Airbus rudder/tail problems?

This is at least the third incident I've heard of where the rudder or tail has seperated from the aircraft on an Airbus. One caused the crash in Rochester NY shortly after 9/11, the other two only caused damage to the aircraft with no injuries. I'm really starting to wonder if there is a problem with the design/materials used in the tail assembly with the Airbus.

For those who will say that I'm only saying this because it's Airbus, I would be saying the same thing if it was Boeing, and I DID say it when three 737s crashed due to a rudder control valve problem. This is meant as a legitimate question.

www.airdisaster.com...

personally..i love flying i mean its great adn all only when im behind the wheel and i've never been behind the wheel..so ya im not flying..ne wayz..there has to be and end to it..thats y ppl dont fly and that all that stupid congestion in the airport..fix the problem or face the protest

Airbus is airbus, but the 737 Boing had troubles too. But I'd still rather be sitting in the Boing 737 than an Airbus 300 or3XX.

Europe's done good job birthing the bus but boing's got the experience. For now at least I'll not fly Airbus mamuth giant until after the flaws have been corrected. A380 has some test death flights to overcome maybe.

Dallas

IIRC composites are being organised in the same way as metals are.

ie to various 'standards'. (so many sheets of *XYZ* material, with the 'weave' arranged at such and such angles, in such and such a resin/bonding agent, autoclaved for such and such a time at such and such a temp) etc etc.

No doubt these standards are - or are becoming - common across the industry.

I would be very suspicious of the motives behind anyone trying to point fingers at Airbus (particularly as Boeing has had this type of problem too).
Maybe the materials need further examination, then again it might be the operating proceedures or the maintenance.

If it is a design flaw or the material itself then surely one has to wonder how come it is happening so rarely when there is so much of this type of material and construction around and enormously growing numbers of it at that.

(......and IIRC bits falling off of aircraft has always been a problem, regardless of who made the plane.
When I lived in London the local paper - the Standard - regularly had people in it who lived under the Heathrow/Gatwick flight paths with 'lucky escape' type stories as a chunk of 747 flap fell through their roof etc etc)


[edit on 21-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Tsk! There's that damn pesky 'level headed perspective' coming in and spoiling a good dig again

So if I ask a simple question, because of something that has happened recently about an Airbus I'm bashing them? I asked the exact same questions about Boeing when there were three 737 crashes in like a year caused by the same thing. Especially since I FLY 737s all the time.

I guess I have to remember not to question Airbus or say anything bad about them ever again.

Don't take it personally, I can clearly see your original post was balanced. The thing is that around here lately 'Airbus knocking' appears to have the same appeal as clay pigeon shooting.

I'm not rabidly pro Airbus as I hope many of my previous posts have shown, but there seems to be a distinct imabalance on these boards relating to Airbus and Boeing 'fault' threads.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So if I ask a simple question, because of something that has happened recently about an Airbus I'm bashing them?

- Were you bashing Zaphod? I guess only you know if you were.

In any case I'd say it's not a question of saying you are "bashing" I was just making fair and true comments to widen the debate and say it wasn't anything like as simple as "an Airbus problem".

And all I was asking is there is a possible problem with the composite material that Airbus uses. Until the 787 came along, Boeing didn't use composites in the tail sections, and didn't have problems with seperations. I have heard about three in just under four years with Airbus, so was raising a question and asking if anyone knew anything about it. Since Airbus is the only one I know of that uses a composite tail, and only Airbus planes had a problem with the seperation of control surfaces it's an "Airbus problem".

NTSB wrote:

"The Flight 587 crash [Airbus A300-605R (N14053)] on November 12, 2001, was the second deadliest aviation accident in American history. The aircraft's vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, about a mile from the main wreckage site. The engines, which also separated from the aircraft, were found several blocks from the wreckage site. NTSB says pilot's excessive rudder pedal inputs led to the crash.

The plane's vertical stabilizer separated in flight as a result of aerodynamic loads that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs(???)

The investigation tryded to determine why those components - made of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy, a composite material - separated in flight. The Board found that the composite material used in constructing the vertical stabilizer was not a factor in the accident (!!!) because the tail failed well beyond its certificated and design limits. The Safety Board said that, although other pilots provided generally positive comments about the first officer's abilities, two pilots noted incidents that showed that he had a tendency to overreact to wake turbulence encounters. The Safety Board's airplane performance study showed that the high loads that eventually overstressed the vertical stabilizer were solely the result of the pilot's rudder pedal inputs and were not associated with the wake turbulence.

“Had the first officer stopped making inputs at any time before the vertical stabilizer failed, the natural stability of the aircraft would have returned the sideslip angle to near 0 degrees, and the accident would not have happened.”"


What went wrong? The first officer, the pedal, or unknown ENTROPY and decay?

Originally posted by elpasys
NTSB wrote:

The aircraft's vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, about a mile from the main wreckage site. The engines, which also separated from the aircraft, were found several blocks from the wreckage site. NTSB says pilot's excessive rudder pedal inputs led to the crash.

The plane's vertical stabilizer separated in flight as a result of aerodynamic loads that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs(???)

The investigation tryded to determine why those components - made of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy, a composite material - separated in flight. The Board found that the composite material used in constructing the vertical stabilizer was not a factor in the accident (!!!) because the tail failed well beyond its certificated and design limits. The Safety Board said that, although other pilots provided generally positive comments about the first officer's abilities, two pilots noted incidents that showed that he had a tendency to overreact to wake turbulence encounters. The Safety Board's airplane performance study showed that the high loads that eventually overstressed the vertical stabilizer were solely the result of the pilot's rudder pedal inputs and were not associated with the wake turbulence.

“Had the first officer stopped making inputs at any time before the vertical stabilizer failed, the natural stability of the aircraft would have returned the sideslip angle to near 0 degrees, and the accident would not have happened.”"

The main question is not the strength of the materials in the vertical stabilizer. It has been determined that the loads on the stabilizer were many times what was specified in the design. My question is this "Why was the First Officer making such large rudder inputs for? Was it a malfunction in the fly by wire system? Was it lack of experience? Was it poor training? Was he just goofong off? It seems to me once the strength of stabilizer assembly was determined (letting Airbus off of the hook) no one has been interested in what really caused this crash.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.

NTSB Report

There is no information on what may have caused the First Oficer to over controll the aircraft.

First of all "Pilot error" is always the first fault area. It's easier to blame anything and everything on the poor sot in the left seat.
If the pilot's inputs stressed the structures to the point of failure, perhaps the design limits of those structures are not where they should be.

JIMC6599

the A300 doesn`t have a fly by wire system ; and the A300-600 was bult in 1983 (original design)



Thats the cockpit for an A300-600

I have the pictures the NTSB took. It's a perfectly clean break, right at the base of the tail.

Originally posted by Codger
First of all "Pilot error" is always the first fault area. It's easier to blame anything and everything on the poor sot in the left seat.
If the pilot's inputs stressed the structures to the point of failure, perhaps the design limits of those structures are not where they should be.

Pilot error has been the fallback position on every crash since Orville Wright's. The main problem that I have about the pilot error position is that the investigation usually ends there.
According to the NTSB report the distance that the First Officer moved the rudder pedals was less than 4 inched

NTSB Report According to the FDR (Flight Data Recorder), the rudder pedals moved from 1.7 inches right to 1.7 inches left, 1.7 inches right, 2.0 inches right, 2.4 inches left, and 1.3 inches right between 0915:52 and 0915:58.5.

You move the gas pedal on your car further than the movements that these rudder pedals made. I have to ask if the fly by wire control systems on the Airbus are being made to require a more delecate touch than the pilots are capable of making.

In February 1996 the space shuttle Columbia was on a mission as a
spacegenerator - accelerator with a satellite, in searching of the Higgs
Boson. This experimental satellite was tethered to the space shuttle by a
12,8 mile long cable, which was blown apart by an unpredictable excess of
energy. The satellite was lost in space. The end of the tether looked
charred and melted. There was a large electrical discharge along the tether.
What went wrong? What went successful? Was the Higgs
Boson discovered?

The forces developed by "cold plasma" (or entropy) can be thousands of times greater than theory predicts. All electronics was fried. It would seem that this possibility, which owes its origin to a fundamental breach of physical law, was not factored into the design of the experiment. It is no wonder that the cable fused and the mission failed and that is all because the extremely high anomalous "cold plasma" (or entropy) forces know from decades of research have never been properly understood by the scientific community. The failure of a space mission aimed at generating power in space because far more power was produced than was bargained for. It had not been understood that the "false vacuum" which fills that space is ready and willing to shed excess energy once we contrive to develop circuital current flow.

In 1996(!) Aspden H. in "Space Shuttle "Columbia" Encounters Excess Energy. New Energy News". Vol. 3, № 9, March 1996, pp. 1-2.
]http://www.padrak.com/ine/BLOWSNASA.html]
wrote:
"The United States of America should not be sending men into space on
missions aimed at power generation by tapping into plasma fields until
enough research on the anomalous plasma discharge problem has been done in the Earth-based laboratory environment to understand fully this mystery energy source."

On February 1, 2003 the space shuttle Columbia was lost during its re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. What went wrong?
The investigation into what caused the break-up of the space shuttle
supports the theory that a left wing panel broke off during its mission,
possibly playing a role in its demise. The wing fragment where heat spiked
just before the spacecraft disintegrated is made of a sophisticated material
known as reinforced CARBON, that is designed to withstand extreme heat, but not ENTROPY. Corrosion along the wing's front edge might also have played a part. Investigators have narrowed the location where devastating superheated atmospheric gases entered the shuttle during its re-entry to somewhere near the leading edge of the left wing.

The investigators do not know where the breach in the wing was, but they say their probe points to several theories (entropy law or Second aw???) . .

Due to entropy, hiding damage of an airplane or a space shuttle, if not
addressed, may led to multiple site fatigue damage and fatigue cracking and could result in structural failure of the airplane or the space shuttle. The manufacturers of pressurized transport-category airplanes or space shuttles have to include in their structural repair manuals, training programs, and other maintenance guidance, warnings about the possibility of structural failure resulting from hidden damage.

Entropy won?

Howdie,

This is an interesting topic, I have to agree with the other members that there has been some negitive comments lately about airbus and I apologise to say this, but it was mainly bashing, I have to say that this thread was well set out.

Pilot Error: There was a good program a few months ago about this incident, from all accounts, the First Officer had the controls on the climb out and incountered the wake, he increased thrust on both engines and then "agressively" operated the Rudder pedals, rather than the more common and I may add the AIRBUS recommended tactic of inducing a small roll of 2 to 15 degrees into the wake to counter the wake effects on the aircraft. The First Officer, overstrained the rudder with hisaggressive tactics, coupled with the speed (Engines at 90%) and the wake conditions, the Rudder failed. Airbus worked it out that the Rudder failed at 2 and a half times its structure load limits. Quite a Feat.

Sadly it was the lack of training, rather than an airbus problem.

- Phil

The LA Times has an article about another possible problem with the Airbus A380......

A U.S. engineer faces bankruptcy and arrest in Austria as he questions the safety of a component in the huge Airbus A380 jetliner.......

Mangan alleges that flaws in a microprocessor could cause the valves that maintain cabin pressure on the A380 to accidentally open during flight, allowing air to leak out so rapidly that everyone aboard could lose consciousness within seconds.

He has gotten into a world of trouble for bringing this out in the open, as he worked for the European manufacturer and they are not restrained under any whistleblower protection laws.

This is just unbelievable... So much effort being put into destroying this man's life because he is trying to potentially save the lives of others.

I just hope that TTTech and Airbus listen to this man's warnings and correct the problem. I would think that in the long run correcting the error would be a lot cheaper than dealing with a disastrous A380 crash...

JIMC5499


For teh second time , the Airbus A300-6000 DOES NOT HAVE FLY BY WIRE