Boeing plans 787 increase

Mikeultra
I found this info on Wikipedia. It says American Airlines retired all their Airbus A300-600 aircraft 8 years after the tragic flight 587 crash. I wonder if American airlines is purchasing the Boeing 787, being it is plastic?

IT ISN'T PLASTIC! Good lord....never mind. Enjoy what you believe but I do have to ask; why to you engage in conversations such as these when presented with evidence that it isn't "plastic" and then curl up in your own belief that it is because the evidence and facts go against what ever nonsense you believe in?!

Good day and enjoy your convoluted understanding of the world.

luxordelphi
Unbelievable. So you're telling this person that if the rudder falls off, the engines will too? My question is legit because I didn't know about the engine falling till the other poster said it. Is it like "hip bone connected to the thigh bone"? or...are you saying there was a vortex? Please explain.

How is that unbelievable? The stress applied to the engine mounts is tested for "normal" flight; take-off, level flight, and landing; not abnormal flight such as an aircraft losing a vertical stabilizer (the tail fin) and going into a flat-spin.

They may or may not come off in the event that an aircraft loses its complete vertical stabilizer, but it isn't a stretch that the mounts would fail under such stress.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Do you even begin to understand the different parts of an aircraft? I didn't think so. Maybe you should at least bother to learn the parts of a plane before trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Is this a proper way to address someone who has stated that they rely on your aircraft expertise? I'm thinking no. Also, after our recent excursion down your flower strewn path, it has become necessary for me to check your work. To that end, speaking to the tail falling off:

Pilots Ask for Airbus A300 Grounding

Dozens of American Airlines pilots want the company to ground its fleet of Airbus A300 jets until investigators determine why Flight 587 crashed in New York City last November.

The pilots say there is no way adequately to inspect the European-made planes' tails, which are made of a nonmetallic composite material.

The FAA has not ordered American to stop flying the planes. Airbus Industrie, the plane's French-based manufacturer, said there is no need to look for hidden damage because tests have shown that any problems that cannot be seen are not severe enough to weaken the tail.

NTSB investigators reported this month that layers of the tail had peeled away. They said they did not know whether the problem contributed to the crash or occurred after the tail hit the ground.

What bothers some American pilots is that there may have been some damage that visual inspections didn't find. There are no procedures for using ultrasound or another method to look inside the composite material of the tail section.

The whole story here at that link is absolutely fascinating but what is more fascinating is that no effort was made to hang this rudder to this tail to this engine to this composite. These pilots were wined and dined and made to see reason.

The dead pilot was blamed and end of story.

Fast forward to more rudders falling off and, of course, now, the fuselage panel.

Anyway...I have to see if I can verify this vortex situation with the tail falling off and, therefore, the engine, for myself.

Or I could just end here with concurrent causation.

One car hits another car which is then pushed into another car which pushes that car into another car etc. etc. etc. which causes another car to swerve to avoid that car which then crashes into yet another car.

Where's the beginning? I'll give you a hint: it's before the pilots were wined and dined.

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Unbelievable. You look at a problem that had happened on every plane ever built in modern times, and instead of looking at the most common cause, you leap straight to the most complex and least likely reason.

I'm not sure which statement of mine you're referring to but, yes, I've been accused of this before. Fortunately, in the end, I prevailed and, surprise, surprise, it turned out to be a stranger than fiction solution.

Still...are you just humoring me now? Because I think, in my own mind, that I've made a pretty good case for advanced composite catastrophic failure.

Also, I've made every attempt to take the complexity out of the reason. (Not even mentioning my attempt to place litigation where it belongs.)

reply to post by luxordelphi


You acknowledge that you have no experience, and then sit there and basically act like an expert going on about things you don't know about. So yes, I'm going to respond like that to someone that says that, and acts like that.

As for the tail delamination, delamination would have no relation to the tail separating. The tail separated due to the bolt holes (which were made out of aluminum, not composites) failing, due to stress applied to the tail.

The airflow coming off the JAL 747 ahead of them was swirling around in a circular fashion, as it does when it comes off the wings. That hit the tail, going sideways, which put lateral pressure on the tail. The tail could handle this pressure normally. However, when you add the rudder slamming back and forth (which by the way, if you look at the flight data recorder information you will clearly see it happening), then it adds MORE pressure to the vertical fin. This eventually reached the point where the aluminum (not composite) frame that holds the tail in place (all two bolts), could no longer handle the pressure. It failed, and sheared. There was still lateral pressure on the tail, from both the rudder movement, and the wake turbulence, so the tail was pushed sideways off the airframe.


www.ntsb.gov...

Look at Figure 1. It clearly shows the rudder slamming back and forth, as well as the pedal positions going much farther than necessary.

reply to post by luxordelphi


So instead of going for the simple, and obvious solution (you know, the evidence pointing to bolts not being fastened), you think you're right and that it's advanced composite failure.

So, every other plane that had panels fall off, and didn't use composites was what, aluminum failure? Since this one uses composites, it HAS to be composite failure?

You won't be right this time. It was simple maintenance error. It happens. It will happen again.

You've done a great job of convincing yourself. But the simple fact of the matter is, there are currently 100 aircraft, flying 200 flights a day, and this is the only one that has had any kind of panel failure. They have flown hundreds of flight prior to this, with no composite failure.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

How exactly did he get hits shoe into the tail? The ONLY debris found away from the main crash location were related to the engines, and the tail. The tail was found farthest from the impact location, which means it came off first, then the engines.

There was no fuselage debris prior to impact, which means the tail separated cleanly, not as the result of an in fuselage explosion. There was no pitting of the fracture points, which means no bomb. The fracture points were cleanly broken, which means no bomb.

And I saw the internal NTSB pictures of the tail as it was recovered. It was not a bomb.

I recall that there was luggage recovered from the water also. Also there is an FBI video of terrorists in Afghanistan promising follow-up attacks after 911. One of them Abderraouf Jdey is believed to have blown up flight 587. From Wikipedia: "American authorities allege that he "may" have trained at Mes Aynak alongside hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in Afghanistan, before being assigned to a second wave of attacks. A letter written by Saif al-Adl, and later found by American forces, suggested that Jdey may have originally been slated to have participated in the original September 11 attacks."

"Jdey returned to Montreal, Canada in early 2001. Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, while being harshly interrogated, said that Jdey then backed out of the plan.[12] According to a 2010 Harvard report on al Qaeda by a former CIA officer, Jdey was detained in summer 2001 together with Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui was carrying textbooks on cropdusting; Jdey was carrying textbooks on biology. Jdey was evidently subsequently released.[13] In November 2001 he left Canada, several months after obtaining a replacement passport for one he'd received two years earlier which he claimed to have lost.[6] He was believed to be bound for Europe."

"Less than three months after the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in Queens, New York, rumors were already suggesting that it had been destroyed by an unknown terrorist with a shoe bomb similar to the one found on Richard Reid.[14]"

"Four months later, Mohammed Mansour Jabarah agreed to cooperate with American authorities in exchange for a reduced sentence. A known colleague of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, he stated that Mohamed's lieutenant had told him that Reid and Jdey had both been enlisted by the al-Qaeda chief to carry out identical plots as part of a "second wave" of attacks against the United States."

"On January 14, 2002, a series of five videocassetes were recovered from the rubble of the destroyed home of Mohammad Atef outside of Kabul, Afghanistan. The tapes showed Jdey, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Muhammad Sa'id Ali Hasan, Abd Al-Rahim, and Khalid Ibn Muhammad Al-Juhani vowing to die as martyrs. It was the first time authorities had reason to suspect him of any wrongdoing.[19] NBC News said the videos had been recorded after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."
en.wikipedia.org...

The FBI has never released the tapes showing Jdey and others threatening follow-up attacks. Perhaps an Airbus aircraft was selected as a target for a certain U.S. interest, as it is well known who AL cia DA really is. So the official story was put forth that Airbus had a faulty rudder system and the crew was too rough with the pedals.

Setting the table for the 787 to come forth. This might seem unbelievable, but these days anything is possible.

A still photo from Jdey's video message. His and bin al-Shibh's videos were never released.

A composite image created by the FBI to show how Jdey may try to disguise himself.
In April, 2005, the U.S. State Department Rewards for Justice Program offered a reward of up to US $5 million for information leading to the capture of Jdey, even though he has not been indicted.

I don't accept the official account of what happened to flight 587. It doesn't pass the smell test. Less than an hour after the crash it's declared not to be terrorism. The fires were still raging! Impossible to know that so soon. Aircraft crash investigations take much longer if they're legitimate.

Composites are fine in a canoe, not passenger aircraft. Boeing may regret it, airlines may regret it, and ultimately the passengers like those in flight 587.

reply to post by Mikeultra


The fact that the tail was the only debris recovered from the water, says right away this wasn't terrorism. The fact that there is no way a bomb was placed in the tail says this wasn't terrorism. The fact that there wasn't a massive trail of debris, and the tail was the only thing that separated into the bay, says this wasn't terrorism. There are a dozen things that say it wasn't terrorism, but you, who admit that you don't know much about planes, read a Wiki article, and suddenly know for certain that it was?

reply to post by Zaphod58


reply to post by luxordelphi
]


Both of you seem confused.

The vertical stabilizer in AA587 sheared when it was subjected to approximately twice the limit load which is also far above ultimate load. Therefore the vertical stabilizer itself performed better than certification requirements. This accident therefore has nothing to do with the performance of composite materials.

The certification requirement did not consider certain loads such as a full rudder movement in one direction followed by a movement in the opposite direction. Which is what occurred in AA 587.

The rudder control system on the A300 is also not FBW. It is mechanical. The autopilot system which of course interfaces with the system has a computer, as does the rudder travel limiter (which reduces maximum rudder deflection with speed). This accident therefore has nothing to do with FBW systems.

Also yes, believe it or not it is possible to overstress aircraft with massive control inputs, particularly when an oscillation is induced. Actually a proper FBW system likely could have prevented such a disaster by limiting the first derivative of beta as well as the maximum value of beta itself. Had the system been FBW it is likely such a system could be implemented with merely a software change with no mechanical or electrical redesign necessary!

Given how advanced the computer systems are in the 787 and other aircraft, I would be extremely surprised if such a system has not been already implemented.


I think it's time to be honest here - no matter what you seem to think anything and everything is either a FBW or composite problem - even if it isn't.

reply to post by luxordelphi

The whole story here at that link is absolutely fascinating but what is more fascinating is that no effort was made to hang this rudder to this tail to this engine to this composite. These pilots were wined and dined and made to see reason.

None of this is relevant as it has been shown that the vertical stabiliser separated at well above ultimate load. Therefore the concerns about composites in the A300 were merely early concerns which were later shown to be false - there are no sources which state that the failure was caused by composites behaving improperly.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well I'm not 100% certain, but when the "authorities" make a declaration in less than an hour that it's NOT terrorism, I am naturally skeptical. Here is what an aircraft mechanic with American Airlines has to say;

"I am an a/c mechanic at JFK with American Airlines. And the real reason the 587 went down is the A300 is a piece of junk. The composite stabilizer is under engineered. The stabilizer should have been designed to withstand any inputs to the rudder the flight crew could apply. Another example is the inferior insulation on the wiring in the a/c. The wiring has thinner insulation to save weight . It also has short wings which makes it harder to get to cruising altitude with a large load of fuel. It takes more hours to maintain than a Boeing 767.Boeing makes a better product than Airbus. Now Airbus is making the A-380, the largest commercial airliner. When one of those goes down it will kill 500+." September 8, 2006 at 15:58
www.danielpipes.org...

I agree with him, Airbus should have designed the rudder to take any abuse the pilot should give it. Not just snap off like a hunk of foam sponge.

reply to post by C0bzz


The entire vertical fin sheared, not just the rudder. If it had just been the rudder, they wouldn't have crashed in the first place.

As for the rest, I stand by what I have posted. I may be wrong on the fine details, but I know the accident report, as we knew one of the investigators. I also know the Airbus rudder system, because of this accident.

Zaphod58: Fixed.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Of course someone working with American Airlines is going to blame Airbus! It's well known that AA will deflect blame to Airbus (and vice versa)!

Of course the 767 is going to be easier to maintain than the A300. It's a decade newer.

As shown earlier this has nothing to do with composites. It performed much better than ultimate load.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Except that it didn't as you put it "snap off like a foam sponge". It was under great pressure, not just from the rudder inputs, but from the wake turbulence of the plane ahead of it. Even if the wake turbulence wasn't strong enough to really push the plane around, it was adding stress to the tail. That combined with the rudder inputs creating more stress, was more than the tail could handle. If it was rudder inputs alone, or wake turbulence alone, they would have been fine. Combined, it was too much for the tail to handle, and it failed.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well then explain why B-52's with their entire tail blown off from a SAM were able to fly back to base. Airbus shouldn't build aircraft that can't handle wake turbulence without falling apart. There were other Airbus aircraft that had pieces falling off left and right. I think it's due to their multiple-country assembly method. The Germans make the wings, the French make the seats, the British make the engines, etc. Too many chefs in the kitchen.

reply to post by Mikeultra

Well then explain why B-52's with their entire tail blown off from a SAM were able to fly back to base.

This is just so highly ironic!

On 22 November 2003, shortly after takeoff from Baghdad, Iraq, an Airbus A300B4-200F cargo plane owned by European Air Transport (doing business as DHL Express) was struck on the left wing tip by a surface-to-air missile. Severe wing damage resulted in a fire and complete loss of hydraulic flight control systems. Because outboard left wing fuel tank 1A was full at takeoff, there was no fuel-air vapour explosion. Liquid jet fuel dropped away as 1A disintegrated. Inboard fuel tank 1 was pierced and leaking.[1]

Returning to Baghdad, the three-man crew made an injury-free landing of the crippled aircraft, using differential engine thrust as the only pilot input. This is despite major damage to a wing, total loss of hydraulic control, a faster than safe landing speed and a ground path which veered off the runway surface and onto unprepared ground.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

A300 returned to the airport after being hit by a SAM and having its wing mangled.

I think it's due to their multiple-country assembly method. The Germans make the wings, the French make the seats, the British make the engines, etc.

You realise that huge portions of the 787 are made overseas right? Parts come from Europe, Australia, and in particular, Japan.

I'm assuming you are american?

reply to post by Mikeultra


The only B-52 that lost its tail fin, and landed, was on a test flight in the US, being flown by an engineering crew. And they didn't lose the entire tail, they still had several feet of the leading edge.

B-52 w/o tail

If there's one aircraft I know, and know well it's the B-52. There were several that lost the vertical fin, due to them going low level, due to the SAM threat, without beefing up the tail structure. Of all of them that did, this is the only one to land. All the rest crashed. And this one only landed, because they kept the leading edge, and it was an engineering crew that was highly experienced, and knew the aircraft better than your average crew.

reply to post by C0bzz

Hi there, that's an interesting and a lucky outcome for them. I'm not bashing Airbus simply because I'm an American, I just think with all the parts from different countries there's more chance of snafus. I don't like the Boeing 787 either because of this composite/plastic construction. No, I wasn't aware the 787 is made from all over the world too. Sorry if I sounded like a snobby American. I just don't like the composite aircraft is all. Consider the following opinion from this guy;

"Airbus has been the first Manufacturer to use Composites for Structurally Significant aircraft parts (Meaning parts which transfer significant amounts of flight loads in high stress areas) . The entire vertical stabilizer of flight 587 which can experience high stress at certain times during flight is made of Composites. This is a revolution in Aerospace engineering terms.

However the new composite "structural" materials such as Kevlar and Carbon Fibre of which flight 587's Vertical Stabilizer or "Tail Section" is made of has gone through 1000's of hrs of similar DestruciveTesting by engineers as the A/C materials (Aluminum) of the past 60 yrs. However we will not be able to benefit from the real world data collected over the past 60 yrs or so. So we are back to square one in those terms. There will be some instances of "trial and error" with the new age A/C materials. The new data will be at the expense of many lives for the next 60 or so yrs.

So in summary there has been a cover up of sorts, an engineering cover up, a proprietary cover up by a major A/C Co. in which billions and billions of dollars are at risk. In my opinion all Airbus products should be grounded, the entire world fleet with their composite Tails until engineers find out why this material failed during flight. But instead the FAA blames the pilots as pilot error and has issued a Airworthiness Directive to all pilots flying Airbus Equipment not to use hard rudder during wake turbulence.As a result of this finding many pilots are opting to not fly Airbus but prefer to fly Boeing aircraft instead." thanks Steve R.

From this link here about flight 587
www.danielpipes.org...

reply to post by Zaphod58


I think I saw a different photo of a B-52 with no tail, I'll try to find it. No never mind, that was the photo. I was mixed up with a B-17 maybe from way back. The point is, aluminum is better for aircraft in my opinion.

reply to post by Mikeultra


There hasn't been a single failure of composites leading to an accident, or even near accident to date. Yes, there were some delaminations, and other problems, but the crash of 587 had nothing to do with composites.

I've seen extremely detailed pictures of the tail. It's quite clear that the aluminum that was holding the tail onto the aft fuselage failed. Not the composites.

reply to post by Mikeultra


There are several pictures of a B-52 with no tail, but they're all of this aircraft.