stevewin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Remember this - it came shortly after 9/11. Apparently the pilot's actions caused the tail to rip off - but there is a big fight going on between the airlines and the manufacturer at who is to blame. AA says that Airbus never told them of the dangers of sharp rudder movements - Airbus says that AA knew and still was improperly training its pilots. Incredible. Kind of puts the woes of being a Bills fan (at least momentarily) into perspective.... Co-pilot blamed for deadly 2001 jet Rosen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 When in doubt blame a dead guy.............so nice isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 The Airbus uses a digital flight system. If the pilot inputs a flight command that would overstress the airframe, the system should simply attenuate it to acceptable levels. Quite simply, there's no earthly reason for designing a modern airplane that is designed to accept flight input that overstresses the airframe. Hell, older 737s have been lost to "uncommanded rudder action" - the rudder will suddenly snap all the way to the side in level flight and put the plane into an uncontrollable spin - and that airframe holds up to that aerodynamic stress...if an Airbus can't, that's not "pilot error". Airbus' excuses are a load of stevestojan. They just don't want to get sued over the engineering flaw in their plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 i have no reason to doubt that, but if it's an engineering flaw, then why don't these same types of crashes happen more often? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Great, I'm flying out on a 737 later this week. Just great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Great, I'm flying out on a 737 later this week. Just great. 86273[/snapback] On Thursday I take a 737 to Philly and then an Airbus to Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I don't care if the co-pilot was stomping on the rudder pedal,,,,,a tail assembly should not just fall off because of that. I would never fly on an A300 and allAirbus planes with their composite plastic tails make me nervous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I would never fly on an A300 and allAirbus planes with their composite plastic tails make me nervous! 86319[/snapback] AMEN to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I don't care if the co-pilot was stomping on the rudder pedal,,,,,a tail assembly should not just fall off because of that. I would never fly on an A300 and allAirbus planes with their composite plastic tails make me nervous! 86319[/snapback] French made stevestojan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I would not be surpised if some the guys on this board tried to blame Drew for this just as they seem to blame everything on him. Sarcasm off. No matter how you look at it, innocent people died for no reason at all. It truly puts everything else in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 he rudder will suddenly snap all the way to the side in level flight and put the plane into an uncontrollable spin I don't believe an extreme rudder position is sufficient to induce a spin. In order for a plane to spin, the wings must be fully stalled AND in uncoordinated flight. I think all a FUBARed rudder will do is create a vicious yaw and make the plane more difficult to control properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I don't believe an extreme rudder position is sufficient to induce a spin. In order for a plane to spin, the wings must be fully stalled AND in uncoordinated flight.I think all a FUBARed rudder will do is create a vicious yaw and make the plane more difficult to control properly. 86362[/snapback] If you viciously yaw a plane, you're going to stall one or the other wing at least. That was the major stumbling block the Wright brothers overcame: coordinating yaw with roll on a turn to keep the wings from stalling. Before they did that...everyone else spun in. But all I know is that there's been a few 737 crashes (one in Pennsylvania years ago is the most well-known) where the rudder snapped all the way over (left or right, I don't remember), and the plane spun in from 30k feet. And for those of you flying a 737 soon...Boeing has since fixed the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 If you viciously yaw a plane, you're going to stall one or the other wing at least. That was the major stumbling block the Wright brothers overcame: coordinating yaw with roll on a turn to keep the wings from stalling. Before they did that...everyone else spun in. But all I know is that there's been a few 737 crashes (one in Pennsylvania years ago is the most well-known) where the rudder snapped all the way over (left or right, I don't remember), and the plane spun in from 30k feet. And for those of you flying a 737 soon...Boeing has since fixed the problem. 86384[/snapback] The 737 that Rosened near Pittsburgh a few years back was on approach at about 5,000ft when it had the uncommanded rudder deflection that billsfanone it. It was not at 30K feet. A similar 737 Rosen near Colorado Springs some years ago was also on approach below 10,000ft. You seem to know your airplanes, but just wanted to set your facts straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 The 737 that Rosened near Pittsburgh a few years back was on approach at about 5,000ft when it had the uncommanded rudder deflection that billsfanone it. It was not at 30K feet. A similar 737 Rosen near Colorado Springs some years ago was also on approach below 10,000ft.You seem to know your airplanes, but just wanted to set your facts straight. 86459[/snapback] OK, whose playing with the words edits?!? pretty funny, but jeez at least don't abuse it on a serious topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 OK, whose playing with the words edits?!? pretty funny, but jeez at least don't abuse it on a serious topic! 86462[/snapback] it's automatically changed by the filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Remember this - it came shortly after 9/11. Apparently the pilot's actions caused the tail to rip off - but there is a big fight going on between the airlines and the manufacturer at who is to blame. AA says that Airbus never told them of the dangers of sharp rudder movements - Airbus says that AA knew and still was improperly training its pilots. Incredible. Kind of puts the woes of being a Bills fan (at least momentarily) into perspective.... Co-pilot blamed for deadly 2001 jet Rosen 86186[/snapback] i dont think they blamed him. they said they trained him worng. he did what he thaught was the right thing to do, which turned out to be the WORST FREAKING THING TO DO.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediaman Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I don't care if the co-pilot was stomping on the rudder pedal,,,,,a tail assembly should not just fall off because of that. I would never fly on an A300 and allAirbus planes with their composite plastic tails make me nervous! 86319[/snapback] Great....Isn't Jetblue's entire fleet Airbus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 The Airbus uses a digital flight system. If the pilot inputs a flight command that would overstress the airframe, the system should simply attenuate it to acceptable levels. Quite simply, there's no earthly reason for designing a modern airplane that is designed to accept flight input that overstresses the airframe. Hell, older 737s have been lost to "uncommanded rudder action" - the rudder will suddenly snap all the way to the side in level flight and put the plane into an uncontrollable spin - and that airframe holds up to that aerodynamic stress...if an Airbus can't, that's not "pilot error". Airbus' excuses are a load of stevestojan. They just don't want to get sued over the engineering flaw in their plane. 86220[/snapback] Full, linear rudder control has it's uses, but given that the digital rudder positioning was (evidently) linear wrt to pilot input in all conditions -and was flagged as a problem by Airbus, an attenuation switch to soften response upon climb seems a fairly lo-cost thing to implement. Pilot error/training also seems to have occured - who knows what happens in stressful times? I've no idea what the degree of turbulence was, but I suspect that some air density problems may have existed, affecting lift and control surface responses to input. I may be way off base, but I wonder if a few degrees of flap might have helped. Maybe they are locked out at whatever speed the aircraft was travelling - dunno. IIRC, the 737 problem was traced to unsufficient lube of the screw and a design without redundancy or fail-safe behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alg Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Airbus says it told American a number of times and in a number of ways that the airline was improperly training pilots about how to use the rudder. Let me get this straight. Since Airbus warned AA that it was not a good idea to use the rudder in this way, and in this given situation (which, I take it, is normal practice for a pilot trying to keep control of an airplane) they feel absolved of responsibility? Profit motive at its grimmist. Pardon me for never wanting to be on an Airbus plane again. It is not possible to give a warning to an airline, no matter how many times, that in anyway justifies the knuckleheads who made it to not fixing it outright. Airbus: 'Gee, don't do that or your tail will fall off. Pilot: 'Oh, you mean use normal flight practices?' Bleed Airbus for all they are worth, and then buy Boeing - the finest commercial aircrafts in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayboy54 Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Please remove the OT notation. This is obviously an on-topic discussion. The issue here is exactly the same as the Bills woes. Airbus has a aircraft design problem and NTSC blames the pilot for not doing what he does best, resulting in a bad accident. Donohoe has a team design problem and the fans and media blame the QB for doing what he does best, resulting in an accident waiting to happen. Moral of the story: Don't fly on Airbus aircraft, or buy anymore Bills tix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts