Will Aa "ground" The Airbus A300-600

Status
Not open for further replies.

Decision 2004

Veteran
Mar 12, 2004
1,618
0
NTSB to Rule on Cause of American Crash
Monday October 25, 3:41 pm ET
By Leslie Miller, Associated Press Writer
Safety Board to Rule on Cause of 2001 Crash of American Airlines Flight 587


WASHINGTON (AP) -- If the pilot flying American Airlines Flight 587 had taken his foot off the rudder pedal, the jetliner's tail wouldn't have broken off, the plane wouldn't have plunged into a New York City neighborhood and 265 people wouldn't have died on Nov. 21, 2001.

On those details, the investigators agree.

But the pilot didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the subject of a bitter fight between Airbus Industrie, which made the plane, and American Airlines, which trained the pilot.

That dispute is expected to play out in public Tuesday when the National Transportation Safety Board meets to discuss its findings.

Flight 587 had just taken off from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport for the Dominican Republic when it encountered heavy turbulence caused by a large plane that took off before it.

Sten Molin, the co-pilot who was flying the Airbus A300-600 tried to steady the aircraft using pedals that control the rudder, a large flap on a plane's tail. When his initial movement failed, Molin tried again and again. His actions placed enormous stress on the tail and it broke off.

The plane crashed into a Queens neighborhood, killing all 260 aboard and five people on the ground. It was the second-deadliest plane crash on U.S. soil.

AMR Corp.'s American, the only airline that uses that type of Airbus plane, claims the manufacturer didn't alert it to the danger of sharp rudder movements until after the crash. The airline also contends the Airbus A300-600 has uniquely sensitive flight controls that can cause more severe rudder movements than the pilot intends.

"Airbus had the ability to truly red-flag the issue," American spokesman Bruce Hicks said.

Airbus says it told American a number of times and in a number of ways that the airline was improperly training pilots about how to use the rudder.

An Airbus spokesman declined to comment on the investigation before the hearing. However, the company has compiled a number of documents to support its claim.

For example, a letter dated Aug. 20, 1997, warned American chief pilot Cecil Ewing that rudders should not be moved abruptly to right a jetliner or when a plane is flown at a sharp angle. The letter was signed by representatives from The Boeing Co., the Federal Aviation Administration and Airbus.

Airbus contends that even people within American Airlines were concerned about how the airline was training its pilots. A letter to Airbus dated May 22, 1997, from American technical pilot David Tribout expressed concern about the airline's then-new training course on advanced maneuvers.

"I am very concerned that one aspect of the course is inaccurate and potentially hazardous," Tribout wrote. His concern: Pilots were being taught that the rudder should be used to control a plane's rolling motion.

Paul Railsback, American's managing director of flight operations, testified in an April 8, 2003, deposition that he warned airline executives that someone would be killed some day as a result of the training.

Hicks countered that Airbus didn't share important safety information about the rudder after a problem with American Flight 903 in May 1997. During that incident, pilots used the rudder to steady an Airbus A300-600 plane on approach to West Palm Beach airport. The plane nearly crashed and one person was seriously injured.

Afterward, Airbus told the NTSB that it included a warning that abrupt rudder movement in some circumstances "can lead to rapid loss of controlled flight," and, in others, could break off the tail.

Hicks said Airbus' comments didn't specifically say that the rudder movements on Flight 903 had exposed the tail to so much pressure that it could have been ripped off.

Immediately after the Flight 903 incident, an inspection found no damage to the tail. But five years later, the plane was inspected more closely because of concerns aroused by the crash of Flight 587. Cracks were found and it was replaced.

John David, a spokesman for American Airlines' pilots union, said pilots had always thought that they could use rudders to the full extent without hurting the airplane. He also believes Airbus didn't properly communicate what it knew.

American now gives its pilots specialized training on the rudder control system based on information learned during the investigation.
 
Depends on what you mean by "ground."

If you mean taken out of service for short maintenance inspections/repairs - then AA already is grounding them, according to some other posts of yours.

If you mean grounding as in "retiring," then I doubt it. I'd love it if AA could get favorable lease terms on about 35 777s (even used, early, non-IGW versions if need be) which could easily replace the freight capacity and more than replace the passenger capacity of the A300s, but that probably ain't in the cards for a couple of years (if ever).

Even assuming that the flight crew was to blame, if history is a guide, it won't cause the plane's grounding. Mechanics and management bungled the repairs of AA's DC-10s 25 years ago (specifically, engine removal/replacement procedures), leading to a horrible tragedy (similar in number of fatalities to flt 587), but it didn't spell the end of the DeathCrate10 at AA - they flew for 20 more years after that.

If the plane is thought to be inherently unsafe, then of course it will be permanently grounded.

But hundreds of other A300s are in service around the world, and their vertical stabilizers aren't breaking off at takeoff. Not at FedEx, not at UPS, not at any other operator. So I doubt the plane is really unsafe. Although First Class sucks (since they were converted from 3 class to 2 class the 757-like F seats suck), I nevertheless fly on them between NYC and MIA. They don't scare me. And judging by the loads, they don't scare the typical Caribbean pax, either.
 
Airbus, American Airlines in nasty fight over crash
24 Oct 2004 18:04:33 GMT

WASHINGTON, Oct 24 (Reuters) - The nasty fight between American Airlines <AMR.N> and Europe's Airbus <EAD.PA> over a New York crash in 2001 that killed 265 people has escalated as the U.S. government nears its determination on Tuesday on the cause of the second-worst air disaster in U.S. history.

The world's biggest airline has ferociously defended its prestige during a period of unprecedented distress for the industry's domestic giants.

A draft report on the cause of the Flight 587 crash to be considered by the National Transportation Safety Board will focus heavily on crew performance. American pilot training has also been a key issue, as has the design of the doomed plane's flight-control system.

Airbus, the top commercial plane maker, has aggressively challenged claims by the carrier it concealed design and safety information from the late 1990s that American says might have prevented the Nov. 12, 2001, crash.

Airbus also finds itself in the uncomfortable glare of a U.S. crash investigation for the first time, with an advanced design system under scrutiny.

Industry sources say the acrimony between the aviation powerhouses is running unusually high before liability questions are addressed. "You have a feud going on," said one former NTSB member.

The 150-ton Airbus A300-600 plunged into a residential area of Queens shortly after takeoff for the Dominican Republic from John F. Kennedy airport, killing all 260 aboard and five on the ground.

The probe centers on action by co-pilot Sten Molin to stabilize the misaligned nose of the wide-body after it was buffeted during its climb by turbulence from a jumbo jet flying ahead.

American and Airbus only agree with the government's finding that Molin activated multiple full rudder swings in an attempt to control the plane. The aircraft fish-tailed before sliding sideways, like a car skidding on a slippery road. The unsustainable build-up of side forces snapped off the tail fin.

American says Molin performed as he was trained, but the severity of the rudder movement was unintentional. The airline said that the flight-control system was unexpectedly and dangerously sensitive at high speeds, and that it now knows pilots could too easily overuse the rudder and lose control.

"If the NTSB says the pilot use of the rudder was the probable cause, we disagree. He's not the cause of this accident," said American spokesman Bruce Hicks.

The rudder is primarily used at low speeds to counter cross-winds during landing or to help steer the plane on the ground. Airbus says Molin should never have used the rudder to try and stabilize the aircraft and that rudder training at American was inadequate. An Airbus spokesman said the claim of flight-control sensitivity is a "red herring."

In recent days American officials have also pointed to internal Airbus e-mails from a 1997 incident involving another American A300 that indicate certain aerodynamic forces, aggravated by rudder use to regain control of the aircraft, could dangerously stress the tail fin. This information, American says, was never fully disclosed by the manufacturer.

But Airbus documents dispute that conclusion as well as renewed claims by American that Airbus had acted unethically.

"Concerns generated by this incident and the dangers of unnecessary and inappropriate use of rudder were shared by Airbus numerous times in numerous ways with government agencies and American Airlines," said Clay McConnell, an Airbus spokesman.

The safety board cautioned pilots of all aircraft in 2002 about rudder use during certain stages of flight. American has also updated its training practices. Airbus has made no changes to its A300-600 rudder system even though the board recommended one modification that was related to the 1997 incident.
 
This is a guess,but this is what I think the NTSB will rule tomorrow.

PILOT ERROR-33.33% of the blame,STUPID RUDDER PEDAL DESIGN-33.33%, and IMPROPER PILOT TRAINING-33.33%,They might also recommend updating the FAA standards that airliner stabilizers and rudders are certified to.

Almost everyone involved in this crash is pointing fingers at each other and they all probably should share some of the blame.
 
The AA pilot was doing what he and any other pilot is trained to do.When a wing gets heavy a pilot is trained to apply opposite rudder to correct it.
The A-300 should have had limited rudder travel no matter how hard the pilot kicked the rudder pedals.This is a failure in the design of the aircraft and/or component failure that restricts rudder travel at various airspeeds. Airbus is not nicknamed "Scarebus" for nothing.
 
Other than an engine failure at slow speeds and slipping the airplane on a crosswind landing, I know of no reason to use rudder pedals on commercial airliners. Especially w/ yaw dampers. If the pilot jammed the rudder to the right followed by an immediate left imput while flying in excess of 200 kts, I'm not sure if you can blame Airbus for throwing the engine and breaking a composite tail. However, I wasn't there and I'm not one for mudslinging "Flown West" pilots.
 
The evidence presented so far showed the Airbus' rudder limiter performed properly. When a wing gets "heavy" you don't use your rudder. You use your ailerons. Ailerons are also what turns and banks an aircraft,not the rudder. The rudder is to used to help make cordinated turns and is also used on takeoffs and landings to correct for crosswinds. On a multi-engine aircraft the rudder is also used to compensate for an engine failure.

I agree that the rudder pedal control design of the Airbus needs to modified, but on the other hand an airliner is not a fighter or a Cessna. A good pilot should not have been stomping back and forth on the rudder pedals either.
 
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:
The evidence presented so far showed the Airbus' rudder limiter performed properly. When a wing gets "heavy" you don't use your rudder. You use your ailerons. Ailerons are also what turns and banks an aircraft,not the rudder. The rudder is to used to help make cordinated turns and is also used on takeoffs and landings to correct for crosswinds. On a multi-engine aircraft the rudder is also used to compensate for an engine failure.

I agree that the rudder pedal control design of the Airbus needs to modified, but on the other hand an airliner is not a fighter or a Cessna. A good pilot should not have been stomping back and forth on the rudder pedals either.
[post="194861"][/post]​

Just so we don't have a failure to communicate I'm talking about a wing that is real heavy such as at the onset of a stall in a turn or roll over situation.
Adding aileron into a heavy wing compounds the problem by increasing the drag and causing the wing to stall more. [Source; Wayne Handley- Professional aerobatic pilot and 25 year crop dusting pilot veteran]
Being a mechanic who has some stick time and has rigged flight controls I don't need a a lesson in flight control operation.I realize that if a wing drops down a few degrees it is corrected with aileron.

The initial reports were that the pilot probably encountered wake turbulence which could have put the aircraft in a roll over situation.This would explain why the pilot was on the rudder pedals so much.

Adding opposite rudder to the heavy wing[lagging wing] is done to try to get it to catch up with the flying wing[leading wing].
 
I recall from my own flight training (commercial pilot, multi-engine, instrument, glider) that there is a speed below which full and abrupt control deflection is "guaranteed" not to overstress the airframe. I found myself in a situation a few years back going into Mt. Snow, VT, in bad turbulence when it took everything at my disposal, ailerons and rudder alike, to keep the plane more or less right side up.

I don't claim any first hand knowledge of transport category aircraft, but it seems to me that if an airplane has any known limitations on full control deflection then the pilots flying that airplane damn sure should be made aware of it. If the manufacturer doesn't know about it, then the blame should be shared.

I believe the NTSB report will come out today and I've just read that they will blame the pilot, citing the aircraft design as a contributing factor. I personally am not qualified to comment on that, but I'm sure the controversy will go on for years.

On the possible grounding of the aircraft, let's just say I hope not. The A300's provide a huge amount of lift in the important Caribbean market, where yields are high and there is little competition from LCC's. Cargo is very lucrative there as well, and there is simply nothing in the fleet which could replace that. Let's keep them flying.

MK
 
HGIEFOswitch said:
Other than an engine failure at slow speeds and slipping the airplane on a crosswind landing, I know of no reason to use rudder pedals on commercial airliners. Especially w/ yaw dampers. If the pilot jammed the rudder to the right followed by an immediate left imput while flying in excess of 200 kts, I'm not sure if you can blame Airbus for throwing the engine and breaking a composite tail. However, I wasn't there and I'm not one for mudslinging "Flown West" pilots.
[post="194853"][/post]​
For one thing I truly commend the pilot for trying everything in his god given power to save the people on that plane. Given the circumstances of being in the jet wash of a 747 I am sure he did what he thought was right.

Second I am not an expert of Airplanes but something tells me a pilt and jet wash should not be able to make a ruder completley seperate from the aircraft.

Airbus is at fault in my opinion
 
operaations said:
For one thing I truly commend the pilot for trying everything in his god given power to save the people on that plane. Given the circumstances of being in the jet wash of a 747 I am sure he did what he thought was right.

Second I am not an expert of Airplanes but something tells me a pilt and jet wash should not be able to make a ruder completley seperate from the aircraft.

Airbus is at fault in my opinion
[post="195009"][/post]​

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-1...light-587_x.htm

NTSB blames pilot error for Flight 587 crash
WASHINGTON (AP) — The co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 587 caused the November 2001 crash that claimed the lives of 265 people, the staff of the nation's airline safety agency reported Tuesday.
Investigator Robert Benzon of the National Transportation Safety Board staff said the copilot's response to turbulence, just seconds after the Airbus A300-600 plane took off from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, was "unnecessary and aggressive."

REST OF ARTICLE DELETED
 
Decision 2004 said:
AMR Corp.'s American, the only airline that uses that type of Airbus plane
[post="194793"][/post]​

What's your point? I see that you bolded this sentence and now repeat it, but its significance is lost on me.

Everyone knows that AA is the only US-based passenger airline flying the A300-600; UPS and FedEx combined, however, fly 3 times as many A300s as AA, without problems. Hundreds more fly all around the world, without separation of the vertical stabilizers.

NW is now the only US passenger airline still flying first generation DC-9s; until last month (when the last AA F-100 was retired), AA was the only US passenger airline flying F-100s. I'm certain there are other examples of US passenger airlines that are the sole US operator of certain aircraft - but so what?
 
operaations said:
Second I am not an expert of Airplanes but something tells me a pilt and jet wash should not be able to make a ruder completley seperate from the aircraft.

Airbus is at fault in my opinion
[post="195009"][/post]​

Aviation Week had a good article that showed that tail was made 30% stronger than what the FAA required and still did not break untill it was faced with forces 190% greater that what it was designed for!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.