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.

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....

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

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 ....

well THAT makes me feel comfortable.

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.

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

I believe there was no plane.... I've got the pictures for proof.

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

I am a little biased though.... my company makes aircraft forgings for Boeing.

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

kevin

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

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.

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

Their planes are deadly shit.


M

the rudder is not a stabilizer ...




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?




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!

Andy

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

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

Something is wrong with this picture.

no ...

you of all people should know how important "smoothness" is to get around the track without spinning ...
Andy

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?

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 ...
Andy

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.

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

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.

Aircraft Maintenance Log:
Pilot: Something funny with rudder.

Flight Tech: Something funny removed.

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

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?

-Ben M.

like "toilet" ?

Andy

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.

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 ! )

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) .

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?)

Here is a pic of "pilot error"

See? Look at that! You can hit a truck with a Boeing and the tail stays intact!

or this

Or drag the wing of a 747 and its OK.

The damn French build planes like they build cars.

This one was on loan to the French Air Force...

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 ). But since no one jumped on it, they're called "Horizontal Stabilators".

What did I win!!

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?

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

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?

Some more funny ones:

two:

three:

four:

five:

six:

seven:

eight:

nine:

Last one: