[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/2/2002 8:34:25 PM Phantom wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]The flight data recorder just shows the rudder displacement measured from the pedals. There is no way to know if the displacement was caused by Sten Molin or the aircraft's computer.[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]If that's the case, why bother to have a data recorder? I thought the reason for having one was to actually record all of the pilot's input and actions while flying. Specifically, it acts as a witness to actual commands carried out by the pilots (yoke, pedals, etc.); which may not match what the voice recorder has recorded. In a stressful situation, a pilot may say one thing and by mistake do something that is the exact opposite (we are only human). That's the beauty of the data recorder. It acts as a backup if you will, to the voice recorder. [/P]
[P]If what you state is true, then all airlines (including AA) will hide behind your statement and blame mishaps on aircraft computers.[/P]
[P]I still say that the data recorder will be crucial when a final decision is made regarding who's to blame. If not, then we might as well pull them out of the planes and save some fuel.[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
On 11/3/2002 5:23:08 AM MileHighGuy wrote:
If that's the case, why bother to have a data recorder? I thought the reason for having one was to actually record all of the pilot's input and actions while flying. Specifically, it acts as a witness to actual commands carried out by the pilots (yoke, pedals, etc.); which may not match what the voice recorder has recorded. In a stressful situation, a pilot may say one thing and by mistake do something that is the exact opposite (we are only human). That's the beauty of the data recorder. It acts as a backup if you will, to the voice recorder. [/BLOCKQUOTE]
I pretty much agree with everything you have to say here.
If what you state is true, then all airlines (including AA) will hide behind your statement and blame mishaps on aircraft computers.[/blockquote]
I don't agree here. What you have with the A300 is a unique situation whereby we don't know. Call it a design flaw, but it did pass certification in the U.S.
We also have several instances whereby the A300 rudder computer in this particular fleet made uncommanded inputs. This computer, from what I have been able to learn, not only translates pilot input to the rudder actuators but also controls the rudder limiter function and the yaw damper.
Granted what I know about the A300 is limited, but those on the Safety committee have been studying it and still cannot come to a conclusion as to who or what is to blame for the input. However, when you say who's to blame, the scapegoat here is not able to defend himself.
[P][EM]No tail has ever snapped off any Boeing aircraft. If 587 had been a 767 under the exact same circumstances, there would have never been a crash.[/EM][/P]
[P]At least one has. Check out this story:[/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/3/2002 12:57:07 AM Phantom wrote:
[P][/P]Since all you can do is name-call, you have pitched your tent in the latter camp, that's the one that doesn't know how to dig a latrine too.[BR][BR]
[P]All I did was point out that you have resurfaced after you were banned from these boards for gross violations of the forum rules. Are you denying that you are Petra, Tharseo and Super 80?[/P]
[P]P.S. It is tacky to plagiarize mAArky's signature.[/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/3/2002 1:24:44 AM bagsmasher wrote:
[P]No tail has ever snapped off any Boeing aircraft. If 587 had been a 767 under the exact same circumstances, there would have never been a crash.[/P]
[P]At least two. And counting:[/P][FONT face=Arial]
[P][BR]From a famous series of photographs taken after severe turbulence sheared off most of the vertical stabilizer. The aircraft had been specially instrumented for air turbulence research after some operational B-52s were lost. The tail was lost after a severe and sustained burst (+5 seconds) of clear air turbulence violently buffeted the aircraft. The Boeing test crew (Pilot - Chuck Fisher & Copilot - Dick Curry) nursed to aircraft to Blytheville AFB, Arkansas and landed safely. Also note the (inert) AGM-28 Hound Dog missiles still attached to the wing pylons. The dotted line shows the normal outline of the vertical stabilizer and rudder.[/P]
[P]Check out the photo in this link:[/P]
On 11/2/2002 834 PM Striker wrote:
However, what do you have to say about the reports that American Airlines had actually instructed these techniques to recover from unusual attitudes? [/P]
Don't believe everything you read until you do a little research. You can tell whoever wrote the reports that you refer to that they do not have a clue. I have been through the training that you refer to and never once was rapid rudder reversal mentioned as a recovery technique.
I think the bottom line on this issue is no one can say for certain WHY the rudder moved. My concern is simply this; why would the tail of a plane flying at a relatively low speed (at or close to the manuevering speed of the plane I would guess) snap off. The turbulence encountered was not severe or even moderate from what I have read. This was a fairly routine wake turbulence encounter and should not have resulted in ANY damage to the plane. I believe the design philosophy of Airbus is that they do not over build in certain high stress areas of the airframe (as Boeing and Douglas do/did). Their view is that to strengthen one area of an airframe automatically causes a weakness (or weaker area)in the adjacent area of the airframe. Notice the rapid departure of the engines from this aircraft once the tail left the plane. If this is their design philosophy, it is a bit specious to say they least. As someone pointed out, other A300s have had strange rudder movements (ala 737).
I get less and less enthusiastic about Airbus products everyday.
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.
On 11/2/2002 7:40:56 PM MileHighGuy wrote:
On 11/1/2002 9:57:06 AM KCFlyer wrote:
The data recorder will show that the pilot(s) went past the operational limits on the rudder. Airbus will show that this design was given the FAA seal of approval. Airbus will also show that the arlines that got the A300s (including AA) were aware of the rudder limitations, but accepted the aircraft anyway since they would train the pilots & warn them about the rudder limitations. [/P]
So if you are the judge (and please don't look at this through AA tainted glasses), where would you assign the blame? Airbus? FAA? AA pilots? Who?[/P]
DC10Hound - I believe that that particular B-52 was conducting a test and looking for mountain wave turbulence (very severe)and it's affect on the Buff. Needless to say they found the turbulence alright, in spades. It's long been know that mountain wave turbulence can cause massive structural failure in any aircraft.
As far as our Airbus goes, it is inconceiveable to me that any pilot could or would input very rapid, full deflection, rudder reversals like that. I've been in pretty bad wake turbulence at altitude and even 12 seconds in trail on minimum interval takeoffs (MITOs) behind a dozen tankers and bombers, and it's well controllable.
IMHO, there's something terribly wrong with the Airbus rudder actuators, yaw dampeners, or computer flight control logic.
Mr. Mile High seems to be throwing around the phrase operational limits around a lot in conjuntion with displaying his laughable ignorance of piloting and aircraft operations. I wonder if Mr. Mile High would explain what the operational limits of the rudder are on the Airbus 300? Maybe he should stick to mile highing in the Lav . . . . and leave the flying to someone else.
On 11/1/2002 9:33:38 AM MileHighGuy wrote:
AA will do everything possible to blame Airbus for this disaster. Why? Because if it's proven that the pilots pushed the rudder past it's operational limits (and I think that's what the data recorder will show at the end of the day); AA will be liable for some HUGE lawsuits. Think about it for a second. Can you imagine AA admitting that 587 crashed due to pilot error? It will never happen! [/P]
AA will blame everyone except themselves for this one. I'm pretty sure that Carty has a very big fund set up to influence an AA friendly verdict. Let's see what happens when the fat lady sings.[/P]
I surely hope Nile High Guy is not an employee at AA. If he is he is a cancer and should quit . I could never work for a company I hated soo much. Every time I read one of your posts I get sick to my stomach. I work for AA and am very proud of AA we are the best Airline with the best employees if you are one of them please quit so you dont bring us down. You are probably ex TWA (Travel With American) move on Milehighguy
our Pilots on 587 did everything in their power to save the lives off all the passengers on that plane. I am not a pilot and wont claim to be under any circumstances. I have no idea who is to blame let the crew and people aboard 587 Rest In Peace. In my very amature opinion a pilot should not even be able to make the tail of a plane detatch from a plane. It just shows me how hard he was working to save the people and crew and plane.
I find it funny that no one here has mentioned the fact that investigators had found that one of the vertical stabs attach lugs had been damaged during manufacture and subsequently repaired, we have no way of knowing if it was repaired correctly, naturally SCAREBUS is going to say it was, but being in the airline business I know what pressure is applied to the mechanics to " Make schedule". I'm sure its the exact same in the manufacturing business.
Another thing that even the student pilot knows is that you can bring up a wing that is down with opposite rudder, be it a Cessna 150 to a 747, could it be thats what the pilots were trying to do, only conjecture here, but I honestly believe that both pilots did the best they could do to bring 587 out of the wake turbulance, and when the A/C became disabled they fought vainly to keep the plane under control, but as other posters have said its easy to place blame on someone who cannot defend themselves.