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

[Siaf__csf]

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.

The end? How many pre-2002 737's are currently in active service? I know I've flown in many of them.

It is THE END when the last old 737 goes out of commission. Not a minute before that.

[SOB]

Originally posted by Airhead
I've heard of large people being charged for two seats before, but two PLANES?!?

Call your travel agent SOB.

LOL, it's gonna be a ***** straddling the two planes all the way to Wisconsin!

[bunch]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
Serve yourself...

I remeber reading about that incident in a groundschool class, IIRC the crash was a result of not fixing a 5' long crack in the fuselage that was there for several decades....A319-Zwiling has finally come into service?

[mora]

Originally posted by john9001
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?

Yes the vertical stabilizer failed after the stress on it was way beyond it's design limitations.

The rudder imputs were nothing like you would see in a barrel roll. They were full hardovers in succession to both direction. The vertical stabilizer of BOEING aircrfat would not have failed in this situation, because the Boeing "RTLU" or it's equivalent doesn't allow these movements at those speeds. Wether it would have failed under those forces we can not know.  

AFAIK in those 737 crashes where the RCU failed, the rudder only swung to one side so the forces created on the vertical stabilizar are not comparable to those that were present in the AA587 accident.

If you are interested about the rudder movements please check the link I provided earlier.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Staga
I just find it idiotic when some eurohater nutcases are thinking that Boeing is somehow superior or at least they are denying or ignoring those aircrafts have their flaws too.

No kidding...
I do like planes regardless of who made those.
Boeing makes cool planes and airbus makes cool planes.
Besides, why is it always about Airbus and Boeing? there are others out there, like Bombadier, Aerospatiale, Cessna... the smaller ones makes cool stuff too.
All the bizjets.

[Creamo]

All modern airliners are extremely safe. All modern airliners have had and will have design flaws. Some bigger than most, but all minor in the big picture of airline safety in air travel. When they get into operating in real life, like the 737, an overlooked flaw may become deadly apparent. It’s unfortunate, but gets fixed as best they can. I’m assuming AirBus will take the same route on limiting rudder travel as it now is a suspect flaw that can lead to pilot input that would cause failure.

They can call it pilot error, but like every redundant system and every bell and whistle in the cockpit, they should be warned they are making a mistake, just like taking off without flaps down. In this case, it should be NOT allowing them to put in too much rudder. It’s a design flaw IMOP, because pilots will. They are human.

 Pilots are going to kill you more often then a mechanical piece of an airline, fact. Not to choose to fly a particular brand of aircraft is a personal choice, and if you really look at the facts, it’s all political and grandstanding on a bbs mostly, otherwise companies would choose aircraft based not only on performance, maintenance costs, fuel consumption etc… they would consider public opinion. It seems for the flying public that is not the case. The people that feel the need to post here that they are brand loyal must be a huge minority when you take in the flying public as a whole, at least for the companies that buy these aircraft think so. Most people are looking for good service, on time flights, price, and a accommodating schedule, not a few crashes and stats that in any jet would be meaningless anyway but to a few here that just want to get a response from a message board post.

I’m still surprised at the people that are so adamant about arguing about aircraft safety considering their airline roles, in that they choose to try and put modern jets down, and put airline travel in a bad light just to backup their personal agenda on a message board. In the end, it’s a lot of rhetoric just to backup winning a stupid argument on the AH bbs. Kinda pitiful.

[Dinger]

If there were any rudder inputs on that A310 flight, they would have been very similar to the ones for the AA587 A300-600. Both use the same tail and the same rudder controls (first developed for the 310, then made part of the -600). As I'm pretty sure Toad can tell you from personal experience, the A-310/300-600 does have a limiter associated with the rudder, like other aircraft. The only difference is that whereas other A/C (and the pre-600 A300s) limit the amount the rudder can travel (thus preventing full deflection at higher speeds), the A300-600/310 limit the travel of the pedal needed to get full deflection. So as the aircraft gets faster, the force needed to "break out" the pedals from their neutral/rest position is greater than that needed to fully deflect the rudder.
So we don't know what happened, but at 29k or wherever the pilot was, all he needed was a leg twitch to hit maximum loading on the Vstab.

Aircraft pissing matches are silly, especially when folks don't catch all the facts.
All aircraft have defects; some of them are introduced by design cultures. Others are kept in existence by bloated bureaucracies who are quick to tie any possible criticism to a "US vs. Euro" problem. "you don't zink mizzing zee flaps lever should bee punishad by aving zee autopilot trim zee aircraft into the ground? You must be a Eurohater!"
Those of us who say "If it ain't Boeing..." also remember Mcdonnell-Douglas jets; and we remember making an exception to the rule for the L-1011 (one of the best aircrafts ever designed).
No aircraft safety problem should be written off by saying "well, zee boys across zee pond 'ave theirs".
So yeah, it's nice to see that those composite tails are performing so well...

But I still board whatever I can get on.

next week: 777 engine problems and smoke in the cockpit.

[Staga]

Creamo is right on the mark.

[Siaf__csf]

I'll tell you something. When I flew Malev (Hungarian airlines) and it was time to make my transit flight I was _darn_ happy to be loaded into a 737 instead of the Tupolev that was standing next to it.

[mora]

I've taken several flights with Russian aircraft as a child. I'd love to repeat those experiences.

I couldn't care less about the model of the aircraft I'm boarding.The change of getting killed is many times greater during the drive to the airport than during the flight, no matter what the aircraft model is. If I have specific reason to doubt the operator I might think twice.

[Siaf__csf]

I wouldn't board a Tupolev even if it was just parked at the airport let alone travel in one.

You're one of those extreme travellers huh?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
The end? How many pre-2002 737's are currently in active service? I know I've flown in many of them.

It is THE END when the last old 737 goes out of commission. Not a minute before that.

Nah, you're just wrong because you don't know what you're talking about.

For years, Boeing pretended a) there was nothing wrong with the 737 PCU and b) there was no need for a dual PCU system.

Finally, after the crashes, Boeing redesigned the single PCU with different valving IIRC and the FAA mandated that all 737's had to be retrofitted with the new PCU. Delta was installing them before the FAA even mandated it. The next-gen 737's had an entirely new PCU and it was a dual system.

Now, if some countries ignored all of this there probably are some out there flying around with the old PCU. If the airline you're contemplating flying on has a reputation for cutting corners on maintenance, I wouldn't fly their 737's.

[Toad]

My brother's flown them all, pretty much, as he was at Eastern, Trump and US Air. Lockheed, Boeing and Airbus he's been there done that. He never flew the L-10, so he puts Lockheed last although he still liked the Electra. Then Boeing and Airbus last, although he says the Bus is a good plane. His big beef is the computer programming and the "control law" logic.

Right now he's on the Bus and flies it nearly every day of the month (it's great to work for bankrupt airlines). He figures it's safe enough.

For those of you reading MORE into my posts than what I actually wrote, it boils down to this:

I think the "all metal" tails are stronger and more durable than the composite ones. That goes for either Boeing or Bus composite tails.

Just my opinion.

[TexMurphy]

Its propably just in the US that the phrase "US Quality" isnt read as sarcasm.....

[Siaf__csf]

Finally, after the crashes, Boeing redesigned the single PCU with different valving IIRC and the FAA mandated that all 737's had to be retrofitted with the new PCU. Delta was installing them before the FAA even mandated it. The next-gen 737's had an entirely new PCU and it was a dual system.

That wasn't the impression I got from the link posted earlier. If the problem was fixed, it was obviously fixed. But it seems that as late as 1999 there were still issues and the plane had been operated for decades.

How can you tell if an airline slacks on maintenance by the way? I mean speaking as a regular traveler now.