Pilot error caused 2001 crash

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree with that. I think the rudder inputs this pilot made were far in excess of what the typical pilot would do. In fact I don't think most transport pilots would have made any rudder inputs. The testimony that impressed me was from one of his former captains who said that on a 727 this f/o started stomping on the rudder during a wake turbulence encounter, so much so that the captain thought they had lost an engine. He said he talked to the f/o about it and the f/o said he had learned it in American training as a method to use during "upsets".

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with this. The news that a couple of full inputs to the rudder was enough to separate the tail was sobering. However, again, I think the reason it hasn't been an issue before was that almost no pilots would ever make a series of stop to stop inputs like that.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are issues with the Airbus design and they got off light on this. But I was also surprised when ALPA safety people told me that according to their calculations, the same rudder inputs on a 767 would separate the vertical fin on it as well. So......?
 
Im not saying that I know the answer, but what makes all of you think that you know more than the NTSB, that determined that it as the fault of the FO? I would like to think that our government wouldn't put lives at risk just because it was cheap.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Im not saying that I know the answer, but what makes all of you think that you know more than the NTSB, that determined that it as the fault of the FO? I would like to think that our government wouldn't put lives at risk just because it was cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I worked for the company involved, and saw a picture of an A-300 standing on it's tail at the factory with a caption that this was the involved aircraft. Not that may or may not have had anything to do with it, but it could have been a factor.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to think that our government wouldn't put lives at risk just because it was cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMFAO...aw, man...thanks for the laugh!!

I'd like to think that, too....but come on. You have to be realistic.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to think that our government wouldn't put lives at risk just because it was cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, I shouldn't have read this while I was drinking iced tea!

Yes! We are that cheap as a society.

Auger a plane in, no one wants to fly your airline. But if that same airline puts on a fare sale, batten down the hatches matey, thar's passengers a comin'!
 
The A300 has a rudder limiter, but its kind of wacky in that it limits the travel of the rudder pedals instead of maintaining full pedal deflection and scaling the control surface response to be appropriate for the airspeed (meaning a given pedal deflection should always cause the same control surface deflection, just over a smaller range of deflections at higher speeds).

The trouble with this is that it is easy to swing from the limiting load in one direction to the opposite because there's a smaller range of travel to "finesse" the pedals.

Personally, I think its bogus to pin this only on "pilot error." Yes, we're all taught about when abrupt and extreme control deflections are inappropriate, but I don't think it really is only pilot error when there has been no instruction on how this aircraft is exceptional to everything they've flown before and the design of the control system makes extreme commands relatively easy compared to other implementations of rudder limiters.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think its bogus to pin this only on "pilot error." Yes, we're all taught about when abrupt and extreme control deflections are inappropriate, but I don't think it really is only pilot error when there has been no instruction on how this aircraft is exceptional to everything they've flown before and the design of the control system makes extreme commands relatively easy compared to other implementations of rudder limiters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that pretty much sums up how I view this accidnet.

Although bashing Airbus strictly because of this on incident isn't fair either. AA should have trained their pilots to watch out for the sensitive rudder.

A combination of unclear government regualtions, aircraft design, faulty training, and pilot error caused this one.



Now if all the parties at fault will work together to make air travel safer.


NOT!
rolleyes.gif
insane.gif
 
I just remember the sickening applause during an industry business luncheon that was reported when the ATR-72 accident was blamed on pilot error.

Eww!
 
Ugg ... just can't say how much this "finding" p*sses me off.

Pilots dead and smeared across the pavement in tiny little chunks? Well let's balme it on him cuz he can't say anything about it and the airline and manufacturer get off with out "bad PR."

And yes .. our society is that •ed up.
banghead.gif
 
There were several factors which contributed to this crash which were/are not clearly understood by many pilots:
1. Many pilots do not understand the true definition of Va.
2. Most do not understand how Transport category aircraft (or any aircraft) are certified.
3. How powered controls may have contributed to this crash.

It is common to hear pilots say that Va is the speed below which you can use maximum control deflection and not hurt the aircraft. THIS IS NOT TRUE. As USMC noted, it only deals with the positive limit load factor. If you are below Va and do a normal steep turn or 'pull up' you will not hurt the aircraft. If you try to do the same thing while cranking in bank you can cause the wings to come off. You can also damage the tail below Va.

On jet transports the tail has to be able to withstand a full rudder deflection and then having the rudder centered. If you put in full rudder deflection, followed by full opposite rudder, you are outside the design limits and can cause structural damage.

Even the airlines training department was apparently unaware of this. As others have noted, the airlines own upset recovery training which emphasized the use of rudder may have contributed to this accident.

The sad thing is how aircraft manuals used to include this information. The 'CEO of the Cockpit' Kevin Garrison has noted that now in the modern era when every Sultan's son has to be able to pass an equipment oral, that much has been omitted from the newer aircraft manuals. I agree that we should not be asked how thick the aluminum is on the wing or how many holes are in the airbrake on checkrides, but I think that there is a happy medium.

Powered controls may also be somewhat at fault. We are used to flying smaller aircraft with cable or pushrod actuated controls. These give very good feedback to the pilot. As aircraft became larger and faster, it became evident that the pilot was not always strong enough to control the aircraft. Flight at higher mach numbers also causes problems and non-reversable controls were needed. Powered controls are now used on many large aircraft, especially on the tail. The problem is the lack of feel in some of these systems and the high 'breakout' force sometimes required to move the rudder.

On many aircraft with a powered rudder, it may be necessary to apply something like 30 lbs of force to move the pedal by overcoming spring tension. Then maybe only another 10 lbs is required to move the rudder to full deflection. This is not ideal in any situatuation but in an emergency this can cause real problems. When people are threatened they tend to loose fine motor control and it would be easy with a system like this to overcontrol the aircraft.

Even though the A300 had a system to limit rudder travel at higher airspeeds, this system was not required to insure that the tail could not be overstressed under any situtation.

The design of the aircraft, whether prior damage was improperly repaired, and the need to devise reliable ways to inspect composite structures are all beyond the scope of this discussion, but may have also been contributing factors.

I am not always pro union, but this is one of the many situations where they will probably do some good. Often in situations like this when everyone wants to blame the dead pilots, the union is the only group that has the clout to make sure the real reasons for an accident are discovered. I wish them well.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to think that our government wouldn't put lives at risk just because it was cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the government does a cost benefit analysis. And if they find that it would cost more than x dollars per life saved to implement something, they let it go.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It is common to hear pilots say that Va is the speed below which you can use maximum control deflection and not hurt the aircraft. THIS IS NOT TRUE. As USMC noted, it only deals with the positive limit load factor. If you are below Va and do a normal steep turn or 'pull up' you will not hurt the aircraft. If you try to do the same thing while cranking in bank you can cause the wings to come off. You can also damage the tail below Va.

[/ QUOTE ]


Honestly, the only reason I know this is because of this crash and it's aftermath (I imagine many other pilots too).
 
[ QUOTE ]
Im not saying that I know the answer, but what makes all of you think that you know more than the NTSB, that determined that it as the fault of the FO? I would like to think that our government wouldn't put lives at risk just because it was cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely a little naive. "Our government" is not your friend or worthy of so much trust. For me I started realizing the NTSB was a political body after the investigation of the Air Florida crash into the Potomac. Since then there have been worse examples.

Bottom line, if you are a pilot and some people get killed on your flight you will likely get all or part of the blame, except for obvious cases like terrorism. The manufacturer is a party to the investigation. Boeing is notorious for steering findings toward pilot error. They have a lot of political clout behind them. Airbus may not have as much, since in this accident a "sensitive rudder" was cited as the number one contributing factor.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I just remember the sickening applause during an industry business luncheon that was reported when the ATR-72 accident was blamed on pilot error.

Eww!

[/ QUOTE ]


Rrrrrrrrrrr...........
argue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would like to think that our government wouldn't put lives at risk just because it was cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that the government does a cost benefit analysis. And if they find that it would cost more than x dollars per life saved to implement something, they let it go.

[/ QUOTE ]

You ain't kidding. The government does it, businesses do it.

The almighty buck knows no bounds or loyalties.

That was one of Waldock's prime rants.
 
Seriously, multiply the NTSB's figure of a human life at I think $58,000, times the number of souls on the jet and if the figure is less than the cost of fixing the problem, most bean counters would run the risk of having an accident rather than rectifying the problem.

Trust me. My father in law does predicitive analysis on roadway design and if accident litigation from death is less expensive than fixing a crappy road design, it doesn't get fixed.

People don't want to pay more taxes to fit bad roads and they certainly don't want higher air fares from having to purchase more expensive jets which potentially burn more fuel from the heavier weight of fixing the tail structure.

Not trying to be a poopy head, but that's just business econ 101!
 
Individuals do it all the time. Take your car. Brakes are most effective at factory specs. They lose effectiveness as the rotors wear down. Tires are most effective at max tread depth. More expensive cars tend to have more safety features, etc. etc. etc.

So when somebody starts telling me "you can't put a price on a human life" I just start reviewing the condition of their car with them. Why are they trying to stretch their maintenance dollars when replacing brakes and tires early is safer?

Same with homes, you could spend thousands making it "safer".

So everybody puts a price on human lives. It's part of living.

Most people know that which is why they don't get their panties in a wad flying bankrupt carriers or start-ups. They just want the cheap ticket.
 
[ QUOTE ]

So when somebody starts telling me "you can't put a price on a human life" I just start reviewing the condition of their car with them. Why are they trying to stretch their maintenance dollars when replacing brakes and tires early is safer?



[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. No one has the monopoly on doing this, since people do it everyday as you've pointed out.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So when somebody starts telling me "you can't put a price on a human life" I just start reviewing the condition of their car with them. Why are they trying to stretch their maintenance dollars when replacing brakes and tires early is safer?

[/ QUOTE ]Well said. Another way to look at it is this:

Say you have a product that millions of people use. The product will kill exactly one person (who, we don't know) unless a defect in the product is repaired. Should the defect be repaired?

If the repair would cost $100,000, most everyone would say the cost is worth it and the repair should be made. If the repair were to cost $1 million, you'd probably see a larger split of opinion over whether the cost would be worthwhile. If the repair were to cost $1 billion dollars, however, I think you would be hard pressed to find very many people who think that is a worthwhile or necessary expenditure.

We must put a price on life because we don't have the resources to take every measure to make things safer. It's just a fact of life. Anyone who denies this is just deluding themselves.

MF
 
[ QUOTE ]
We must put a price on life because we don't have the resources to take every measure to make things safer. It's just a fact of life. Anyone who denies this is just deluding themselves.

MF

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why litigation is killing us.

First it removes all responsibility from one of the parties. Get killed in a light airplane? No responsibility on your part for choosing to do something with known risks.

Secondly it fails to take into account the overall safety and benefits of an endeavor, taking the most isolated bad outcomes and assigning ridiculous costs to them. If the aviation industry had not gotten relief a few years ago, there would be no light aircraft being built today. As it is liability costs still make up a double digit percentage of the cost of a new airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top