Manuvering speed on an Aercoupe - prolly 70 MPH. But since it has no rudder pedals and is tied to the alierons, can you get full deflection?

Drive and fly!

Ok, so some were retrofitted to be able to handle crosswinds, slips to land, etc

I know, apples and oranges, but Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) makes some pretty tough flying machines!

mid-air collision (F-18)

mid-air collision (F-18) the other plane involved.

I agree with most of what has been said. I do also agree that there could be a real mechanical problem here. The rudder hinge may not be up to task and or the fly by wire may not be optimal. I do not feel that a composite rudder is to blame however. Look at the old bombers b17 beech 18 etc. aluminum fuse wings and tail with fabric covered controls. Airbus may not be totally alone in this type of problem. I believe it was the tried and true dc9 that had the hard over problem with its rudder. Also the venerable 737 is not perfect, I know of several that are having lap joint repairs done to them (read targa top).
I also feel that the pictures very accurately illustrate that pilot error is still the leading cause of prangs.
I hold a commercial multi IFR licence and still feel this way. Of course I work as a GA mechanic now.

Hello list, I've been lurking for some time, but as an airframe design engineer whose specialty is composites, I now feel compelled to add a post.

Some very good explanations of some of the contributor's to the crash have been brought up. But one important one has been missed. Almost immediately after the crash, NTSB posted photos of the wreckage on their website. The first thing that jumped out at everyone at work was the composite lugs attaching the vertical tail to the fuselage. Rather than simply having a composite skinned tail with conventional metal fitting that attaches at discreet points to the fuselage, they just pin right through the bottom of a tab out in the skin. Not the conservative approach I would take. Worse yet, this particular airplane had a delamination in the composite (like wood splintering) right at the lug attach. Time for a whole new tail, but instead they drilled a bunch of holes right through the critical section to bolt doublers to it. I think that this weakened the tail at a critical point. Its hard to tell if the failure started here or not. You can see what I'm talking about here in the next to last picture:

Wreckage Photos on NTSB Website

Maybe it's just easier to blame a dead guy.

Hi,
An aircraft accident cannot be blamed on one individual problem. It is usually a compilation of problems happening at one time. Pilot technique, design flaws, training procedures, weather, pilot fatigue, weight and balance problems, the list goes on and on of possible problematic situations. Individually they don't always amount to an insurmountable problem but when you put a few together...
Some people believe the French designed a bad airplane but it passed the same extensive certification process they all do. Some can't get passed their bigoted hatred for the French in general.
A rudder can be designed to be pushed from one stop to the other very rapidly but it would then be too heavy to fly. I have never in my training been taught to use the rudder to compensate for turbulent conditions. The only time it might be pushed to the stop would be for an engine failure at takeoff. By the way the Airbus rudder might be fly-by- wire and is electrically controlled but hydraulically powered. I don't know of any primary flight control that it powered by an electric motor.
There aren't any airplanes that are foolproof. The only way to be absolutely safe from an airplane accident is to never get in one. I know you have all heard this but it's true. You are safer in the French designed and built airplane than you are driving to the airport in your German designed automobile.
Cheers, Elliot Cannon Captain, United Parcel Service, MD11, 747, DC8

elevons

Ruddevators
Cheers, Elliot

I suppose I should know that, my dad owns one.
I never liked flying much though, except in simulator games like Falcon 3.0.
I feel safer on the racetrack than I do anywhere near an airport.

I think you're right. I haven't flown a Bonanza in about 25 years.
Cheers, Elliot

I haven't WATCHED Bonanza in years.....

Hey Elliot,

My uncle is an MD-11 guy with UPS. Dave Archer. Know him?

I'm a Lear 35 guy myself, but tried to stick with funny pictures for this thread.

I have only been in the MD11 for a short while. I may know him but my memory for names and faces is dismal. I'll look him up. Does he drive a P car?
Cheers, Elliot

Does he drive a P car?


Hahahahahahahahahahahahah. No, he thinks I'm silly. And, although we are both pilots (he was my hero when I was a kid), today we share nothing but blood in common.

He basically set up the MD11 program at UPS and I thought it would be cool if you said hi.

American Airlines is the only one using these planes to move passengers. Airbus is used more for freight. Airbus says they told AA about the sensitivity of their rudder controls. AA says they didn't. It was the co-pilot who panicked, screwed up, and over corrected. Airbus asked AA to re-train their pilots in this regard. I have no doubt, that pilot error was the cause. I'm also sure that AA is a bottom line company. Safety is not as important as profits to them. I doubt if the aircraft was properly maintained. Does Airbus need to improve their design? Probably. Did the pilot screw up? Definitely, he is, after all is said and done, responsible. Is AA at fault? I have no doubt, but it's tough to prove. They're looking for a scapegoat. It's easier to blame a dead guy. It's tough to sue a dead guy. It gives these companies with the deep pockets some degree of deniability in regards to being responsible, or negligent. FAA is just a government tool. They're not interested in causing these companies to go bankrupt.

From what I've read....thus far, a synopsis:

PIO....pilot induced oscillation. Simple, no? Not.

The oscillations lasted 6.5 seconds and ripped off the verticle stab.....not just the rudder, the whole effin' works.

In slow mo. He kicked the rudder to correct a roll (wake turblence). When it bit it was too much bite....kicked it the other way....too much bite again..kicked it again....you get the picture. The speed of the aircraft was within the parameters where control inputs should have not have caused structural failure.....I fergit the term for that. If you've ever seen vids of PIO due to overly sensetive controls you would realize that designers strive to avoid this at all costs. Kicking a rudder pedal at relativly low speeds should not kill 250 people.

Why kick the rudder?....apparently cause that's how he was trained.....and nobody told him not to do this. AA says Airbus never warned them about this. Airbus says they did.....AA says it was buried in a bunch of other stuff with no emphasis on it.

AA buys Boeing. They got Airbus from a take over of another airline. TWA?

This is Airbus' first crash in the USofA.
They're gonna learn about American lawyers....it's gonna be a rude shock.

Boeing has had airplanes in the ground all over the world, but the verticle stabs are in the holes. Many have composite stabs also. The 7E7 will be mostly composite....wings, fuselage, yada.....

A fine mess, eh?

JP, you don't use rudder to correct roll, you use ailerons. Rudder is used to correct yaw. There is nothing slow about take off speeds. They're generally done under FULL power. A lot more stress during acceleration than at full crusing speed.

According to the black box, he did ailerons first.....then rudder.
The airplane was going about 250 mph.

Yep, pilot error. He would have been better off to use either more elevator and power, or less elevator and power to get out of the BAD air. They are ALL familiar with wake turbulance. If he was in that much of a hurry to stay on schedule, rather than waiting for clean air, he's an idiot, and should never have been flying. Ultimately, it IS the pilots responsibility. It is HIS call. If someone tells him to go now, he can tell them to screw off. The flight controllers are supposed to advise him regarding possible wake situations, if they didn't they screwed up. If he didn't know there was a possibility for this situation that's his fault. He should know what has just taken off in front of him. Again, as they concluded, pilot error.

How long does it take wake turbulence to dissipate?

They stay fairly strong for the first two min. then up to five to fully dissipate. We had a guy in a 172 recently flip here in Calgary. I guess he was trying to read the serial number of the engine of an antonov 124. Oops

my son is a lear guy with flex jet. who do you fly for? you hot rodders ought to get to know each other.

I brought in a 150 2-3 minutes behind a 727 and hit a patch on final well under pattern altitude that turned me on my ear and dropped my indicated speed to zero momentarily. I think I had about 12 hours at the time. Really puckered my pooper. Got an appology from the tower and a "good recovery" (I had previously informed them I was a student and unfamiliar with that field). Have never come in behind a jet since.

-Ben M.