It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fatal Rudder Flaws in the A300, A310 Family of Aircraft?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Airbus A310 Rudder Separates in Flight.

In an incident that was reminiscent to American Airlines Flight 587, an A310 belonging to Air Transat of Canada suffered an in-flight loss of its rudder. The plane was In a low load cruise setting and Airbus confirmed that this a/c had never experience a high load situation as had the American Airlines plane. Is it possible that a fatal flaw exists within the series tail system? To be fair the popular 737 has also had several instances of rudder issues as well. However some corrective action has been taken.



Canadian investigators are poring over Air Transat Flight 961's data recorders to determine what caused the inflight separation of the Airbus A310 rudder.

The Mar. 6 incident brought a chilling reminder of American Airlines Flight 587: On Nov. 12, 2001, the vertical tail assembly separated from the Airbus A300-600R, shortly after the flight's departure from JFK International Airport.
You need a subscription





posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Not something you really want to happen
It would be interesting to see if the aircraft that have had these problems come from the same 'batch' as that might indicate a flaw in the composite materials used for those particular aircraft, and could point to more aircraft needing attention.

Maybe we dont know all we really need to know about how composites react to prolonged usage as aircraft construction materials (just as we didnt know how metal reacted to fatigue before the comet crashes in the 1950s, maybe theres a composite equal to metal fatigue?).



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
The FAA has ordered American Airlines and Fed Ex the only two airlines using this aircraft to begin inspecting the rudders on Monday.

www.dailystar.com...

The question I have is, why wait until Monday



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
The FAA has ordered American Airlines and Fed Ex the only two airlines using this aircraft to begin inspecting the rudders on Monday.

www.dailystar.com...

The question I have is, why wait until Monday
:puz




Two reasons - the weekend is the busiest time of the week, and airlines probably will have a lot of trouble getting engineers in on a weekend at short notice. The FAA understands that theres a balance to be kept between extreme safety and making money (if extreme safety always got 100% priority, we wouldnt ever fly), and two aircraft suffering a similiar issue in 4 years doesnt produce as much urgency as two aircraft suffering a similiar issue in the same week.

The likelyhood of another incident happening over the weekend is extremely low, so theres little point in inciting panic and ordering all aircraft to be grounded for tests, causing huge financial issues for an industry that already is suffering.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice


Two reasons - the weekend is the busiest time of the week, and airlines probably will have a lot of trouble getting engineers in on a weekend at short notice. The FAA understands that theres a balance to be kept between extreme safety and making money (if extreme safety always got 100% priority, we wouldnt ever fly), and two aircraft suffering a similiar issue in 4 years doesnt produce as much urgency as two aircraft suffering a similiar issue in the same week.

The likelyhood of another incident happening over the weekend is extremely low, so theres little point in inciting panic and ordering all aircraft to be grounded for tests, causing huge financial issues for an industry that already is suffering.


Sorry but I do not buy your excuse since this is the 2nd incident in one week. SAS had another just last week.


The FAA directive follows a similar order by French civil-aviation authorities on March 18. Last week, European aircraft-maker Airbus SAS also asked airlines to inspect the planes.

Airbust Jet Inspections



In additon FedEx is freight not passenger and the weekend is their slowest time of the week not the busiest as you contend, therefore it would be the best time to perform their inspections right?

I realize you are very pro Airbus and that is fine, however aircraft safety issues should always be addressed immediately and allow me to point out it does not require an engineer in all cases. I am sure ground crews are well versed in inspection procedures for aircraft they do it everyday or didn't you know that? Currently U.S. airlines have to inspect the planes within 550 flight hours or three months, which shows that ground crews are already doing it. Now is perhaps a great time to reduce the inspection intervals as I see it.





[edit on 3/26/2005 by shots]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Sorry but I do not buy your excuse since this is the 2nd incident in one week. SAS had another just last week.



Its not an excuse, its an explanation. And no, SAS did not 'have another last week', it simply ordered an inspection of the same types of aircraft after the same incident that caused the FAA to issue its order. SAS is Airbus SAS - the manufacturer of the aircraft. One incident, two inspection orders.



In additon FedEx is freight not passenger and the weekend is their slowest time of the week not the busiest as you contend, therefore it would be the best time to perform their inspections right?


Actually, the weekend is one of Fedexs most busiest times of the week, with monday and friday only being busier. This is due to the number of packages that business post on friday for delivery on the monday.



I realize you are very pro Airbus and that is fine, however aircraft safety issues should always be addressed immediately and allow me to point out it does not require an engineer in all cases. I am sure ground crews are well versed in inspection procedures for aircraft they do it everyday or didn't you know that?


Im not pro Airbus, Im anti stupidity.

The entire rudder assembly requires disassembly and removal to carry out the inspections required by the FAA and Airbus, groundcrew do NOT disassemble aircraft, they carry out visual inspections and inspections of more critical areas before each flight.

This requires the aircraft to be grounded for the duration, and inspected by qualified engineers using specialised equipment for detecting flaws and cracks in composite materials. Groundcrew generally do not have the certification required to disassemble the parts that engineers can, and dont have access to the equipment that engineers will.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Also, the inspection order hasnt been given yet, its actually due to go out on monday.





The FAA directive, to be issued Monday, affects A310s and A300-600s. American Airlines and FedEx, the only U.S. airlines that fly those models, have a combined 112 of those planes.


Source

You will have to ask the FAA why they arent issuing it until monday.


Hmm why is this all in bold? I cant find a reason why!


[edit on 26/3/2005 by RichardPrice]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

The entire rudder assembly requires disassembly and removal to carry out the inspections required by the FAA and Airbus, groundcrew do NOT disassemble aircraft, they carry out visual inspections and inspections of more critical areas before each flight.

This requires the aircraft to be grounded for the duration, and inspected by qualified engineers using specialised equipment for detecting flaws and cracks in composite materials. Groundcrew generally do not have the certification required to disassemble the parts that engineers can, and dont have access to the equipment that engineers will.


Hmmm I do believe you are wrong on that one. According to the FAA

"No one knows for sure what really happened, but we feel this is a prudent measure," FAA spokesman Les Dorr said of the order. "The basic idea is to get somebody up looking at the rudder to see if there are any problems that can be detected visually or with the tap test."
A tap test is a way to inspect parts by tapping a piece of metal or a coin against the surface and listening for dull spots. Bill Waldock, an aviation-safety professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona, said that it is a time-consuming process. "You got a mechanic out there who's going to spend a lot of time tapping."


And that is from a safety professor who I am sure has more expertise then you on the issue.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Also, the inspection order hasnt been given yet, its actually due to go out on monday.





Hmm why is this all in bold? I cant find a reason why!



Hmm you post it in bold as if trying to make a point that you missed that fact in my first post
is the only reason I can think of.

If you had paid attention to my original post that was the fact I pointed out.





[edit on 3/26/2005 by shots]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots

"No one knows for sure what really happened, but we feel this is a prudent measure," FAA spokesman Les Dorr said of the order. "The basic idea is to get somebody up looking at the rudder to see if there are any problems that can be detected visually or with the tap test."
A tap test is a way to inspect parts by tapping a piece of metal or a coin against the surface and listening for dull spots. Bill Waldock, an aviation-safety professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona, said that it is a time-consuming process. "You got a mechanic out there who's going to spend a lot of time tapping."


That still requires a huge amount of time, manpower and grounding of an aircraft, all of which arent easy to arrange at a moments notice, plus the Airbus and French inspection orders require more invasive checks.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots


Hmm you post it in bold as if trying to make a point that you missed that fact in my first post
is the only reason I can think of.

If you had paid attention to my original post that was the fact I pointed out.

[edit on 3/26/2005 by shots]


I didnt post it in bold at all. For some reason, something else was making it bold - all the post contained was a url tag set and a quote tagset, no bold modifier at all.

Oh, and here is your origional post:



The FAA has ordered American Airlines and Fed Ex the only two airlines using this aircraft to begin inspecting the rudders on Monday.


To me 'has ordered' makes it sound as if the FAA has issued the order, which they havent and was what I was pointing out. The FAA hasnt ordered anyone to do anything - yet. If you paid attention to your own post, you would know what I was pointing out.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice


That still requires a huge amount of time, manpower and grounding of an aircraft, all of which arent easy to arrange at a moments notice, plus the Airbus and French inspection orders require more invasive checks.


And you know this how?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Oh, and here is your origional post:


The FAA has ordered American Airlines and Fed Ex the only two airlines using this aircraft to begin inspecting the rudders on Monday.


[quoteTo me 'has ordered' makes it sound as if the FAA has issued the order, which they havent and was what I was pointing out. The FAA hasnt ordered anyone to do anything - yet. If you paid attention to your own post, you would know what I was pointing out.


You do appear to have a reading problem; it clearly stated they ordered it for Monday, yet to you that implied it was immediate which it was not.
Kindly note I have highlighted it this time around perhaps that may help


[edit on 3/26/2005 by shots]

[edit on 3/26/2005 by shots]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots


The FAA has ordered American Airlines and Fed Ex the only two airlines using this aircraft to begin inspecting the rudders on Monday.



You do appear to have a reading problem; it clearly stated they ordered it for Monday, yet to you that implied it was immediate which it was not.
Kindly note I have highlighted it this time around perhaps that may help


[edit on 3/26/2005 by shots]


No, I think it is YOU with the reading disorder.

THE FAA HASNT ORDERED ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING YET. The order goes out on monday. You said 'The FAA has ordered' when it HASNT. Your post implied that they they had been given an order but not to act on it til monday, when they havent been given anything at all - the order will be issued on monday. There isnt an order that says 'dont do anything til monday' - the order will be ISSUED on monday.

There, Ive said it enough times, NOW do you understand?

[edit on 26/3/2005 by RichardPrice]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by shots


The FAA has ordered American Airlines and Fed Ex the only two airlines using this aircraft to begin inspecting the rudders on Monday.




No, I think it is YOU with the reading disorder.

THE FAA HASNT ORDERED ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING YET. The order goes out on monday. You said 'The FAA has ordered' when it HASNT. Your post implied that they they had been given an order but not to act on it til monday, when they havent been given anything at all - the order will be issued on monday. There isnt an order that says 'dont do anything til monday' - the order will be ISSUED on monday.

There, Ive said it enough times, NOW do you understand?

[edit on 26/3/2005 by RichardPrice]


OH Stop with your dancing admit you misread it. It clearly states

The FAA has ordered



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

OH Stop with your dancing admit you misread it. It clearly states

The FAA has ordered



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Read this very very very carefully

I cant believe you really are this stupid. You are arguing my freaking point.

Your post:



The FAA has ordered American Airlines and Fed Ex the only two airlines using this aircraft to begin inspecting the rudders on Monday.


This whole discussion rests on the wording of your post.

From YOUR link:



WASHINGTON - U.S. airlines will be ordered to inspect the rudders of certain Airbus jets following an incident in which most of the rudder fell off an A310 in flight, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday.

The FAA directive, to be issued Monday, affects A310s and A300-600s. American Airlines and FedEx, the only U.S. airlines that fly those models, have a combined 112 of the planes.


Lets recap shall we.

Your post says 'has ordered' 'to be begin monday'. ALL THE SOURCES LINKED TO SAY 'will be ordered' and 'to be issued monday'

Now, what do you have to say to that?

Very simple when I quoted what I did it read

: Originally posted by shots
The FAA has ordered American Airlines and Fed Ex the only two airlines using this aircraft to begin inspecting the rudders on Monday.

www.dailystar.com...

The question I have is, why wait until Monday :puz
.
That was a direct quote from the link at that time apparently they have no updated it with a correction.



Simple, I emailed Airbus using an engineers enquiry address I have acquired from an airline mechanic friend and asked them.



Yeah right on a weekend and you expect someone to believe you????

Care to send me that email addy so I can ask them?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Very simple when I quoted what I did it read
That was a direct quote from the link at that time apparently they have no updated it with a correction.


Sorry, dont believe you. The story is a line story from Associated Press, which as you can see in this direct link to the AP story here has not changed since 2.15pm EST 25th March 2005. The article in your link was posted sometime on the 26/3/2005, the AP article was posted onto the wire at 2.15pm 25/3/2005. Your post was at 9.25am EST on the 26th March 2005. I viewed your link 8 minutes later and it was exactly the same as it is now.

A couple dozen other news sites picked up the same AP story, and none of those have changed either.



Yeah right on a weekend and you expect someone to believe you????

Care to send me that email addy so I can ask them?


You can beleive what the hell you like. I emailed them at 4pm GMT, the engineering support department is open 24/7 - do you really think an aircraft manufacturer wouldnt have a query line open all hours to support its many million dollar aircraft and the mechanics handling them?! This isnt Walmart or Bestbuy, the engineering world doesnt close down at 8pm friday night and have the weekend off.

And no, much as it pains me, you cannot have the email address - its definately not something thats meant for public consumption, and would probably get my friend into trouble if it got into the open. I only got it because Im an old friend and he trusts me.

Im done with this discussion, Ive got more productive things to do than to argue your failings with you.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by shots

Very simple when I quoted what I did it read
That was a direct quote from the link at that time apparently they have no updated it with a correction.


Sorry, dont believe you. The story is a line story from Associated Press, which as you can see in this direct link to the AP story here has not changed since 2.15pm EST 25th March 2005. The article in your link was posted sometime on the 26/3/2005, the AP article was posted onto the wire at 2.15pm 25/3/2005. Your post was at 9.25am EST on the 26th March 2005. I viewed your link 8 minutes later and it was exactly the same as it is now.

A couple dozen other news sites picked up the same AP story, and none of those have changed either.


Odd you find only the story you wanted to find.

What about this one? How much clearer can it get


U.S. Orders Rudder Inspections on Some Airbus Planes
Fri Mar 25, 2005 01:06 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. aviation regulators on Friday ordered detailed rudder inspections and repairs, if necessary, of certain Airbus planes after the rudder of a Canadian passenger jet nearly fell off this month.

www.reuters.com...

Kindly note they ordered it on Friday


Here a duplicate source
msnbc.msn.com...







You can beleive what the hell you like. I emailed them at 4pm GMT, the engineering support department is open 24/7 - do you really think an aircraft manufacturer wouldnt have a query line open all hours to support its many million dollar aircraft and the mechanics handling them?! This isnt Walmart or Bestbuy, the engineering world doesnt close down at 8pm friday night and have the weekend off.


Hmm what do you have ESP we did not start having this conversation until 4:30 your time yet claim to sent it at 4.?



And no, much as it pains me, you cannot have the email address - its definately not something thats meant for public consumption, and would probably get my friend into trouble if it got into the open. I only got it because Im an old friend and he trusts me.

Im done with this discussion, Ive got more productive things to do than to argue your failings with you.


Just as I expected. This seems to be a pattern of yours, you make statements yet are unable to back them up. I do not believe you either that makes us even. Oh wait that is impossible, since I have just given you a story that makes your contention wrong as to when they made the order for inspection.


Stay tuned for proof you were wrong on which days are the busiest days for FedEx also.




[edit on 3/26/2005 by shots]

[edit on 3/26/2005 by shots]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 04:00 AM
link   
If I might note as a neutral observer shots, Richards first reply to your post was at 2.33pm here not 4.30 so he wouldn't need esp to email anyone about it at 4, and you also seem to be refuting his claim on your quote by quoting a different article altogether which happens to say what you want it to. The fact that you have now found something with the right wording to back up your position doesn't change the truth of what Richard was saying.

Also why should he betray the trust of someone he knows to settle an argument with a stranger on a messagboard? I wouldn't and if you can't have a conversation with someone without demanding they prove they aren't liars then what is the point of that conversation? An interesting thread has degenerated into a petty squabble and I wouldn't be surprised if Richard just decides to forget the whole thing.

Sorry for butting in and I wont get drawn into a long debate about it but thats how the argument seems to pan out to this neutral.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join