Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FUNKED1 on March 15, 2005, 02:16:50 PM
-
(http://www.airdisaster.com/user-uploads/IMG_0076.jpg)
My EU boycott continues. :)
-
What's the story? Structural failure? Collision?
:confused:
-
I think its called photoshop.
-
Why is it that people think aircraft are the only machines in the world that don't occasionaly break. Every other one does, why should aircraft be different. We are kidding ourselves if we think it so.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Why is it that people think aircraft are the only machines in the world that don't occasionaly break.
I'ver never heard anyone say that before.
-
I'll be boarding two Airbus A319s tomorrow. I guess my fate is sealed. I hereby bequeef my collection of belly button lint and tonail clippings to FunkedUp. You'll find it in the crawl space under my apartment, next to the jars of my urine.
-
they need to use better glue.
wasn't there a thread about airbus haveing a warning about moveing rudders too rapidly?
-
You'll be fine SOB! Now if it was McDonell Douglas, I'd run a country mile!:lol
-
Yeah right, Sky, your post doesn't even have a catchy rhyme. I'm a goner for sure. :( Either that, or Funked is retarded.
-
Bequeef lols
TOB just make sure they adjust the CG to account for you.
-
I was wondering why they always make me sit in the isle over the wings.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What's the story? Structural failure? Collision?
:confused:
The composite rudder of the A310 separated over carribean sea and the Canadian plane returned to Cuba. Must have been cod's revenge.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going... My EU boycott continues. :)
Serve yourself...
(http://death-valley.us/posts/airdisaster.gif)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.:)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
Toad you must be quite embarrassed now... Foot in a mouth and so on...
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm
-
If it's Boeing I'm not flying...
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/737followupr.html
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.)
-
staga is living proof that reading stuff on the internet makes you an expert in exactly jack ****.
-
Rather than indulging in asinine Euro or Airbus bashing maybe it would be more productive to speculate as to whether another aircraft type would suffer the same fate with the same rudder inputs in the same wake turbulence situation.
The implication as I read the report and the discussions of it in various aviation journals is that even a Boeing would lose it's fin because the design loads were exceeded . We can argue that the light pedal forces may have allowed the pilot to apply excessive rudder inputs.
But surely the lesson is that an airliner is not an aerobatic aircraft and that full and rapid rudder deflections applied in a sideslip would overload any airliner's vertical tail simply because it is not designed for that kind of treatment.
It could happen to a Boeing.
-
Nah, Staga feels his Europe is superior to all, so anytime something shows his side being lesser than anything American, he has to find, invent or conjure why his beleives are better. Be damned the facts.
I could care less about the two aircraft companies, Staga has made it a personal quest to attempt to debunk anything Toad has said. whatever. This USA vs Euro thing is getting tiring.
-
Read this again:
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.
I think in the end, after years of maintenance inspections, the real story is going to be something like
"That could have happend to any composite tail that had delaminated at the attach points."
Now, it's merely a question of who is using composite tails that delaminate.
-
Originally posted by 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:
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.
So ummm let me get this straight, your saying the PCU problem which results in aircraft pummeling themselves into the ground and killing everybody on board versus the rudder failing which resulted in a landing where very everbody survived makes the Boeing better?
:rolleyes:
-
Boeings can blow up in the air on their own.
Like the 747 which blew up in the air... was it over the sea, near NYC?
The center fuel tank blew up, even though it was empty.
-
Toad, these clowns can't grasp simple concepts like apples vs oranges.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
So ummm let me get this straight, your saying the PCU problem which results in aircraft pummeling themselves into the ground and killing everybody on board versus the rudder failing which resulted in a landing where very everbody survived makes the Boeing better?
:rolleyes:
ummmm :rolleyes:
NO.
The thread deals primarily with structural failure. Someone noted that those rudder stresses would make a Boeings vert stab fail as well.
However, 737's, due to an engineering "overoptimism" mistake have had full rudder deflections at speeds nearly TWICE as fast as that Bus was going and both the rudder and the vert stab stayed on.
So the point is that composites do indeed seem more fragile than old tech metal.
Note that Boeing is going to composites in flight controls now as well. They resisted that for a very long time. Be interesting to see if their flight controls fall off now too.
And, as far as engineering mistakes, before you howl about the single PCU on the 737, take a look at the abysmal record of Bus in the "flight control laws" of the computerized flight controls. It starts with the "homelite chainsaw" incident and continues through several "on autopilot ILS, crashed short of the runway incidents".
I hope that clears it up for you.
-
Looks like we should only fly on B-777's.
A lot of those Airbus incidents stem from the control laws/human factors. I think the high incidence of CFIT shows that as well.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
But surely the lesson is that an airliner is not an aerobatic aircraft and that full and rapid rudder deflections applied in a sideslip would overload any airliner's vertical tail simply because it is not designed for that kind of treatment.
Party pooper
-
Originally posted by SOB
I'll be boarding two Airbus A319s tomorrow.
I've heard of large people being charged for two seats before, but two PLANES?!?
Call your travel agent 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.
I think it's time to call the doctor
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Party pooper
Yeah sorry, boring is me. Not taking sides.
Boeing or Airbus. Both are made in foreign countries, nothing to do with me.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
But surely the lesson is that an airliner is not an aerobatic aircraft and that full and rapid rudder deflections applied in a sideslip would overload any airliner's vertical tail simply because it is not designed for that kind of treatment.
It could happen to a Boeing.
True story:
On dark and stormy night (literally) I got called out at 2AM to S/O a 727 on a functional check flight when it came out of phase maintenance. Captain was an ex-Navy "fighter pilot". Wasn't my first FCF but it was my most exciting.
One check is to turn off both yaw dampers at cruise speed, induce dutch roll with rudder input and turn on ONE yaw damper and make sure the yaw damper stops the dutch roll. Then you do the same thing with the other yaw damper.
Most folks put in a bit of right then left rudder and got about a 10 degree of bank dutch roll going.
This Captain had the F/O do the first one and that's what the F/O did, about 10 degrees. The skipper says... "That's no Ductch roll.. here, lemme show ya."
Immediately, the little red light that flashes in your brain when trouble beckons started going off on the F/O, S/O and two maintenance guys heads. We could see it on each other's faces but it was 1982, when a Captain was a CAPTAIN. (Before CRM).
Ewwwwwwwwww yah. He turns off the yaw dampers and goes about full throw with the rudders in a left/right/left/right/left quick step.
By the time he's done, the aircraft is Dutch rolling in excess of 60 degrees of bank... I couldn't see the ADI very well because I was hugging the S/O panel to keep from getting seat belt/shoulder harness bruises. The mechs are bouncing around the cockpit.
The Captain reaches down and ... the chief mech yells "NO!!!" slaps on the yaw dampers, which are close together and he hit both guards at once. BOTH yaw dampers snap on.
WHAM! It stopped that Dutch roll right now. Violently. 60+ bank to straight and level in one click.
Captain says, "Ops, one at a time. We gotta do it again." we all shout "NO!"
He looks at us, frowning and getting pissed... "WHAT?"
Us: "NO!"
He says "P s". (word for multiple feminine sex organs) and proceeds to brood and frown the rest of the flight.
Chief Mech says "now we'll have to inspect the vert stab again to see if anything broke.
We landed, they inspected. I checked the records... all OK.
Scared the doo dah out of four people though.. didn't bother the other one, however. Yeah, I like Boeings. Metal ones, anyway.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Nah, Staga feels his Europe is superior to all, so anytime something shows his side being lesser than anything American, he has to find, invent or conjure why his beleives are better. Be damned the facts.
I could care less about the two aircraft companies, Staga has made it a personal quest to attempt to debunk anything Toad has said. whatever. This USA vs Euro thing is getting tiring.
FYI LePaul I don't think anyone is superior but if You like to think so please do so; Your opinion is really valuabe like always.
Anyways it can be found from airdisater.com that some Boeings are doing better than Airbuses and some are doing worse.
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Serve yourself...
(http://death-valley.us/posts/airdisaster.gif)
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Creamo is right on the mark.
-
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. :eek:
-
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.
-
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? ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Its propably just in the US that the phrase "US Quality" isnt read as sarcasm..... ;)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Toad
For years, Boeing pretended a) there was nothing wrong with the 737 PCU and b) there was no need for a dual PCU system.
So not only there was a fatal flaw in Boeings but the manufacturer also tried to hide it but got caught after crashes?
Makes you think what else are they hiding eh?
Anyways there's no aircraft I wouldn't jump in; maybe some airline companies like "Air Mozambique" would make me search alternative carriers.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Its propably just in the US that the phrase "US Quality" isnt read as sarcasm..... ;)
Where are YOU from Tex, where everything is made so much better than here?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Anyways there's no aircraft I wouldn't jump in; maybe some airline companies like "Air Mozambique" would make me search alternative carriers.
A mddle-eastern charter company is something I would also try to avoid. The same goes for some asian carriers.
-
I didnt say our stuff is better then anyone elses.
Im just saying that domestic does not quality. In fact overly beliving that domestic things are of higher quality then imported things is arrogance.
There is no single place with the highest quality. Each nation has something that is better then the other nation and something that is worse then the other nation.
When it comes to the US there are quality things produced in the US but not always the things which are claimed to be high quality. Text book example, cars.
Tex
-
Originally posted by Staga
So not only there was a fatal flaw in Boeings but the manufacturer also tried to hide it but got caught after crashes?
No. Try harder.
Boeing, the FAA and the Air Line Pilots Association Safety division all worked together on the crashes. In the beginning, none of these folks could figure out the problem. The pilots were the first to suspect it was the PCU and suggested that a change be made immediately. The other two agencies were not sure. You can't get a company or the FAA to make multi-million dollar changes on a suspicion. It took years and more crashes for enough clear evidence to accumulate that pointed to the PCU.
I think it should have been done when ALPA suggested it. Yeah, it cost money but it was still a relatively simple fix. As a side note, when ALPA first suggested it was the PCU, Delta agreed and decided to increase the freqency of inspection on the PCU and shorten the overhaul time. We never had a 737 hardover... go figure.
Boeing didn't try to hide it; they made a few changes to the PCU during the period of investigation. The FAA didn't try to hide it either. It just took them a while to gather conclusive proof.
Sorta like the Airbus incident where their chief pilot mowed down half a forest because the controls laws were krap. Took Airbus a while to realize how it happened and then another while to decide they needed to change the control laws.
There did you like that? It's in the same vein as your jihad.
-
How do you easily tell if an airline skimps on maintaining their aircraft? Well, if you read they are laying off mechanics.....
Pretty much just like looking at a buying a house. If the house looks run down, if the yard if full of trash, if the inside is a mess with leaky faucets... you can guess the owner doesn't really worry about maintenance.
You see bedraggled planes that have little things broken all the time, fly someone else. If they aren't keeping up the cabin fixtures and paint jobs, they probably are cutting corners elsewhere.
I'm not talking about normal wear and tear. I'm talking seeing broken lavs, worn out cabin furnishings on every plane every time you fly. Stuff like that.
-
...hehe my favorite exchange while settling down for a transatlantic flight on a full 74 classic:
(passenger sitting next to me): This seatbelt's in backwards and won't attach.
(Me, having flown coast-to-coast on the same airline and familiar with the problem): That's no problem, just pop the cushion out and detach er...
(seatbelt fails to detach).
(passenger calls over flight attendant, explains problem).
Flight Attendant: It's your seat, sit in it.
Ah, the joys of Tower Air. Now there was a _scary_ airline. Hell, when they had scheduled flights, they converted a maintenance hangar at JFK and called it a terminal.
-
FWIW,
There is a revolution in aircraft building going on right now. There is a new technology, composites, that is taking the aviation world by storm. Some say it is the resurection of small private aircraft. Others say it will be a dead end.
There is a wealth of data on the longevity of aluminum aircraft. We KNOW they last for decades. Hell there are some that are well over 50 years old still flying and these are LIGHT aircraft, not the heavies. The new composites allow designers to do wonderful things. There are claims that composites are far stronger weight for weight than aluminum and even steel. That is true.
What we don't have is a definate idea of how long or under what conditions composites will retain that strength.
I like composite aircraft but I feel more comfortable in aluminum. I've worked on both and each has it's adherants. AS far as I am concerned I do not have confidence that a composite airframe will stand up to decades of use and outside storage like an aluminum airframe will. That goes for ANY size / type of airframe.
Has anyone seen a composite anything left out in the sun for years? Would you like to be flying in that after it's been outside for the last 20 years?
-
"This USA vs Euro thing is getting tiring."
Just about the truest thing said in here for a long while!
(only an observation) Back to the great trans atlantic slagging match guys!
:lol
-
Not only that, visual inspection of composites really doesn't tell you much. The tests that do are going to be REAL expensive for private planes... they're REAL expensive for commercial planes.
-
Originally posted by Staga
FYI LePaul I don't think anyone is superior but if You like to think so please do so; Your opinion is really valuabe like always.
Anyways it can be found from airdisater.com that some Boeings are doing better than Airbuses and some are doing worse.
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.
You guys know we (the air warrior crowd) have been debating what planes are superior since we got into flight sims. I dont see how this is any different.
I personaly do not like Airbus because of their subsidised business practices. And I find the argument that boeing is the same because they hold military contracts to be a joke.
-
I hear Vans is working on an 80 passenger kit plane
-
Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company
Local News : Tuesday, February 22, 2000
Boeing told FAA in secret of 737 rudder hazard before 1994 crash
by Byron Acohido
Seattle Times staff reporter
Boeing knew for years that pilots had no way to overcome dangerous rudder problems that could occur while flying 737 jets at low speeds, but waited until after two planes crashed to acknowledge the problem, newly released court documents indicate.
The documents, which include letters from Boeing to the Federal Aviation Administration, were filed in a lawsuit against Boeing and its rudder-parts supplier, Parker Hannifin Corp., by the families of two people who died in the 1994 crash of a US Airways 737 near Pittsburgh.
The suit, filed in Chicago, was settled late last year, with Boeing agreeing to pay $25.5 million to the two victims' families. The Seattle Times then asked Cook County Circuit Court Judge Judith Cohen to release records that might otherwise be sealed in the wake of the settlement. This week, Cohen ordered most of the court papers released.
The documents establish the companies' long-standing awareness of the rudder's propensity to deflect on its own. What's more, the papers show Boeing discovered in the early 1980s that there was little pilots could do to recover from some rogue deflections, yet failed to point out the significance of that finding to safety regulators and airlines.
Boeing insists it did nothing wrong, and everything it was required to by federal safety regulations.
Records from the court file indicate:
Boeing's original 1963 patent for the valve that controls the 737's rudder, along with other documents, describe potentially catastrophic consequences from the valve jamming and causing the rudder to deflect on its own.
While certifying the 737-300 for commercial service in 1984, Boeing conducted flight tests that showed at low speeds - below what's called a "crossover speed" - there was nothing a pilot could do to neutralize a jammed rudder.
Boeing waited until 1992 - the year after a defective rudder flipped a United Airlines 737-200 slowing to land in Colorado Springs - to discuss the safety implications of the crossover-speed hazard with the FAA. Twenty-five people died in the Colorado crash.
In discussing the hazard with the FAA, Boeing insisted that the agency keep the information to itself, saying it was a trade secret. The FAA complied.
Two years later came the Pittsburgh crash. The US Airways 737-300 was slowing to land when a rudder deflection twisted it into a precipitous dive, killing all 132 onboard.
It wasn't until late 1995 - after the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) inadvertently learned about the crossover-speed danger - that 737 pilots began flying faster during takeoffs and landings to minimize the hazard.
Those disclosures helped the families of two Pittsburgh crash victims, Thomas Kinsey and Denise Jenkins, win the settlements from Boeing and Parker Hannifin.
On the eve of the opening of a jury trial in November, the companies agreed to pay Kinsey's wife, Ramona, $14 million and Jenkins' husband, Christopher, $11.5 million.
-
Gosh... it was a secret letter. I wonder why I didn't get a copy when I was flying the 737-200??????
Anyway, Straga. I hadn't seen that before. Seems to me Boeing ought to have been crucified, and the FAA right next to them.
Correlates to the other thread about unions and not needing redundant safety organizations. I know ALPA was warning about the PCU, probably right when Boeing and the FAA were swapping secret love notes.
-
Sorry I forgot to add "There did you like that? It's in the same vein as your jihad" in that. I'll try to remember it next time.
-
Post your addy. I'll send you a "Jr. Detective" badge.
I'm glad you found it; I had never seen it.
I you.
-
Nothing, I'm the same as always.
If his article is correct and I see no reason to doubt it (Boeing is based in Seattle; I'm sure the paper did the research), he showed me something I didn't know.
So, I salute him for furthering my education. I wish we had more posters that could do that. ;)
-
Five part story in Seattle Times; I'm sure Toad finds it interesting to read.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/737/part01/
I hope that idiotic slogan "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going..." can be buried now.
-
I suppose this is a good case where a powerful ATPA is essential. I know it's been discussed to death before, but this reinforces my opinion that the industry was never qualified to be deregulated in the form we now see. It could use a better regulation model based on the premise that air travel is a necessary national and international infrastructure with equal pillars of safety (aircraft and crew), stability (crew, routes and scheduling) and technical advancement balanced with costs.
Yes, it's possible to do, but not probable, as long as people, and their turf, are involved.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Five part story in Seattle Times; I'm sure Toad finds it interesting to read.
[/b]
Yeah, I do. Thanks for finding it.
I hope that idiotic slogan "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going..." can be buried now. [/B]
I doubt it. See... 707, 727, 747, 757, 767, 777 are all outstanding airplanes. Pilots love 'em.
The 737 is a great airplane too... amazing to fly, great handling. Yes, it had a rudder problem as noted. Yes, Boeing "stonewalled" on the problem.
The REAL problem is here:
"The NTSB allows itself to become fixated on finding a cause, and the FAA readily caves in to political pressures. Meanwhile, Boeing has one eye on litigation and nobody is paying attention to things that should be done to prevent the next accident."
The regulatroy agency, the FAA, should have made Boeing fix it as soon as the realized the PCU was involved in the problem. Early on I do remember them focusing on the yaw damper and that was quite plausible. The main thing was that Boeing departed from it's "belt and suspenders" engineering style when they went with ONE PCU for the 737. I think that's the root of the problem. The other thing is the inspection/overhaul cycle. As I said, Delta went to a much shorter timetable for inspection/overhaul and we didn't have the problems other airlines had.
As for Boeing, I still firmly believe they build the best airliners in the world. So does my brother and he's flying A-320's right now.