OT: Airline Crash Report, This just doesn't make any sense Options

[Randal]

I really can't believe the article I've attached below.

It's difficult to fathom that any pilot can induce the rudder to fall off an airplane, regardless of the situation?

What's going on here?

Here is the article.

Pilot, Rudder May Share Blame for Airbus Crash

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 26, 2004; Page A02

An American Airlines pilot is likely to be blamed by government investigators for causing the crash of Flight 587, which plunged into a Queens neighborhood on Nov. 12, 2001, killing all on board and five people on the ground, according to sources familiar with the probe, but aircraft design is also likely to be cited as a contributing factor.

The National Transportation Safety Board will today hear the findings of its staff investigators and may vote as early as today on a final determination of the probable cause of the accident. It is also expected to discuss whether there was adequate communication about safety issues related to the aircraft. The crash attracted global attention because it occurred two months after terrorists attacked New York and the Pentagon.



The Airbus A300-600, heading for the Dominican Republic, crashed shortly after takeoff, killing 260 aboard and five people on the ground in Queens. (Victor Nicastro -- AP)


The Airbus A300-600, heading for the Dominican Republic, encountered wake turbulence moments after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport and crashed seconds later into the Rockaway Beach neighborhood of Queens, killing 260 aboard and five people on the ground. Investigators determined that the tail fell off the plane shortly before it went down.

American has waged an aggressive campaign in recent weeks to convince the NTSB board, its staff and the agency's investigative staff that the plane's manufacturer hid damning evidence of previous incidents involving the rudder of the same aircraft model. American's last-minute lobbying has succeeded in raising fresh doubts among some board members about whether American, Airbus SAS and the board communicated effectively about safe operation of the A300-600's rudder, according to sources familiar with the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings were not official yet.

These sources believe the NTSB staff will still point to the pilot of Flight 587 and his back-and-forth pressure on the rudder foot pedals as the reason the tail came off and the plane crashed. The sources also said the sensitivity of the aircraft's rudder pedals is also likely to be cited as a contributing factor in the crash.

The board's decision could be used in lawsuits filed by relatives of those who died in the crash. American said 70 percent of the suits have been settled.

"It's easy to focus on what started the sequence of events" that led to the crash of Flight 587, said American spokesman Bruce Hicks. "But it ignores the root cause, which is system safety. . . . Airbus never told safety investigators about previous incidents."

As part of its evidence, American pointed to internal Airbus memos written after a nonfatal accident involving another American plane, also an Airbus A300-600. The memos from June 1997 show urgent concern among Airbus managers that the aircraft's rudder had sustained high loads, or stresses, after American Airlines Flight 903 to Miami stalled during a flight and the pilot used the rudder to try to recover. Internally, Airbus recommended that the plane be inspected "as soon as possible," but American claims that it was never informed of the memos until after Flight 587 crashed.

Airbus denied that it had been less than forthcoming about problems with its rudder. The European manufacturer provided several documents to American, including one signed four years before the crash by Airbus and rival manufacturers Boeing Co., McDonnell Douglas and the Federal Aviation Administration that jointly raised concerns about the way American trained pilots to use the rudder. The document indicated American taught its pilots to be aggressive in their use of the rudder, which could result in a "rapid loss of controlled flight."

The letter, dated Aug. 20, 1997, said, "The excessive emphasis on the superior effectiveness of the rudder for roll control . . . is a concern."

Airbus said its letter clearly warns American to correct its training, which the carrier said it did in updated training videos distributed to pilots. "I would agree that our communication to American and others, had it been taken to heart, might have indeed avoided this accident," said Clay McConnell, an Airbus spokesman. "I see no evidence that American pilots were untrained from their dangerous behavior."

Airbus said that the pilot's aggressive back-and-forth use of the rudder right after Flight 587 encountered wake turbulence led the tail of the aircraft to come off.

During the crash investigation, the NTSB issued a recommendation for Airbus to fix another component of its rudder on the A300-600 fleet, raising concerns among pilots about rudder performance.

The crash, pilots say, raised alarms because it involved a basic aircraft part that pilots do not use very much. The rudder, the flap on the vertical tail, moves right and left to help pilots land in a crosswind. It is also used to maneuver the airplane on the ground while taxiing.

"I don't think most pilots knew as much about rudder movement and the effects on the airplane even at low speeds," said Terry McVenes, executive air safety vice chairman at the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents pilots at several major carriers but not those at American.

American said it has seen a new opportunity to convince the board of its view because four of the five NTSB members have joined since the crash.

[Joe Bob]

Airbus and an American Pilot.....the French manufacturer says he over corrected and the tail fell off...... <_<

Riiiighht, and they didn't surrender to the Germans....

[TimT]

FWIW i saw that plane fall out of the sky, at the time I was workingon the Marine Parkway Bridge, which is a few miles ferom Kennedy, across Jamaica bay. We heard a louder than normal jet exhaust, then a bang, then I saw the plane cartwheel into the ground.

One of the apprentices was just leaving the deli with the coffee order when the plane hit.


it was an INTENSE day

[MarkG]

interesting to note that causes of crashes are voted on just like an elections ....

and that airlines can lobby the NTSB to change it's findings....

and that 'pilot error' is the standard finding when the real cause can't be determined ....

and the standard finger pointing thats been going on for decades between the manufacturer, pilots, ground crew and the airlines themselves as to who screwed up ....

[nebreitling]

well THAT makes me feel comfortable.

[Pnambic]

Hmmm....Expedia tells me what plane each leg of a flight will use. I guess I'll just avoid any flights with Airbus planes from now on.

Even though a 914 is 30 years old, you should be able to slam on the brakes as hard as you want and the rear end of the car shouldn't fall off. (unless you have some MAJOR rust issues...)

Sounds like a serious design flaw that was known and perhaps avoidable, but if Airbus knew about the issue, the plane should have been recalled and fixed before something like this could happen.

[rhodyguy]

my airbus experience. got on one at denver. we were pushed out of the gate to a discrete distance. insuring an on time departure. 3 different techs come and go. we were informed a warning light indicated a door was not fully closed/locked, but they assured us the door was fully closed. we sat in the jet for an hour and a half. this was in july, no lights, no air, and the temp in the cabin must have climbed to 95*. "well folks, we are going to reboot computer". we got that tidbit of info 4 times. i rather loudly asked my wife "so how do you think they reboot at 35,000 feet?". "would you care for a complimentary cocktail sir?". an hour later the tug drug us back to the gate. i realize they all have problems. i now ask "is this going to be an all boeing trip" when booking flights.

kevin

[tdgray]

I believe there was no plane.... I've got the pictures for proof. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

This is obviously a conspiracy by the government to coverup a mistake in French - American relations.

Oh and BTW we surrender ! (insert surrendering smilie here)

signed,

France

[tdgray]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

I am a little biased though.... my company makes aircraft forgings for Boeing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/boldblue.gif)

[rhodyguy]

it's also a employment support issue for me. the boeing factor in washington is paramount.

kevin

[spare time toys]

Its a composite tail. JUNK no way no how do I or any of my family get on a scare bus

[SLITS]

Don't do Airbus shit - it's French

And, if the vertical stabilizer is that fragile - it should only fly in France. Makes me wonder about the wings and horizontal stabilizer.

[MarkG]

"well folks, we are going to reboot computer". we got that tidbit of info 4 times. i rather loudly asked my wife "so how do you think they reboot at 35,000 feet?". ".

kevin

Well, the pilot calls the computer support team in New Dehli where Patel asks for the basic information several times (problems with spelling/understanding English). Pilot gets pissed, escalates call to managers in Costa Rica. Costa Rica contacts New Dehli and is informed the person who the pilot talked to is really in Russia, because New Dehli support folks demanded too much $ and India outsourced to Russia the jobs America outsourced to them (remove the pilot from this story and it is an exact issue I'm working now for a customer as I write......)

Vladimer sans Patel tells pilot to power down the computer and reboot (standard Microsoft fix). Jet is now at 30k feet with no power or control waiting for system reboot.

At 20k feet and falling fast Patel is stumped and passes call to Mohammed, who now has 1 month of expierence and is considered 'upper level support'. Mohammed asks pilot to check firmware and BIOS levels and then reboot again.

At 10k feet and falling fast, Mohammed calls out the wrong part, sends status to the wrong airline and closes the call as 'solved', faces East and proclaims "Allah Akbar" 5 times and dreams of his next life with 78 Virgins.

Six months later the NTSB declares pilot error

[redshift]

Their planes are deadly shit.


M

[SirAndy]

And, if the vertical stabilizer is that fragile - it should only fly in France. Makes me wonder about the wings and horizontal stabilizer.

the rudder is not a stabilizer ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Even though a 914 is 30 years old, you should be able to slam on the brakes as hard as you want and the rear end of the car shouldn't fall off.

i believe the right analogy would be you going 400 mph in your 914 and suddenly jerking the steering wheel left/right. of course you would still be blaming porsche for their flawed design, wouldn't you? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

Don't do Airbus shit - it's French

we had a similar problem in germany in the 30s. the solution would be to paint a large F with a circle around it on each french owned business so every good american knows which ones to avoid. also, make all french people in this country (you should also include everyone with french ancestors, just to be safe) wear a yellow armlet with a big F printed on it. that'll make it easier for you to spot them in public!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Andy

[SLITS]

And, if the vertical stabilizer is that fragile - it should only fly in France. Makes me wonder about the wings and horizontal stabilizer.

the rudder is not a stabilizer ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Ok Sir Andy - what controls yaw? My pilot license is dated 1968 and that's what I was taught!

[SirAndy]

Ok Sir Andy - what controls yaw?

the rudder.
the stabalizer is the fixed portion. at least, that's what it's called in germany ...

the upward pointing "fin" and the sideways pointing "fins" at the end of the plane are the stabalizers and they're fixed.
the rudder moves. and if jerked left/right at high speeds, it puts a large load on the rear structure of the plane.
in this case, enough to have the rear snap off.
that's why airbus had the pilots instructed *not* to do that.

<_< Andy

[Randal]

and if jerked left/right at high speeds, it puts a large load on the rear structure of the plane.
in this case, enough to have the rear snap off.

Something is wrong with this picture.

[SirAndy]

Something is wrong with this picture.

no ...

you of all people should know how important "smoothness" is to get around the track without spinning ...
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Andy

[SLITS]

Ok, the thingy that sticks up (unless you fly a Bonanza) is called the vertical stabilizer and is fixed and the thingy that moves is the rudder - sorry didn't mean to offend the Deutschers - I just call the entire structure the vertical stabilizer.

But if the plane is that fragil - what the hell would you do trying to control the craft in a shear wall or wake turburlence or **gasp** an unintentional spin?