AA Flight587 crash report - conclusion is just plain wrong!

[gofaster]

WTF? Vert stab couldn't handle the inputs?  Sounds more like a design flaw than human error to me.  I'm not going up in an Airbus if I can help it.  I'm wondering if someone with deep pockets did a little palm greasing. This report fails to put the liability on the correct party!

From my AvWeb weekly email...

Rudder Inputs Blamed For 587 Crash
 The NTSB has blamed the first officer's "unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs" for the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in Belle Harbor, N.Y., on Nov. 12, 2001. In its final report, released Tuesday, the NTSB said the vertical stabilizer separated from the Airbus A300-605R after the first officer "inappropriately manipulated the rudder back and forth several times" after hitting the wake turbulence of a Boeing 747. The extreme movements exceeded the design loads of the vertical fin, which separated -- 265 people died, including five on the ground. The NTSB also cited peculiarities with the aircraft's rudder-system design and elements of American Airline's pilot-training program as contributing factors. The NTSB said the first officer had a tendency to overreact to wake turbulence and that the airline's Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program contributed to the accident "by providing an unrealistic and exaggerated view of the effects of wake turbulence on heavy transport-category aircraft." In fact, the board found that if the crew had simply ridden out the wake turbulence or if the first officer had stopped the rudder inputs at any time before the tail came off, the accident wouldn't have happened. The board made eight recommendations, some of which called for modifying the rudder controls on A300-600 and A310 aircraft to prevent this type of over-control. Another called for airline pilot training to "avoid the kind of negative training found in American Airlines' upset recovery training."

[Toad]

Yeah, it's the old "blame the dead guys that can't testify" deal.

Read this for some eye-opening stuff that makes the NTSB report questionable at best.

A300-600 PILOTS

Recently, much attention has surrounded the statement of Captain John Lavelle, who has testified that he was able to document an abnormal use of rudder by F/O Molin; and that Lavelle was able to track Molin’s “progress” of rudder use over several months, resulting in what Lavelle described as “improvement.”

Lavelle also attempted to tie this alleged rudder use by Molin to the Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program (AAMP) and similar programs conducted in the late 1990s by various companies.  In truth, Lavelle flew only 6 flight segments, over five years ago, in the B727 with First Officer Molin.  It is important to note that there were two other pilots onboard for these alleged rudder inputs; neither FE Gillette nor FE McHale supported Lavelle’s story.  

In fact, the indication is that being a new captain at the time, Lavelle may have been more sensitive to his first officer’s actions than one with more experience in the left seat.  Additionally, all other pilots interviewed who had since flown hundreds of legs with Molin had no negative comments, and the indication was that he was a pilot of above average skills and execution.

More on the rudder design/limitation:

The graphs provided by the NTSB and Airbus attempting to show rudder movement are confusing and raise questions.  According to one chart, the rudder appears to have exceeded its design limit on more than one occasion as it moved back and forth.  Airbus explained this by saying it is possible to “stall the variable stop” and thereby achieve additional rudder movement (“elasticity.”)  

This can be done, they said, if the pilot exerts additional rudder pedal force against the stop equal to approximately 130-140 pounds of pressure.  However, a FAA witness later stated that should a stall situation develop, that a warning (chime) will occur in the cockpit.  Airbus never mentioned this warning chime in their testimony, and there was no such warning recorded on the CVR.

So apparently the pilots did not stall the variable stop.  And if it was not stalled, then how can the rudder amplitudes that go beyond the limiter be explained?

There's an awful lot of legitimate concerns raised in the letter. NTSB has ignored and chosen not to discuss most of them.

Airbus' "lost" data says a lot in my opinion. As does this:

Those close to the investigation have mentioned numerous times that under greater than ultimate load, it would not matter if the tail was composite or aluminum -- either would have separated from the aircraft.  Yet, Boeing recently announced that when their 767 (aluminum tail) was subjected to the exact same loads as the A300-600 (composite tail); its tail would not have come off.

[JBA]

Airbus blows

[Chortle]

This keeps getting worse. Has the NTSB always been a bit iffy? I'd always thought they were exemplary.

[Fishu]

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133720


Ps. airline jets aren't designed to be flown like fighter jets.
(= it's not just Airbus planes which can't do this or that extreme stuff)

Now that I remember.. theres also a case where a plane had it's rear fuselage simply ripped off, when the pilot applied the elevator too much... and that was not an airbus.

I don't remember which case it was and what plane, but I have some memory it was probably a turboprop and the elevator was applied too much due to icing on the wings (= the pilot tried to keep the plane from nosing down due to lack of lift)
Maybe a Fokker?

[john9001]

Originally posted by Fishu
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133720


Ps. airline jets aren't designed to be flown like fighter jets.
(= it's not just Airbus planes which can't do this or that extreme stuff)

translation:: fishu defends eurotrash aircraft

[Fishu]

Originally posted by john9001
translation:: fishu defends eurotrash aircraft

It has nothing to do with euro american asian... whatever.
Whats with the damn paranoia with you americans? every time pulling the 'anti-american' & 'euro defender' trash, when its coming from a foreigner.

Is any common sense banned, when it's coming from an european?


Getting tired of this BS already..
Some are forgetting theres similar inviduals in the USA also, which translates to half the country being pro-euro and anti-american.
YAY for the logic!

[Creamo]

Don't get tweaked out Fishu. It's the O'Club at it's clueless best.

Rpmhat said: If HT modeled AH differently you would see just how easy it is to snap a rudder at speed Damn it Dale, model hydraulic actuated rudders!

I'd ride an Airbus anyday. If you wouldn't, perfect for me. One more seat you Opra homos. Buy her book of the month, Hello Hong Kong.

[Eagler]

makes you think someone had a shoe bomb after all.. why else would they STILL have you take your shoes off at the airport

I'm just glad Reeves wasn't trying to light his underwear on fire....

[Dinger]

In all fairness to fighter jets, if they had rudder controls like the A300-600's rudder, they'd probably lose their tails too, and a lot more often.

[Pongo]

I dont know anything about any of this. Except that the only two times I have looked out the cabin window at an airliners wing and been concerned about its shaking and rattleing, I was on an airbus.

[cpxxx]

If you think this issue is controversial here, check out this thread from PPRuNe. The Professional pilots site. It's long, very long it runs to 26 pages.  Check how stroppy pilots can get. Just like the O club.

AA587 PPRuNe


Have a look at this too. Another Airbus with a happier landing. This is the PPrUne thread about the DHL missile attack over Baghdad.  It runs to 15 pages but on page 15 is a full description of how the crew coped with losing all controls except engines. Lessons learned from the Sioux city crash years ago saved the crew's life. One thing I never realised is that a second missile was fired at the crippled Airbus as it attempted to land. There's a link to photos of that too.

DHL attack

[Golfer]

I've seen the word 'extreme' thrown around in this thread.  AAL 587 was not doing anything 'extreme'.

It was a normal departure, normal climbout.  The crew had just cleaned up the airplane for climb and they encountered turbulence.  ANY shrecking computer program that allows an input to be made that will compromise the structrual integrity of a control surface or stabliizer, especially the shrecking rudder...ought to be shoved up the a** of the dickweed who is in charge of building it.

That's all.