Pilot error caused 2001 crash
- Thread starter jeskoe
- Start date
crashmbern
Well-Known Member
in my opinion i don't think that is pilot error. if the rudder wasn't meant to go that far then why design it to do so. in an emergency situation how are you going to judge how much rudder to put in. me, i would just jam it to the floor.
I flew with a former flight test pilot (has flown literally EVERYTHING) and he was commenting on pilot error being only one of a group of problems with the crash. The big problem, in his estimation, was Airbus's method of connecting the tail onto the empennage of the aircraft.
From what he told me, and I can't confirm this, but most transport category aircraft have extra strengthening in the tail section that uses some of the rigidity of the fuselage to provide more strength to the structure.
On the Airbus design, there wree more or less three (four?) connecting bolts to the tail section without any additonal strengthening like other jets. Airbus knew it was a problem, but to add the strengthening would have costed an enormous amount of cash. After you restrenghten the tail/empennage section, you've got to completely re-rig and re-certify the aircraft including full flight testing.
That's just what I heard from a former Air Force test pilot and I don't know if it's sourced or just rumor (rumot?
)
And it's always cheaper to blame the pilot than to actually fix a structure on the aircraft. Take a peek at the resulting quagmire after the ATR-72/Roselawn accident.
From what he told me, and I can't confirm this, but most transport category aircraft have extra strengthening in the tail section that uses some of the rigidity of the fuselage to provide more strength to the structure.
On the Airbus design, there wree more or less three (four?) connecting bolts to the tail section without any additonal strengthening like other jets. Airbus knew it was a problem, but to add the strengthening would have costed an enormous amount of cash. After you restrenghten the tail/empennage section, you've got to completely re-rig and re-certify the aircraft including full flight testing.
That's just what I heard from a former Air Force test pilot and I don't know if it's sourced or just rumor (rumot?
And it's always cheaper to blame the pilot than to actually fix a structure on the aircraft. Take a peek at the resulting quagmire after the ATR-72/Roselawn accident.
Tokyo007
Well-Known Member
Hey doug (or any other jet guys) - do you have a limit on how much rudder you can use during flight or were you taught that you could only use so many degrees of rudder at different speeds?
seems like these guys were taking off (wonder if they were below max turbulence speed or in VA or what the deal was) but seems like that situation could have happened to anyone here.. hit turbelunce on take off, pilot reacts using rudder, and plane crashes. (pilot error?)
If I ever get in an Airbus as a FO that would freak me out knowing that I could rip the tail off like that...sounds like poor design and going cheap on airbus.
my 2 cents.
seems like these guys were taking off (wonder if they were below max turbulence speed or in VA or what the deal was) but seems like that situation could have happened to anyone here.. hit turbelunce on take off, pilot reacts using rudder, and plane crashes. (pilot error?)
If I ever get in an Airbus as a FO that would freak me out knowing that I could rip the tail off like that...sounds like poor design and going cheap on airbus.
my 2 cents.
[ QUOTE ]
Hey doug (or any other jet guys) - do you have a limit on how much rudder you can use during flight or were you taught that you could only use so many degrees of rudder at different speeds?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. We do have a rudder load limiter on the -88/90 that limits the amount of travel depending on the speed of the aircraft.
TMI: Acceleration thru 200 knots, the rudder begins to enter a 'high speed' mode where it limits travel. Decelerating thru 180 it goes into 'low speed' mode so you have more rudder authority.
[ QUOTE ]
...seems like these guys were taking off (wonder if they were below max turbulence speed or in VA or what the
[/ QUOTE ]
No yellow or green arc in a jet.
TMI: Tubulence penetration speed, for example, in the MD-88 is 280 KIAS/.770 whichever is lower.
Hey doug (or any other jet guys) - do you have a limit on how much rudder you can use during flight or were you taught that you could only use so many degrees of rudder at different speeds?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. We do have a rudder load limiter on the -88/90 that limits the amount of travel depending on the speed of the aircraft.
TMI: Acceleration thru 200 knots, the rudder begins to enter a 'high speed' mode where it limits travel. Decelerating thru 180 it goes into 'low speed' mode so you have more rudder authority.
[ QUOTE ]
...seems like these guys were taking off (wonder if they were below max turbulence speed or in VA or what the
[/ QUOTE ]
No yellow or green arc in a jet.
TMI: Tubulence penetration speed, for example, in the MD-88 is 280 KIAS/.770 whichever is lower.
Tokyo007
Well-Known Member
wow 280kts sheesh.. i'm sitting in a plane for 4.1 hours from salt lake to boise at 95kts sometimes 55kts ground speed
.. (ok I feel small lol 280??, didn't know that: no color codes in jets)
Well give me boeing any day over airbus.. don't want to turn this into a airbus vs. boeing thread but wow that could have happened to anyone and it took an accident like that to improve training
Matthew
Well give me boeing any day over airbus.. don't want to turn this into a airbus vs. boeing thread but wow that could have happened to anyone and it took an accident like that to improve training
Matthew
BuckTurgidson
New Member
I was having lunch earlier this year with a friend who was a retired American Captain. He retired in the mid 90's.
We started talking about that crash and it turns out that not only did he fly Airbuses, he flew that very plane. And, as a matter of fact, the very last plane he flew for American on his retirement flight was the crash plane.
I asked him what he thought happened and his response startled me. He was absolutely convinced that it was terrorism. He told me what his reasoning was, and that a bunch of his fellow pilots at American thought the same thing. I personally don't feel that it was terrorism (not convinced it was pilot error either), and I think that maybe he was being a bit protective of not only his fellow pilots but, the aircraft that he flew.
He is an interesting guy, and living proof of the importance of a seniority #. He went to the Naval Academy and flew Crusaders (one of my all-time favorites!) and Vigilantes in Viet Nam. He was hired by American but, had to wait a year for his military commitment to end. As a result, he was on the tail end of the Viet Nam era hiring boom. Guys that were hired with him transitioned to the left seat fairly rapidly but, because of the extra year that he had to wait, he ended up as an FE for 10 years!
We started talking about that crash and it turns out that not only did he fly Airbuses, he flew that very plane. And, as a matter of fact, the very last plane he flew for American on his retirement flight was the crash plane.
I asked him what he thought happened and his response startled me. He was absolutely convinced that it was terrorism. He told me what his reasoning was, and that a bunch of his fellow pilots at American thought the same thing. I personally don't feel that it was terrorism (not convinced it was pilot error either), and I think that maybe he was being a bit protective of not only his fellow pilots but, the aircraft that he flew.
He is an interesting guy, and living proof of the importance of a seniority #. He went to the Naval Academy and flew Crusaders (one of my all-time favorites!) and Vigilantes in Viet Nam. He was hired by American but, had to wait a year for his military commitment to end. As a result, he was on the tail end of the Viet Nam era hiring boom. Guys that were hired with him transitioned to the left seat fairly rapidly but, because of the extra year that he had to wait, he ended up as an FE for 10 years!
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
This was NOT pilot error. The pilot did as American trained him to do. American and Airbus can have a battle royale over how they are going to share the blame, but it's B.S. to pin this on the FO.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
This was NOT pilot error. The pilot did as American trained him to do. American and Airbus can have a battle royale over how they are going to share the blame, but it's B.S. to pin this on the FO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Amen!!
This was Airplane Design Induced Pilot Error.
There were several articles in Flying and other magazines.
Basicly Airbus met the letter of the law in designing the rudder on this airplane, but missed the intent.
The airplane hit some wake turblence and the FO steped on the rudder to compensate, just like he was trained (and you or I would have done). In doing this the rudder snapped over so quickly that the air stream ripped it off.
Being below Va didn't protect the airframe like everybody thought it did. The regulations did not require that any movement of the controls withstand full deflection below Va, just the wing and elevator. Alerions and the rudder don't have to be as strong.
Whats really sad is that Airbus built a plane with a fragile rudder which failed and killed a bunch of people, and now they are blaming the pilot.
This was NOT pilot error. The pilot did as American trained him to do. American and Airbus can have a battle royale over how they are going to share the blame, but it's B.S. to pin this on the FO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Amen!!
This was Airplane Design Induced Pilot Error.
There were several articles in Flying and other magazines.
Basicly Airbus met the letter of the law in designing the rudder on this airplane, but missed the intent.
The airplane hit some wake turblence and the FO steped on the rudder to compensate, just like he was trained (and you or I would have done). In doing this the rudder snapped over so quickly that the air stream ripped it off.
Being below Va didn't protect the airframe like everybody thought it did. The regulations did not require that any movement of the controls withstand full deflection below Va, just the wing and elevator. Alerions and the rudder don't have to be as strong.
Whats really sad is that Airbus built a plane with a fragile rudder which failed and killed a bunch of people, and now they are blaming the pilot.
I_WANNA_BE_ATP
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
This was NOT pilot error. The pilot did as American trained him to do. American and Airbus can have a battle royale over how they are going to share the blame, but it's B.S. to pin this on the FO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, AA nor Airbus will never admit they did something wrong. Their pocketbooks may be deep but not that deep. It's a shame when a compentant pilot is blamed for a design failure. Saves the airline and manufacturer from lots of lawsuits.
This was NOT pilot error. The pilot did as American trained him to do. American and Airbus can have a battle royale over how they are going to share the blame, but it's B.S. to pin this on the FO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, AA nor Airbus will never admit they did something wrong. Their pocketbooks may be deep but not that deep. It's a shame when a compentant pilot is blamed for a design failure. Saves the airline and manufacturer from lots of lawsuits.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey doug (or any other jet guys) - do you have a limit on how much rudder you can use during flight or were you taught that you could only use so many degrees of rudder at different speeds?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. We do have a rudder load limiter on the -88/90 that limits the amount of travel depending on the speed of the aircraft.
TMI: Acceleration thru 200 knots, the rudder begins to enter a 'high speed' mode where it limits travel. Decelerating thru 180 it goes into 'low speed' mode so you have more rudder authority.
[/ QUOTE ]
This wasn't part of the airbus rudder design, and that's why it ripped off.
[ QUOTE ]
Hey doug (or any other jet guys) - do you have a limit on how much rudder you can use during flight or were you taught that you could only use so many degrees of rudder at different speeds?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. We do have a rudder load limiter on the -88/90 that limits the amount of travel depending on the speed of the aircraft.
TMI: Acceleration thru 200 knots, the rudder begins to enter a 'high speed' mode where it limits travel. Decelerating thru 180 it goes into 'low speed' mode so you have more rudder authority.
[/ QUOTE ]
This wasn't part of the airbus rudder design, and that's why it ripped off.
Minnesota_Flyer
New Member
I'm sure I read somewhere that the FO did not use full rudder deflection. How much less, I don't know. In any case, how does Airbus get away with designing a plane where it is that easy to tear the rudder completely off the airplane??
Now MNFlyer, you know the answer to that question!
MONEY
Once a manfacturer and operator find a potential design flaw, it's customary to compare the costs of retrofitting the entire fleet to the potential costs of litigation if that design flaw causes death.
From an actuarial viewpoint, one Airbus A-300 crash is going to cost American and Airbus a lot less than it would have costed to retrofit the entire A-300 fleet with a strengthened tail section.
Remember the resistance to look into the 737 rudder actuator problems until rudder 'hard over' events started to increase?
MONEY
Once a manfacturer and operator find a potential design flaw, it's customary to compare the costs of retrofitting the entire fleet to the potential costs of litigation if that design flaw causes death.
From an actuarial viewpoint, one Airbus A-300 crash is going to cost American and Airbus a lot less than it would have costed to retrofit the entire A-300 fleet with a strengthened tail section.
Remember the resistance to look into the 737 rudder actuator problems until rudder 'hard over' events started to increase?
The involved aircraft in this accident also had experienced a 'tail tip' before delivery at the factory in Tolouse. It had been stood on it's tail, how & why I don't know. There's probably pictures at anet, I'm too lazy to search. Who knows what invisible damage that may have caused to the tail/rudder.
I'm very hesitant to blame the pilots. But they are the easy ones to blame, they're dead and can't defend themselves.
I'm very hesitant to blame the pilots. But they are the easy ones to blame, they're dead and can't defend themselves.