If it ain't Boeing I ain't going...

[john9001]

Originally posted by nirvana
After that crash in that New York suburb (I think thats where it was) they blamed it on rapid movement of the rudder as the pilot was trying to gain control?  Rudder snapped and down they went.  I dunno if thats the whole story seeing asa plane CAN be flown without a rudder (B17s).  Nothing is safe though.

that plane lost the whole vert stablizer, not just the rudder. another delamination.

[mora]

Originally posted by john9001
that plane lost the whole vert stablizer, not just the rudder. another delamination.

By your clever choice of words you make it sound like the composite structure would be the cause. Do you know if a metal construction would have held together? In this case the design loads were clearly exceeded.

FAA concluded that the cause of the accident was the pilots inappropriate rudder inputs when trying to counter wake turbulence with the rudder. Contributory causes were inappropriate training procedures at AA and the rudder control system which allowed consecutive rudder reversals to cause extremely heavy loads on the stabilizer at those speeds.

The investigation and the final report:
http://ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/

[mora]

Originally posted by Staga
Is there anywhere a real comparison between Airbus and Boeing with accidents/flighthour or is that "If it ain't Boeing..." just same old BS some idiots are spewing?

A somewhat clever troll actually.

[Toad]

The "official" version of 587 leaves some unanswered questions.

Now we come to Flight 587. Alarmingly, the NTSB is once again entrusting Airbus to provide rudder and loads data to the NTSB.  What will happen this time?

The NTSB believes the vertical tail broke off at 09:15:58.5 A.M.  Airbus loads calculations for this moment are based on a rudder position of 11.5 degrees.  But the RTLU setting was 9.3 degrees.  This obviously points to a failure of the RTLU.  When the NTSB asked Dominique Chatrenet, the VP at Airbus in charge of Flight Controls, about this discrepancy, Mr. Chatrenet had an inventive answer.  He said the rudder position was actually at 9.3 degrees, but it was in the process of failing.  The structure was deforming, thus providing this (incorrect) rudder value of 11.5 degrees.

The problem with this is that FAA certification requires ultimate loads be withstood for three seconds.  If Mr. Chatrenet is correct, the structure began failing immediately upon encountering ultimate loads, if not earlier. Officially, however, both the NTSB and Airbus publicly maintain the tail failed well above ultimate loads.

Yet the NTSB was able to say "Investigators have found no indications of any rudder system anomalies." They also did not question Mr. Chatrenet further after he made his inventive statement.  Why not?

There's another place to look for information.  The rudder position data is filtered, or averaged, before it's recorded on the flight data recorder (FDR).  Therefore, it is not a perfect real-time reading.  There is unfiltered rudder pedal data.  The rudder pedal position is recorded in real-time without any averaging or filtering.  This is therefore the most accurate record of what the rudder should be doing.  This data shows the pedal went to a value of less than 7 degrees just before the alleged tail separation time, and then headed back to 4 degrees.

The pedal data does not support the theory that an 11.5-degree rudder movement created the tremendous loads that broke off the tail.  In other words, the NTSB and Airbus theory is based on manufactured data.  

Clearly, if the rudder position had continued past 7 degrees, and then caused a structural failure, something other than the pilot is to blame since the rudder pedals do not indicate this occurred.

The RTLU is Rudder Travel Limiting Unit (RTLU).  

Here's another unanswered question:

How many Boeings have lost either the entire stabilizer or the rudder from pilot input?

How many Boeins have lost either the entire stabilizer or the rudder from autopilot input?

Boeing has had some rudder actuator problems that gave the aircraft a full "hardover" rudder at speed and these resulted in crashes. But, AFAIK, there was no structural failure while in the air.

Now ask the same questions about Airbus.

[Staga]

24 Boeing 747s, 47 Boeing 737 and 46 Boeing 727s have crashed; I wonder what were reasons behind those?
Number doesn't include terrorists etc.

Toad?

[-tronski-]

737's had a design flaw in the tail/rudder didn't they?
 
(I'm sure I read that once whilst I was conviently flying in a united 737)

 Tronsky

[Staga]

Toad you must be quite embarrassed now... Foot in a mouth and so on...


http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm

[Staga]

If it's Boeing I'm not flying...

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/737followupr.html

[Toad]

Let's have some fun.. and I'll even accept your hull loss numbers

Total 747 sales stood at 1356 August 2002

1831 727s of all models built when production ceased in 1984

1144 737-100s and 200s built, comprising 30 100s and 1114 200s,

1070 737-300s were in service at late 1998

737-400 approximately 470 in airline service

737-500 383  delivered

The "next gen" 737's have a new dual rudder acutator system starting in 2002 I think.. those have had no rudder problems. But go ahead and factor them in.

737-600 47 delivered by October 2002

737-700 465 delivered by October 2002.

737-800 664 (including 7 BBJ-2s) delivered by October 2002.

737-900  29 delivered by October 2002.

Now you get the totals of Airbus' delivered and how many have crashed.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Staga
Toad you must be quite embarrassed now... Foot in a mouth and so on...


http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm

Not at all. I said the 737's with the single rudder PCU (the next gens have a dual system) had hardover rudder problems.

Are you embarassed because you didn't read my post?

Here, try again:

 

Originally posted by Toad

How many Boeings have lost either the entire stabilizer or the rudder from pilot input?

How many Boeings have lost either the entire stabilizer or the rudder from autopilot input?

Boeing has had some rudder actuator problems that gave the aircraft a full "hardover" rudder at speed and these resulted in crashes. But, AFAIK, there was no structural failure while in the air.

Now ask the same questions about Airbus.

Now, I looked at your link. I saw no text about how a rudder departed the aircraft in flight, nor any vertical stabilizers departing the aircraft in flight.

I think the think YOU need to think about is that while 737's HAVE had "hardover" full applications of rudder in flight that caused crashes.... THE RUDDER AND VERTICAL STABILIZER STAYED ON THE AIRCRAFT AT VERY HIGH SPEEDS.

Not quite the same as an Airbus losing the whole vertical empenage at 250 knots.

[Staga]

Toad; You got a hardon when You found Airbus had rudder problems and got pissed when You noticed also Boeing suffered a bit similar problems and that the manufacturer also tried to hide the problems from public.

That airbus landed safely but there's Boeings which lawndarted after problems occurred inflight.
Maybe it was good that the Airbus' rudder broke free; maybe hundreds of Boeing passengers would still be alive if same had been happened to 737's rudders.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Staga
That airbus landed safely but there's Boeings which lawndarted after problems occurred inflight.

United 587 landed safely?  You seem to have the same hard on for Airbus that he has for Boeing....pot ... meet kettle

[Toad]

You simple putz.

I FLEW the B-737 models that HAD the single PCU. I'm well aware of the problem. Here, read this again from my first post after you rushed to defend the Bus:

Boeing has had some rudder actuator problems that gave the aircraft a full "hardover" rudder at speed and these resulted in crashes. But, AFAIK, there was no structural failure while in the air.

Now, how many Boeing incidents can you find where the RUDDER or the ENTIRE VERTICAL STABILIZER departed the aircraft in flight?

Boeing HAD a rudder Power Control Unit (PCU) problem on the "first gen" 737's. They put ONE PCU on the plane which was stupid. The ALPA TOLD them it was stupid. They lost some aircraft over that and when the "next gen" 737's came out, they had dual PCU's. That was THE END of the 737 rudder PCU problem.

See, it wasn't that the aircraft ever suffered STRUCTURAL FAILURE in flight... like Airbus... it was that their engineers went single PCU and should have known better.

Sure wasn't a STRUCTURAL problem though.

Putz.

[john9001]

Originally posted by mora
By your clever choice of words you make it sound like the composite structure would be the cause. Do you know if a metal construction would have held together? In this case the design loads were clearly exceeded.

FAA concluded that the cause of the accident was the pilots inappropriate rudder inputs when trying to counter wake turbulence with the rudder. Contributory causes were inappropriate training procedures at AA and the rudder control system which allowed consecutive rudder reversals to cause extremely heavy loads on the stabilizer at those speeds.

The investigation and the final report:
http://ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/

this is so boring, but i will try to explane.

the composit tail fin has metal mounting plates bonded into the base of the fin to accept the bolts attached to the body of the airplane, the bonding of the mounting plates failed du to delamination of the tail fin at the point where it it bolts to the airplane. they should have used a better glue.

you can talk all you want about "rudder inputs" and "computer errors" but i remember the prototype 707 that did a barrel roll on a demo flight.

i wonder what the "rudder inputs" were on that flight?

[Toad]

Originally posted by john9001
707 that did a barrel roll on a demo flight.

i wonder what the "rudder inputs" were on that flight?

Actually they were probably pretty light. Tex Johnson did a barrel roll and from all reports it was pretty smooth and coordinated. He did two of them consecutively as I recall. The 707 had pretty good roll capability just with ailerons. It was a great airplane.

(No, I never had the balls to roll one.)