fuse" so to speak, but I've got to lay a lot (but not nearly all) of this one at the feet of Airbus.

Gerd_Schopfel
10-28-2004, 10:17 AM
From the uselful information you provided BinaryFalcon, I concluded that both should be blammed. That is, American Airlines should take most of the blame (2/3) while Airbus 1/3 of the blame. I say this because it must not be forgotten that the buyer (in this case AA: they bought the Airbus 300-600) needs to know the ups and down of the plane they purchase.

Thus, American should have looked into the specifications of this specific aircraft and realized its ups and downs in regards to the rudder specs. I mean, why is it that American is the only US airline carriers flying that specific Airbus 300-600?
1/3 of blame to Airbus, because they should have put more emphasis on the unique rudder specifications of this 600-300 aircraft...even though the special sensitivity of the rudder was mentioned on the "aircraft manual". It means American did not digest the rudder sensitivity like they should have.

Turbulence my friend, let her take us where she wants us.

Saburo_0
10-28-2004, 10:35 AM
TX-EcoDragon wrote:"if he backed out of the PIO cycle it probably wouldnt have happened, but anyone who has flown an aircraft that was prone to PIOs through one will probably tell you that your responses are modified as you experience the deviations, and unless you recognize it as a PIO and get off the controls there is a good chance it will get worse before it gets better. If it happens in a critical moment it often feels like a form of structural/control surface failure in and of itself. . . not many pilots responses would be as smooth and modulated as usual given that sensation. If you can't synchronize with what is going on, and with actuator saturation a factor, then in that instance the aircraft is out of control and the pilot's only recourse is getting off the controls which you aren't going to do if watching and feeling a dramatic roll (bank was steepening) yaw and pitch (nose down) deviation."

Thank you for your explanation. My wife is a FA for American & after 9-11 & this crash I was often quite worried. Until I read your explanation i still felt quite confused about how this accident happened. Also gives me faith that some lessons have been learned.
news articles certainly didn't explain the situation well, & I'm not qualifies to read the report & really understand it, appreciate your effort to explain it.
Happy Flying!

Chuck_Older
10-28-2004, 10:35 AM
this is why I disagree, Gerd:

"8. Despite all of the above, Airbus was aware of at least 4 previous vertical tail (fin) overloads by various operators on various Airbus aircraft dating back to about 1990. Two of which surpassed the "ultimate load" of the fin, which very likely could have shorn it off in flight. However, by luck, that didn't happen.

9. Airbus didn't really bother to disclose that to anyone. Someone higher up in the company may have made a tangetial reference to it in a memo to American airlines at some point after a previous overload incident, but they never came out and clearly stated the problem, or the possible results. Anything that was truly clear on the nature of the problem was confined to internal memos only."


Now, if that is true, which seems to be the case, the only reasons Airbus wouldn't mention it was if they didn't want anyone to know, or they took it for granted that training would address the particular idiosyncracies of their aircraft.

To me, both attitudes are negligent

avimimus
10-28-2004, 11:23 AM
When I initially heard of the crash I suspected it had been shot down.

The lack of an official response made me come to favour an accidental miss-fire by a nervous USAF pilot escorting the aircraft out of new york intead of a Manpad.

I think the main evidence that made me suspicous was the fact that the engines caught fire and separated from the plane, well before the tailplane separated as was shown by the debris trail.

I have still seen no explanation as to why the fires happened and the engines separated.

BinaryFalcon
10-28-2004, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thus, American should have looked into the specifications of this specific aircraft and realized its ups and downs in regards to the rudder specs. I mean, why is it that American is the only US airline carriers flying that specific Airbus 300-600? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there was an issue of timespan involved as well, where that information wasn't readily available at the time American came up with their training methods. Additionally, it wasn't just limited to the -600 series, and what I read seemed to suggest it's an issue with most, if not all Airbus designs in general.

I'll have to look deeper into it before I'll back that one up 100%, but the citations I saw seemed to suggest that's the case.

Either way, it's something that probably could have been handled in the flight control software, where they either greatly damped or completely eliminated rudder movement above a certain know "danger" speed. It does not appear that they made any attempt to do this, or placard their aircraft with a limitation.

That's my big sticking point with them on this issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have still seen no explanation as to why the fires happened and the engines separated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Differing masses moving in ways they were not designed to withstand, probably. Take an egg, tape it to the end of a couple of small sticks and then tape the ends of those sticks to a board. Should hold pretty well. Now whip the board back and forth rapidly and watch the egg/stick assembly fail or come off completely.

Same basic idea.

bweiss
10-28-2004, 02:05 PM
I dunno, I'll enter into this. Now, I seen the news report. And basically, they seemed to me to be saying it was the pilot's fault on account of he used the rudder, and that there rudder is really sensitive so...

And I'm like, ah, since when does a tail fall of cause you used the rudder. I'm sure if they had told the pilot "don't use the rudder on account of the tail might fall off", then he'd probably done something else, maybe used the throttle, maybe the rest room, but I bet he wouldn't have used the rudder. I think a survey should be done to see how many fellers used the rudder in turbulence and the rudder din fall off.

NimbusPlus
10-28-2004, 05:12 PM
The rudder input of the FO was just barbaric. As has been said, there's very little use of the rudder in large air transport category aircraft (mainly a bit on crosswind landings, and most of all in case of engine failure).

Why do you guys insist on blaming somebody? Do you have any financial interest in the liability settlement or what? The NTSB looks for probable cause and contributing factors, and issues recommandations to make sure (if followed) that doesn't happen again. It never assign responsabilities. Is this a forum of lawyers or aviators?

Oh, and on the matter of aviation accidents, the news media just suck. Don't count on them to properly explain what happened and so on. If you want to be able to fully understand an accident (and the chain of events that caused it - the key word here is chain), go to the source and read the NTSB report when it's available.

Yskonyn23
10-29-2004, 10:02 AM
Totally agree on the issue of the media reporting on aviation accidents. Those reports are usually full of errors and plain stupidities. Furthermore, if a cause is not known immediately (which is generally the case) the media always tends to stick the label 'pilot error' to it...

bweiss
10-29-2004, 11:39 AM
I don't really know what the level of barbaric translates into at pounds per square inch, and personally beyond speculation and the philosphical aspect of wondering if/when I might have to fly whether or not a FO is a barbarian or the plane is made of balsa wood, I could really care less. It's a discussion, and some joker a couple few hundred years back wrote some stupid document where in the first amendment it said I could do stuff like this. So like any good mountain climber who has no interest in the monetary worth of the mountain that he climbs on account of it is there, I discuss issue on accout of I can, ya see. As far as blaming someone, maybe yer referring to them other fellers that preceded as I was indicating my own curiosity over the NTSB pointing the finger at the FO, rather than the "oh so sensitive" rudder. And, no I'm not a commercial pilot so I wouldn't really know, but I'm not an astronut either and it seemed a littel curious to me when NASA managed to disentigrate the second space shuttle in a row as I watched them try their best to no avail to avoid the issue the camera's couldn't hide. So, as I said. When I hear it was the FO's fault on account of he used the rudder, and that there rudder is really sensitive, it makes me wonder, is what I said.

Chuck_Older
10-29-2004, 11:58 AM
Um...

You have no Rights here, bweiss. The USA doesn't run this website.

You have essentially joined an exclusive, private club here, and you are bound by the rules you agreed to when you registered.

There is no Right guaranteeing Freedom of Speech here, and national laws need not apply. Any nation's not just the USA.

Some joker may indeed have given you certain inalienable rights, but that is as far as the government of the US goes, not for the world. This forum is not a Democracy or even a Republic.

Just for the record, I mention this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TX-EcoDragon
10-29-2004, 12:05 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NimbusPlus:
Why do you guys insist on _blaming_ somebody? Do you have any financial interest in the liability settlement or what? . . . [QUOTE]

Again, it isn't about blame, it is about fixing a problem, and you can't fix it if you don't acknowledge it.

mucker
10-29-2004, 01:15 PM
Bweiss,

You won't win with Chuck....you see, you are a noob in his mind (only less than 100 posts). Even though you were on topic, the only response Chuck could muster was his focus on one sentence in your thread. He relished the opportunity to set you straight with that "Let me teach you a lesson Nooby...You have no rights....." mumbo-jumbo.

Again Chuck, take some of the advice you gave me earlier in the discussion: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

"Yet another post by you that attempts to skewer a member rather than contribute to the discussion."

You're so full of it...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

My opinion OT is that this tragic comedy of errors was nothing but a managemnet problem. The FO was acting instinctively as a pilot. He clearly was not given critical info by the airline or Airbus. With the lives of that many people under his watch, if he even had a hint of the rudder sensitive issues, there very well may have been no accident. When mommy teaches you as a kid to keep your hand out of the fire, you either listen up or get burned I am sure he was smart enough to listen.....(MO of course).
(I eagerly await your reply Chaz)

m

Targ
10-29-2004, 01:19 PM
I recall a while back The FAA issued a FAR regarding composite repairs and procedures related to this crash.
Seems that this plane had a composite repair on the rudder that was done wrong in a big way. Using expired materials and not allowing the materials to cure properly.
Perhaps this was the initial reaction early in the investigation and changed later on.

Chuck_Older
10-29-2004, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mucker:
Bweiss,

You won't win with Chuck....you see, you are a noob in his mind (only less than 100 posts). Even though you were on topic, the only response Chuck could muster was his focus on one sentence in your thread. He relished the opportunity to set you straight with that "Let me teach you a lesson Nooby...You have no rights....." mumbo-jumbo.

Again Chuck, take some of the advice you gave me earlier in the discussion: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

"Yet another post by you that attempts to skewer a member rather than contribute to the discussion."

You're so full of it...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

My opinion OT is that this tragic comedy of errors was nothing but a managemnet problem. The FO was acting instinctively as a pilot. He clearly was not given critical info by the airline or Airbus. With the lives of that many people under his watch, if he even had a hint of the rudder sensitive issues, there very well may have been no accident. When mommy teaches you as a kid to keep your hand out of the fire, you either listen up or get burned.....(MO of course).
(I eagerly await your reply Chaz)

m <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The grown-ups are talking just now, mucker. Be still. Later on you can have a cookie and some warm milk.

LilHorse
10-29-2004, 01:29 PM
I'm glad there are so many pilots and engineers here to help clarify this incident. So, what I write to follow is submitted for the sake of getting some further understanding.

I realize that aircraft design is a compromise amoung many factors, ie. purpose, flyability, structural strength needed for a given task, etc. But it just seems incredible to me that the combination of wake turbulence and PIO at such a low speed would cause this type of structural failure. I realize that airliners aren't going to be built like flying tanks, but one of the first flybys of the 707 included a barrel roll! Now I know that's crazy but that plane held up and is still around today (albeit in static display). Wouldn't such a manuever be much more stressfull on all the structures than trying to correct for wake turbulence even with PIO? Are todays airliners not built as sturdy as the 707s?

mucker
10-29-2004, 01:43 PM
Chuck's greatest hits (sort of....):

"Yet another post by you that attempts to skewer a member rather than contribute to the discussion." (the mirror is begging for you to look)

"The grown-ups are talking just now, mucker. Be still. Later on you can have a cookie and some warm milk" (spoken like a true grown-up)

"I know not everyone speaks english fluently. You seem to have a good, but not perfect, understanding of the language." (arrogant rant)

"Just for the record, I mention this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif "

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

m

BinaryFalcon
10-29-2004, 01:53 PM
I'd say they're probably built better, but I'm not an engineer.

It was a large surface that may have been previously damaged and not properly repaired or inspected. That's a big problem right off the bat.

But beyond that, the amount of force that aerodynamics can create is surprisingly large. Keep in mind that for an aircraft to even get its wheels off the ground, lift must at least equal weight. It seems obvious of course, but when you pause to think of the numbers and speeds involved for an aircraft that weighs perhaps 320,000 pounds and gets off the ground at 140kts you can begin to see how "strong" air can become.

The main killer here was the rapid ocsillation. A structure may be able to withstand one overload in one direction and be okay. It might even be able to take a couple in one direction and not fail. Subject it to two or three in opposing directions in a short span of time and it is much less likely to survive.

Part of the design of aircraft is not just making a compromise, but also designing in strength where it is most likely needed. If you expect say, 80% of your loads to come through the Y axis, and 20% to come through X, you'll design accordingly, as it would be a waste of weight to make it the same strength in all directions.

That works fine too, unless you hit an odd case where you suddenly get 80% load in the axis only designed to withstand 20%. Then things are probably going to start failing.

To see nature apply this principle, get a regular chicken egg and place the long (pointy) ends between your thumb and index finger. Now squeeze. I'm betting you won't be able to crush it no matter how hard you try (barring a flaw in the egg).

Now turn it 90 degrees and apply force to the sides of the egg. Easy to crush.

As for the barrel roll, done correctly it shouldn't be all that stressful to the aircraft. Screw it up though, and you could be in a lot of trouble very quickly. That's where the real danger is, because by doing something like that you're basically cutting your margins down to zero.

mucker
10-29-2004, 01:59 PM
I won't bother you anymore Chucky. Remember, you started the attack on me, not the other way around pard. By the way, your shyte does stink, and your arrogance wreaks........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

m http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

berg417448
10-29-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
I'm glad there are so many pilots and engineers here to help clarify this incident. So, what I write to follow is submitted for the sake of getting some further understanding.

I realize that aircraft design is a compromise amoung many factors, ie. purpose, flyability, structural strength needed for a given task, etc. But it just seems incredible to me that the combination of wake turbulence and PIO _at such a low speed_ would cause this type of structural failure. I realize that airliners aren't going to be built like flying tanks, but one of the first flybys of the 707 included a barrel roll! Now I know that's crazy but that plane held up and is still around today (albeit in static display). Wouldn't such a manuever be much more stressfull on all the structures than trying to correct for wake turbulence even with PIO? Are todays airliners not built as sturdy as the 707s? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I read about this in the pilot's biography. He pointed out that the barrel roll properly done is a 1G maneuver and put no special stress on the plane.

LilHorse
10-29-2004, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
I'd say they're probably built better, but I'm not an engineer.

It was a large surface that may have been previously damaged and not properly repaired or inspected. That's a big problem right off the bat.

But beyond that, the amount of force that aerodynamics can create is surprisingly large. Keep in mind that for an aircraft to even get its wheels off the ground, lift _must_ at least equal weight. It seems obvious of course, but when you pause to think of the numbers and speeds involved for an aircraft that weighs perhaps 320,000 pounds and gets off the ground at 140kts you can begin to see how "strong" air can become.

The main killer here was the rapid ocsillation. A structure may be able to withstand one overload in one direction and be okay. It might even be able to take a couple in one direction and not fail. Subject it to two or three in opposing directions in a short span of time and it is much less likely to survive.

Part of the design of aircraft is not just making a compromise, but also designing in strength where it is most likely needed. If you expect say, 80% of your loads to come through the Y axis, and 20% to come through X, you'll design accordingly, as it would be a waste of weight to make it the same strength in all directions.

That works fine too, unless you hit an odd case where you suddenly get 80% load in the axis only designed to withstand 20%. Then things are probably going to start failing.

To see nature apply this principle, get a regular chicken egg and place the long (pointy) ends between your thumb and index finger. Now squeeze. I'm betting you won't be able to crush it no matter how hard you try (barring a flaw in the egg).

Now turn it 90 degrees and apply force to the sides of the egg. Easy to crush.

As for the barrel roll, done correctly it shouldn't be all that stressful to the aircraft. Screw it up though, and you could be in a lot of trouble very quickly. That's where the real danger is, because by doing something like that you're basically cutting your margins down to zero. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, makes sense. TY for your explanation.

bweiss
10-29-2004, 02:47 PM
Huh, what wuz zat. Someone say somefink... I tought I heard some screech about me not having rights and don't no USA no run no ferum here or some such. Was lookin under the podium fer our undisclosed VP fer a minute.

Noob!!... Why I was swooping round in flt sims when most of these limp whiskered whipper snappers was teething on daddad's Jim Morrison phonograph. Gotta be one in the crowd, teeth all gnashing, wit them little gold fillings flashing, (I like that part), chest a thumping... Now where was we, oh yes, that balsa wood tail and the barbarian pilot. Perhaps he was from Gaul or the aeroplane was from Revell. But like the debris at takeoff so obviously pelting the last space shuttle they blasted to smitherines, something don't add up. Me finks corporate earnings play into dis here somewhere's.

sunflower1
10-29-2004, 03:14 PM
Eco Dragon is right, its tough to fix a problem if it isn't acknowledged. In aviation accidents it takes something obvious, like a DC-10's engine just falling off, for the fingers to get pointed straight at the people who built the thing.

Airbus is a consortium of competing agendas, much like NASA. To think that a vertical stab falling off of one of their airplanes has anything to do with a pilot's operation of the plane in a difficult, but easily forseable turbulence, is just ridiculous.

NTSB accident reports are interesting and informative in G/A accidents. In transport category a/c they seldom stand the test of time.

The NTSB's report still says the DFW pilots had a large part to play in that crash. Anyone who knows what happened there knows they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and managed to outperform nearly all pilots who have been presented that scenario in a simulator. That accident caused the study of the phenomenon of microbursts to get real attention and led to a new standards for judging landing conditions.

Politics and aviation...sigh

Chuck_Older
10-29-2004, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mucker:
I won't bother you anymore Chucky. Remember, you started the attack on me, not the other way around pard. By the way, your shyte does stink, and your arrogance wreaks........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

m http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi mucker

Chuck_Older
10-29-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bweiss:
Huh, what wuz zat. Someone say somefink... I tought I heard some screech about me not having rights and don't no USA no run no ferum here or some such. Was lookin under the podium fer our undisclosed VP fer a minute.

Noob!!... Why I was swooping round in flt sims when most of these limp whiskered whipper snappers was teething on daddad's Jim Morrison phonograph. Gotta be one in the crowd, teeth all gnashing, wit them little gold fillings flashing, (I like that part), chest a thumping... Now where was we, oh yes, that balsa wood tail and the barbarian pilot. Perhaps he was from Gaul or the aeroplane was from Revell. But like the debris at takeoff so obviously pelting the last space shuttle they blasted to smitherines, something don't add up. Me finks corporate earnings play into dis here somewhere's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

take it to personal topic, gramps

bweiss
10-29-2004, 05:43 PM
"Nah, I'm very comfortable right here. We're all very comfortable up here, Indiana Jones."

bweiss
10-29-2004, 05:50 PM
Wup, finger slipped. Returning to the topic.Yes yes, it is difficult to understand even with a pilot over compensating on the rudder even with the turbulence of a major failure of the structure. And what about the training and notification issue. This pilot wasn't aware? That's not comforting either.

Chuck_Older
10-29-2004, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bweiss:
"Nah, I'm very comfortable right here. We're all very comfortable up here, Indiana Jones." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's actually funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NimbusPlus
10-29-2004, 06:17 PM
Eh? bweiss, I don't have any problem with the fact you're expressing yourself, nor did my post was in response to yours specifically.

Chuck_Older, please please please please pleeeaaaasssee, why do you have to start making (inacurrate as far as I know) political comments in that thread?

That's what I'm saying exactly, it's not about blame, it's about fixing the problem. That's why this discussion shouldn't focus on "whose fault is it" (with the inevitable "it's the dumb FO - it's that shwred and greedy European manufacturer - it's a rightwing conspiracy - it's blablabla") but on understanding how the accident happened. It's everything but denial. Then: how do we make sure it doesn't happen again. And that process is better done by leaving the words blame and responsibility aside.

I don't share the opinion of sunflower1 that the NTSB reports involving airlines are skewed because of politics. The reaction to the board recommendations (or lack thereof) by the manufacturers and/or regulatory agencies is something else.

As for the accident at DFW, I think you are refering to the Delta crash on Aug 2 1985? I don't see the problem in saying that the decision of the crew to knowingly fly into adverse weather conditions, and then to cut the power, on approach, near the ground, when encountering the headwind part of a microburst was NOT appropriate. What should the NTSB have said for the probable cause? Bad weather? Of course not. Their report, and the way it was formulated, and the recommendations issued, prompted, as was said, the study of microbursts, the development of low-level windshear alert systems, and the proper training of crews. "Bad weather" would have been "bad weather, oh well, s* happens...".

darkhorizon11
10-29-2004, 06:20 PM
I got to an aviation school and last night I was at a Safety Seminar where one of the NTSB inspectors who worked on many investigations such as TWA flight 800 and American 587.

He pretty much said both parties, American and Airbus are at fault. I posted earlier in detail about this. The investigator. John Goglia pretty much said Airbus didn't stress the uniquness of the rudder control system in the A300-600 and that no other model of their aircraft has this system. The factor that broke the tailplane was that a hard push on the pedal can cause full deflection in the respective direction in less than one second. The sudden change in pressure snapped it b!tch off basically.

Given the pilot screwed up because he wasn't properly trained which is American's fault, Airbus made a rudder control system which is completely different and goes against what pilots have been trained their entire careers.

Chuck_Older
10-29-2004, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NimbusPlus:


Chuck_Older, please please please please pleeeaaaasssee, why do you have to start making (inacurrate as far as I know) political comments in that thread?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure you have the right guy? I reminded somebody of the rules they agreed to in regard to making political comments, I didn't make one myself, Nimbus. Please re-read my post about that. It is 100% accurate that the Laws of the USA do not give members the right to free speech here.

NimbusPlus
10-29-2004, 06:35 PM
Chuck_Older:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There is no Right guaranteeing Freedom of Speech here, and national laws need not apply. Any nation's not just the USA.

Some joker may indeed have given you certain inalienable rights, but that is as far as the government of the US goes, not for the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that slightly political? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mucker
10-29-2004, 07:35 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

bweiss
10-30-2004, 05:39 AM
Ah garsh, you fellers is so sensitive. (Here, let me edit all this out...)

Look, my post may have been curt to you Nimbus in re-reading it, (maybe that is what Chuck really didn't like) and I did not intend for it to be. So if I offended, I do apologize. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

As for Chucky like I said, he got me humor about the well of souls bit, so dispite what thet ******ss says bout him, I figure he's a fine feller in my book. Why I might go out an burn my draft card in his honor today. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(Hey, I found the edit button, doh). I think the blame is fixed by the legal system, has to be on account of all the law suits, and in this case I'm seeing where corporate profits are of more concern than getting to the bottom of what may have taken place. For me, and I guess this was what you meant Numbus, the worry is that pilots are not familiar, or training isn't timely on new or newly installed system(s) which under a particular circumstance can cause a catastrophic failure, coupled with my suspicious feeling about the structural integrity of the aircraft in the first place. It don't make me want to buy a ticket to ride on an airbus can tell ya that. Which, is my only actual interest in this. Other than I wouldn't want one to drop on my house on account of someone touched the rudder pedal by accident. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

So, having put my gum under the seat, I'm outta this here thread. You may now return to your regularly scheduled furball.

Chuck_Older
10-30-2004, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NimbusPlus:
Chuck_Older:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There is no Right guaranteeing Freedom of Speech here, and national laws need not apply. Any nation's not just the USA.

Some joker may indeed have given you certain inalienable rights, but that is as far as the government of the US goes, not for the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that _slightly_ political? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are the Rules here, Nimbus. They are not my rules, by the way.

If you had quoted my whole post, you would have shown that. You are purposefully taking me out of context, it seems to me.

If you honestly feel that this post of mine you have quoted is an example of my interjecting Political overtones into this thread, please alert a Moderator.

I find it very hard to beleive you think that since I reminded somebody that the Rights of their country don't apply here, that is a Political post. If so, the posts by any Moderator stating the rules of this forum are also political posts.

I posted that so we could remain on-topic. I don't know if you realise that. I could have said a lot of things to do that. I chose those words.

I wonder at why you choose that nit to pick. Contact a Mod, please, and detail your complaints.



Hi, mucker. Out for a bit of a Saturday troll, are we?

Heavy_Weather
10-30-2004, 06:56 AM
yeah, this sentence in that interview sums it all up:

"How is safety served, how is future aviation safety enhanced, by blaming the pilot who had no way of knowing the design sensitivities of that airplane because Airbus, who did know, never told safety investigators, never told operators and never told pilots?" the statement said.

its a sad fact in life that disclosure is served by blaming something or someone. when really, if its your time to go, its time to go, no need to prolong it.

sunflower1
10-30-2004, 07:39 AM
"I don't share the opinion of sunflower1 that the NTSB reports involving airlines are skewed because of politics. The reaction to the board recommendations (or lack thereof) by the manufacturers and/or regulatory agencies is something else."

"As for the accident at DFW, I think you are refering to the Delta crash on Aug 2 1985? I don't see the problem in saying that the decision of the crew to knowingly fly into adverse weather conditions, and then to cut the power, on approach, near the ground, when encountering the headwind part of a microburst was NOT appropriate."

Well, because crews do this everyday, all over the world. The idea that we have risk-free passage through the atmosphere isn't right and the NTSB left the public with the impression that these pilots had messed up bigtime. The fact is that they did better with what they encountered than most pilots can when they have some hint of what's coming. I read about the simulator testing that was done later- all the aircrews subjected to that situation crashed upon first encountering it.

I'm sure you professional pilots can tell a story or two, but I've never, in my whole life, heard a missed approach story from a passenger. I have, however, been in transport category a/c that nearly scraped wingtips and I lived in a dorm room with a kid who was riding on one that did. I read the editorial in Flying magazine in the late 80's, written by a retired pilot, about flying right seat and knowing the PIC had blown the approach by starting his descent from cruise too late approaching LAX (!) and how they nearly went off the end of the runway salvaging the deal. There is a whole culture that starts with wanting to get someplace on time and wanting to make a buck that leaves pilots at the receiving end of some pretty harsh judgements.

"its a sad fact in life that disclosure is served by blaming something or someone. when really, if its your time to go, its time to go, no need to prolong it."

That's what I mean. The NTSB can't say that, but they shouldn't leave people with the impression that there was some flaw in the product they were purchasing (travel) that could be honestly laid at the feet of the pilots.

The last I knew, a Quantas pilot didn't have to explain a missed approach to the company. Any other transport category pilots enjoy that sort of authority?

NimbusPlus
10-30-2004, 10:51 AM
bweiss, no problem at all.

Chuck_Older,
I know those are the rules; I know that! There's no malicious intent to quote you out of context. I just quoted the part that was political IMO.

I read your original post like a kind of bragging about how any nation's "not just the USA"; and that's what annoyed me. It annoyed me because there's no absolute freedom of speech, not even in the US. And above all, it annoyed me because there was no need at all to talk about that. You're in a corporate environment, private properties, that's all that need to be said. As far as I know you're not guarranted freedom of speech in your company ou in your neighboor's house, are you?

We all have memories of (quite nasty and vain) political arguments here on these forums. I guess I've grown weary of anything that relates to politics here. Nothing personnal. As for reporting to you to a Mod, frankly, as I said, I've seen worse and what you said does not grant taking a Mod more of their time. As I said, nothing personnal and I think we should put that to rest. If you want to discuss the subject through PM, by all means do so.

Ok, back on topic.
sunflower1,
My point is I don't think the NTSB should be criticized for their report (byt the way, I think only the summary is available rigth now?). I don't feel they left the public with the impression that the FO was a moronic incompetent. The NTSB never said that. I think that if the public perceives that, it might be because of, let's see, maybe the way the report was covered by the media (20 seconds between the ads)?

It's not because flying into bad weather, when you really shouldn't, occurs on a daily basis that it is safe and okay to do that.

I absolutely concur with what you say on the pressure put on pilots to complete their planned flight ("get-there-itis"), as well as the tendency for pilots, sometimes, to cut corners to arrive on schedule and save the company (and sometimes transefering part of the savings to their pocket) several thousands bucks in fuel. Those are other issues. By the way, I know two relatives that experienced a missed approach, so yes it happens (sometimes).

Chuck_Older
10-30-2004, 12:29 PM
Well, then I can see how you misinterpreted what I posted. I am probably a minority because I post what I mean. If I had wanted to insult the member I referred to, I have a wonderful vocabulary of insults. Just like if I had wanted to insult you, I just would have typed one up. Glad that's over and we're back on topic

mucker
10-30-2004, 01:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

Chuck_Older
10-30-2004, 02:02 PM
take it to private topic, muckman

Taylortony
10-30-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
Are todays airliners not built as sturdy as the 707s? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahhhhhhh A Hundred Thousand loose rivets flying in close formation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif