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

[SirAndy]

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?

i'm sure they have instructions for that too. they might even have french airbus simulators (imagine that!) ...

never flew a airbus myself so i don't know.

i suspect the american pilots were too cocky to take instructions from some french frogs ...
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Andy

[Randal]

i'm sure they have instructions for that too. they might even have french airbus simulators (imagine that!) ...

I just can't believe that any tail assembly could be induced to fall off by pilot input. We're not talking aerobatics here, just flying through wake turbulence, i.e., stuff that is real and happens at takeoffs and landings.

John Madden is looking smarter every day.

[SirAndy]

I just can't believe that any tail assembly could be induced to fall off by pilot input. We're not talking aerobatics here, just flying through wake turbulence, i.e., stuff that is real and happens at takeoffs and landings.

according to the report, it wasn't the "wake turbulence" that brought the plane down but rather the pilots (incorrect) reaction to the turbulence ...
and it reads like he didn't just pulled the rudder once or twice but rather jerked it left/right multiple times which upset the plane to a point where the tail stabalizer got so much pressure from the side that it snapped off.
i don't know how fast the AB was going at the time, but there's *a lot* of pressure per square inch at those speeds. you get something like the side of the stabalizer in the airstream and i'm not surprised at all that it would snap off ...

but maybe the air-pressure in france is "weaker" ...
<_< Andy

[F4i]

Avoidance of wake turbulance is the pilots responsibility. Actually damn near everything is the pilots responsibility. I believe all aircraft have a designed manovering speed. This is the max speed at which full deflection of the controls can be made without destroying the primary structure of the aircraft. Above that speed stuff falls off. ANY airplane.
"The vertical gusts encountered when crossing laterally through the vortex (wake turbulance) can impose structural loads as high as 10g on a small aircraft..." From the ground up
All that said I still prefer Boeing from my personal findings.

[d7n7master]

Aircraft Maintenance Log:
Pilot: Something funny with rudder.

Flight Tech: Something funny removed. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[F4i]

Righthand engine "missing"

Engine found after brief search.

Evidence of leak on engine

Evidence removed

Auto land very rough

Auto land not installed on this aircraft
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

[airsix]

Avoidance of wake turbulance is the pilots responsibility. Actually damn near everything is the pilots responsibility. I believe all aircraft have a designed manovering speed.  This is the max speed at which full deflection of the controls can be made without destroying the primary structure of the aircraft. Above that speed stuff falls off. ANY airplane.

That was a very good explanation, and one that I agree with 100%.

A few other comments regarding other statements in this thread:

What to call various airframe components: The section of the aircraft composing the rudder, elevators, and stabilizers (h/v) is collectively called the "empenage". Empenage is a French word, so we just say "tail". Anybody who says 'empenage' is a sissy.

The rudder is a control surface located on a stabilizer. Technically it is a component of the stabilizer. To say there was a problem with the stabilizer would be correct because the rudder is part of the stabilizer. Quiz time, what is the horizontal control surface called on an F-15? It's not an elevator. (What exactly do we call the stabilizers and corresponding control surfaces on a v-tail Bonanza? Rudivators? Elevudors?)

Here's another quiz question for you. What is the maximum manuevering speed at which it is safe to apply full rudder control in an Aercoupe? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

-Ben M.

[SirAndy]

is collectively called the "empenage". Empenage is a French word, so we just say "tail".  Anybody who says 'empenage' is a sissy

like "toilet" ?

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

[Randal]

I believe all aircraft have a designed manovering speed. This is the max speed at which full deflection of the controls can be made without destroying the primary structure of the aircraft. Above that speed stuff falls off. ANY airplane.

Ummmm.

Sure makes you wish that one had a better understanding of the state of pilot training, especially on airplanes that have "critical" flying issues.

I know when I was flying internationally it didn't take long to figure out which airlines not to use.

But somehow, I've always felt the US airline crowd was well trained and up to date on critical issues, but maybe this isn't the case anymore.

[Alison Baker]

I flew KLM Airbus over to the States back in August 2001 and it was a great flight....when you come off a flight with a buddy drunk, you know it was a good flight !!! KLM Airbus is the way to go ! ( thats the Europeans fir ye ! ) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/pray.gif)

[Pnambic]

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)

Nope, that plane was well within normal operating parameters (speed, altitude, etc.). The plane was taking off, not even at cruising speed yet. It would be like turning left and right at about 40 mph maybe (not 400 mph). Car might slide around a bit, but the rear end damn well better stay in one piece (barring an impact with guard rails or trees or something) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) .

Turbulence isn't all that uncommon. If a weakness like this was acceptable, I imagine we'd have heard of this happening a bit more often from other airplane manufacturers.

I'm not saying the pilot did nothing wrong. Sounds like he may have done some stupid things, but I don't think you can convince me that its ok for the tail of an airplane to fall off as a result of any rudder movements the pilot may makewhile in flight. I'm sure you've heard of speed sensitive steering right? The faster you're going, the less touchy the steering is. That should have been employed in this case to avoid placing excess stress on the tail of the aircraft if Airbus knew about it and they apparently did.

I don't care if the plane is French or German or American or Canadian or Martian. I think it was a design flaw that cursed that flight and I blame the airplane's manufacturer, Airbus.

(I could be wrong....wouldnt be the first and won't be the last, I thought Airbus was made up of French, British and companies from other European countries as well; not just French, right?)

[URY914]

Here is a pic of "pilot error"

[Pnambic]

See? Look at that! You can hit a truck with a Boeing and the tail stays intact! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool_shades.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/clap56.gif)

[URY914]

or this

[URY914]

Or drag the wing of a 747 and its OK.

The damn French build planes like they build cars.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ar15.gif)

[URY914]

This one was on loan to the French Air Force... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[SpecialK]

Quiz time, what is the horizontal control surface called on an F-15?

OOh, OOh, I know this one!!


I really should disqualify myself from this question since I'm close enough to spit on "4" F-15K's as I type (no spitting, that's corrosive (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ). But since no one jumped on it, they're called "Horizontal Stabilators".

What did I win!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/clap56.gif)

[TimT]

Nope, that plane was well within normal operating parameters (speed, altitude, etc.).

yes fror all outward appearances flight 587 was normal... until it spriraled into
Belle Harbor before my eyes

What would you think if reports came back that you

"cant excesively turn the steering wheel to avoid an incident?"

and worse what about the regulators/manufacturers/industry have known about this flaw for years?

[SpecialK]

What would you think if reports came back that you

"cant excesively turn the steering wheel to avoid an incident?"

I actually heard it described as just that. They used an SUV (top heavy vehicle) avoiding an object in the road as an analogy to what the pilot did in over-correcting the yaw of the aircraft using the rudder controls (which are rarely used in flight).

"What happens, according to the expert, Ronald A. Hess, is analogous to a driver rolling over a sport utility vehicle.

Hess said the driver of a top-heavy SUV might make a hard turn to avoid road debris, only to feel the vehicle tilting sideways at an unexpectedly sharp rate. That could prompt the driver to swerve in the opposite direction, only to get the SUV leaning even more. With another sharp turn, the vehicle could flip.

"Somebody observing this ... might wonder why you are deliberately swerving back and forth," Hess said. " 'Why are you doing it? It's dangerous.' As the driver, however, you have a considerably different viewpoint: You are doing everything in your power to maintain control of a vehicle that, to you, is acting very strangely."

Hess also found that the A300's rudder controls were the most sensitive among comparable airliners, and that the design was "possibly conducive" to the phenomenon."

Chicago Tribune 10/25/04
author: Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

[dmenche914]

An airline mechanic friend of mine related this story to me. An Airbus was in for maintanence. The mechanics were repairing the nose wheel, so they jacked up the nose of the plane. No one was inside the aircraft. The computer was on, and sensed the tilt of the plane. The computer decided the plane was climbing, and "woke up" since the engines were off, the computer figured it was not good to be climbing. Since the computer is programed to restart an engine that stops, if fired the engines up, and the plane taxied until it crashed in the hanger wall. A work order then went out to pull all the computer breakers every time an Airbus is service from then on.

It has been called a ScareBus for good reason. On a flight in calm weather the scarebus started going violently up and down. After a while the plane settled out. The pilot got on the intercom and aploigized, said the computer did it.

There is no reason what so ever that the pilot should be able to tear off the tail with rudder controls. The rudder peddles are "wireless" in an Airbus. The feed back, and limits of travel should all be set to prevent damage by overriding pilot inputs if they excede the design limits on the airframe. Airbus should have done this. The electric motors that move the rudder should have a torque sensing mechanism that would prevent over stress of the rudder, much less the whole darn tail! Is the power steering in a car designed with enough power to say bend the tierods when parked up against a curb and the steering wheel turned, NO! Why should a pilot be able to torque the tail off with the rudder?

The Tail should have never "snapped" off, Airbus is in a stiff market, with airlines just getting buy, so they try to shave costs, for the airlines, by saving as much wieght as possible to increass passenger load, or reduce fuel burn, which can make the difference between profit or not. So they add a composite tail in the interest of saving the last drop of fuel, reduce weight to the minimum, they optimize the thing to the max, nothing over designed, because over design means more wieght. Look what happens. Not that composites are bad. More efficient design is great, but when the limits are pushed, things happen. Reminds me of the British Comet, and the sqaure windows.

That tail failed at the joint, there was no fusalage damage, the tail was just plane not attached strong enough. That is clear to anyone that sees the photos of it.

When I fly, I tell them, "If ain't Boeing, I'm not going"

Boeing's bombers in WWII made it home on one of four engines, missing parts of wings and tails, holes big enough to walk through, bullet holes, and flak damage. Boeings are built tough! Them nazi's, and japanese warloards threw all they could at them, yet they kept coming, and kept coming home to go again. Thats dependable, that's the kind of plane I want to be in, one that makes it home.

Besides I just rather not use anything that is french, their treacherous, lying government, Ugh! Doubt we will come to rescue their nation from being overran a third time. California wine is better, and cheese makes me fart.
Would you buy a french car? If no, then why would you want to fly in one of their planes?