Originally posted by DCFusion
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...

I have issues with your comment.

I do not wish to insult the memory of this professional, for that is what he was, any pilot that has the skill to progress to Airline standards, are a breed of professional fliers, they counter the risks with their knowledge, training and experience.

I apologise, but I hold firm on my view. The First Officer was at fault, if he had read up on the STAOPS of the Airbus in question when incountering wake from another aircraft, a bank is the prefered procedure to counter the effects, he either didn't know this because he wasn't trained or he simply forgot. The pilot ended up with "Pilot Induced Occoslations" the tail broke away after having exceeded Over 2! times its required stress limits. You can't fault the aircraft for some thing the pilot did, it would be like saying its the cars fault that it came apart as it hit a tree, not the drivers, who was doing the steering.

I do not take pleasure in blaming a dead man, but it must be identified so it doesn't happen again.

- Phil

My apologies, GooseUK, it appears as though I should have quoted the post preceding mine, as I was referring to the technology professional who 'blew the whistle' on TTTech in regards to their possibly providing flawed computer chips to AirBus.

EDIT: Correct Spelling

[edit on 9/27/2005 by DCFusion]

May 5, 2005
NTSB wrote:

The National Transportation Safety Board continues to assist the Transportation Safety Board of Canada as it investigates an accident that occurred March 6, 2005, when an Air Transat Airbus A310-308 (C-GPAT) lost most of its rudder in-flight while en-route from Cuba to Quebec City, Canada.

Based on information released by the TSB, NTSB investigators have noted significant differences between the circumstances of the Air Transat accident and two previous accidents investigated by the NTSB that also involved structural damage to composite components on Airbus aircraft.

On November 12, 2001, American Airlines flight 587, an A300-605R (N14053), crashed shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, killing all 260 persons aboard and 5 persons on the ground. The NTSB found that the vertical stabilizer separated from the aircraft in flight after experiencing aerodynamic loads beyond the plane's design strength following the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. On May 12, 1997, American Airlines flight 903, an A300-600 (N90070), experienced an in-flight loss of control near West Palm Beach, Florida. The aircraft landed safely. During the recovery of the aircraft, the significant rudder pedal inputs led to aerodynamic loads that caused damage to the vertical stabilizer. The damage was not discovered until an ultrasonic examination of the stabilizer following the crash of flight 587.

In both of those cases, significant rudder inputs by pilots played a major role in producing the aerodynamic loads on the vertical stabilizer. Preliminary indications from the Air Transat event data show that the pilots were not manipulating the rudder before the events leading up to the loss of the rudder.

Furthermore, NTSB investigators note that in the flight 903 accident the rudder remained attached to the vertical fin and no significant damage was found on the rudder after the event. In the case of the flight 587 accident, the data indicate that the rudder remained intact and attached to the vertical fin until the fin separated from the airplane.

The NTSB will continue to participate and assist the TSB of Canada's investigation into the reason for the loss of the Air Transat rudder, and will continue to compare data from the earlier accidents to determine whether there are any similarities between all three events (beyond the fact that all three aircraft experienced damage to rear lugs of the vertical stabilizer).

[edit on 28-9-2005 by elpasys]

Anyone that wants pics from the AA flight of the rudder after it detached send me a u2u and I'll pass them on to you. These are the NTSB pics of it after they found it and recovered it.

Scarebus mad it so full rudder deflection is not allowed in the flight manual, therefore making this pilot error. When recovering from a spin, how do you recover with anything beside full rudder deflection??? Just because airbus is a huge company, they are basically given a free ride from accidents, even though their design is lousy. There are lots and lots of airpane mechanics that don't trust airbus as far as they could push the A380.

Originally posted by mxboy15u
Scarebus mad it so full rudder deflection is not allowed in the flight manual, therefore making this pilot error. When recovering from a spin, how do you recover with anything beside full rudder deflection??? Just because airbus is a huge company, they are basically given a free ride from accidents, even though their design is lousy. There are lots and lots of airpane mechanics that don't trust airbus as far as they could push the A380.

Interesting,

I suppose, I could sit here and tell you that Boeing, while being the most common passenger aircraft producer is some times refered to as the "Soviet" Make of aircraft, their earlier aircraft more, than the newer 777 etc.

Why the soviet make? Basically the BA engineers and quite a few other airlines would have to send away for replacement parts on a DAILY basis, due to the fact that the Boeings were literely falling part on the passenger runs, parts of flaps coming apart on approach, gear doors falling off, alieron strips jamming into place, nacelle cracks etc etc etc, the list goes on and on, these aren't teething problems either, these are brand new aircraft just off the construction line, late models and all.

I would be VERY careful of making such agressive comments about Airbus in terms of its aircraft as they have a better reputation than some other producers. Sadly, it appears its another case of American berating of a European product, ::shrugs:: Its sad that people must drop to a level that they question and degrade the reputation of a fine producer.

Note: Boeing have "lost" alot more aircraft per range than airbus has EVER lost. Also, Airbus holds the record for the longest glide in a passenger aircraft after the engines ran out of fuel, nearly 40 or 50 miles and STILL put down in one piece. Ask that of a 747 and see the outcome. Being the oldest on the block does not mean the best.

Edit: As for Rudder Deflection, ALOT of manufactors state limits on maximum rudder deflection for a given speed, profile and thrust levels. I have seen some reference material that points to a limit of 7/10 Degrees deflection when a 747 is on the "climb out" profile.

RESPECT is important.
- Phil

[edit on 28-9-2005 by gooseuk]

does anyone know then what the prosedure is then for spin recovery if you can't deflect the rudder fully or enough?

Originally posted by Canada_EH
does anyone know then what the prosedure is then for spin recovery if you can't deflect the rudder fully or enough?

Yeah,

You don't get into the situation from the start! Airliners just aren't designed with those loads in mind, if the aircraft some how managed to get into that situation, you may as well discover religion.

The good thing for passengers is that passenger aircraft are designed with preventing spins in mind, with vertical fins larger than they really aerodynamically are needed to be. BUT I have to say that prevention is key, its rare/unheard of for a passenger plane to go into a spin.

- Phil

Is spinning part of testing an airframe though for something like a airliner. I do understand perfention is key though.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Is spinning part of testing an airframe though for something like a airliner. I do understand perfention is key though.

I remember seeing something about a 727 tearing itelf apart when it got into a spin , and hitting the sea , in pieces at terminal velocity.


Airliners are NOT designed to the thrown around like fighters.

Really, we have no choice at all what kind of planes we fly on commercial, so why even bother.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by mxboy15u]

Originally posted by mxboy15u
Really, we have no choice at all what kind of planes we fly on commercial, so why even bother.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by mxboy15u]

bother what? worry about it and raise awarness about it, like say a possible issue that could effect other people that fly etc. Sorry man but if you dont care enough to even think about it thats your problem some people want to figure stuff out and its their right to. till then just bit your tongue when all you have to say is crap.
I dont have huge convictions about this issue but some people do, people that fly 10 times more then I do.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Canada_EH]