 |
|
|
|
|
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
|
10-27-2004, 11:31 AM
|
|
Gold
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,968
(178)
|
|
Oh sure, blame it on the pilot!
This whole case has me really ticked off.
If you are in a car and there is an truck coming your way, and you violently move the steering wheel back and forth to save your butt, and something breaks and you are seriously injured or killed, is it your fault? (assuming proper maintenence and so forth-as was the case of the airframe and engines)...FLUCK NO!..it was the design flaw that allowed a comosit tail fin to be "bonded" to the composite mainframe with epoxies. It had been identified as a problem, but were pilots instructed not to move the verticle rudder from full left to full right? NO THEY WERE NOT!!
You turn left and you turn right and bang! the freakin'rudder falls off!
I am sorry but this stinks. I have studied aircrashes from a distance and with expert assistance (Like a Ph.D. in Aeronautical Engineering from Cal Tech).. In one case, here in the DR a fairly new DC-9 crashed just after takeoff from Las Americas, killing all aboard. The pilot was a Cuban with tens of thousands of hours of flying time. However, he had just done the required 50 hours of training on the DC-9. When an engine blew on takeoff, the most dangerous moment of flight, he just automatically did what he had been trained to do for those tens of thousands of hours, rather than what he had been trained to do for those 50 hours. The result was a cartwheel, a lost of aerodynamic stability and disaster. Pilot error all the way.
The proof was seen on an Eastern flight just a week or so later. Same scenario and nothing happened to anyone, in fact, the passengers did not even know something was wrong until they landed again at Las Americas.
Sorry for AA and the families of the pilots...they don't deserve this..
HB 
|
10-27-2004, 12:25 PM
|
|
Gold
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,999
(156)
|
|
I am TOTALLY with HB on this one. This is an out & out DESIGN problem!!
If Airbus KNEW there was a problem going from Full left rudder to Full right rudder, they should have built in the neccessary overide system to prevent such a circumstance arising!! Some have suggested Co-pilot error because of hitting the rudder pedal too HARD, in which case there was a 'Design' error in not building in the requisite hydrolic system to prevent this from happening!!
Question. Why was the Co-pilot blamed? My understanding is that the PILOT takes overall responsibility for HIS aircraft at all times? Was HE in his seat at the time & was HE in a condition to fly? If so, why did he not assume control as is his DUTY? A 'Red Herring' to the real question I agree, but still ones that needs to be asked of AA - "Why blame the Co-Pilot & not the person in overall control - the PILOT"?
In my humble opinion, this is a cop out where AA, Airbus & their insurers have done a deal to reduce to the minimum the damage that grounding the airbus fleet to rectify the fault, would cost them all!! Each will now blame the other to hide the fact that a deal has been struck between them AND delay any further compensation claims that will be forthcoming! ~ Grahame.
Last edited by BushBaby; 10-27-2004 at 12:32 PM.
|
10-27-2004, 01:01 PM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,285
(107)
|
|
also, I thought the initial reports mentioned that a JAL Jumbo Jet had taken off before the AA plane did, and that Jet was what caused the intitial problems with turbulence and so on.
I read traffic control violated regulations by not allowing at least a 90 second gap between takeoffs.
was this discarded?
Last edited by carlos; 10-27-2004 at 05:03 PM.
|
10-27-2004, 03:18 PM
|
|
Gold
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,703
(10)
|
|
Apparently the NTSB report also mentions an "overly sensitive" rudder control on the A300 (though the full report is not available on the web yet). No mention of the "bonded" tail fin.
Without laying blame, I wonder why the co-pilot used the rudder to try to steady the airplane in the wake of turbulance instead of the aelerons? I wonder if that was SOP at the AA training center and, if so, why?
Last edited by Porfio_Rubirosa; 10-27-2004 at 03:24 PM.
|
10-27-2004, 04:17 PM
|
|
*** Sin Bin ***
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 153
(10)
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hillbilly
This whole case has me really ticked off.
If you are in a car and there is an truck coming your way, and you violently move the steering wheel back and forth to save your butt, and something breaks and you are seriously injured or killed, is it your fault? (assuming proper maintenence and so forth-as was the case of the airframe and engines)...FLUCK NO!..it was the design flaw that allowed a comosit tail fin to be "bonded" to the composite mainframe with epoxies. It had been identified as a problem, but were pilots instructed not to move the verticle rudder from full left to full right? NO THEY WERE NOT!!
You turn left and you turn right and bang! the freakin'rudder falls off!
I am sorry but this stinks. I have studied aircrashes from a distance and with expert assistance (Like a Ph.D. in Aeronautical Engineering from Cal Tech).. In one case, here in the DR a fairly new DC-9 crashed just after takeoff from Las Americas, killing all aboard. The pilot was a Cuban with tens of thousands of hours of flying time. However, he had just done the required 50 hours of training on the DC-9. When an engine blew on takeoff, the most dangerous moment of flight, he just automatically did what he had been trained to do for those tens of thousands of hours, rather than what he had been trained to do for those 50 hours. The result was a cartwheel, a lost of aerodynamic stability and disaster. Pilot error all the way.
The proof was seen on an Eastern flight just a week or so later. Same scenario and nothing happened to anyone, in fact, the passengers did not even know something was wrong until they landed again at Las Americas.
Sorry for AA and the families of the pilots...they don't deserve this..
HB |
In the case of the flying cigar tube you referenced, it truly was pilot error using yoru facts. the CP was not qualified to handle and emergency and I don't know what the hell he was doing as PIC during the emergency
As for the AA flight, no one is perfect. It should be attributed to a design fault unless an AD or other report had been issued advising against adverse rudder use during turbelence
Someone has to be blamed, not always the correct entity though
|
10-27-2004, 04:20 PM
|
|
*** Sin Bin ***
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 153
(10)
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Porfio_Rubirosa
Apparently the NTSB report also mentions an "overly sensitive" rudder control on the A300 (though the full report is not available on the web yet). No mention of the "bonded" tail fin.
Without laying blame, I wonder why the co-pilot used the rudder to try to steady the airplane in the wake of turbulance instead of the aelerons? I wonder if that was SOP at the AA training center and, if so, why?
|
It depends on the type of reaction of the Bus, if it was yawing from turb, the rudder is used, aierlons are seldom used for anything except takeoff and landing.
|
10-27-2004, 06:02 PM
|
|
Silver
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
(10)
|
|
I agree with Hillbilly. Dont tell me you can only "rock the rudder" so much before it snaps. Thats complete Bullsh*t.
A plane landed in Atlanta a couple of years back and (true story) the damn wings fell OFF! I saw the overhead helicopter shot of the plane of TV. American airlines I think. No injuries nor fatalities, but many scared passengers I am sure. I looked for that story in the National news but notice it was only covered locally, and then only briefly.
Airbus is known as SCAREBUS by those in the industry. I will never forget the footage of the plane they designed in France to take-off and land automatically. They scrapped those plans quickly when in front of the media the damn plane went straight into the woods.
TEHAMA
|
10-27-2004, 10:47 PM
|
|
*** Sin Bin ***
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 153
(10)
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TEHAMA
I agree with Hillbilly. Dont tell me you can only "rock the rudder" so much before it snaps. Thats complete Bullsh*t.
A plane landed in Atlanta a couple of years back and (true story) the damn wings fell OFF! I saw the overhead helicopter shot of the plane of TV. American airlines I think. No injuries nor fatalities, but many scared passengers I am sure. I looked for that story in the National news but notice it was only covered locally, and then only briefly.
Airbus is known as SCAREBUS by those in the industry. I will never forget the footage of the plane they designed in France to take-off and land automatically. They scrapped those plans quickly when in front of the media the damn plane went straight into the woods.
TEHAMA
|
I don't know what "industry" you may be in, but it sure isn't aviation if you think the point to point system has been scrapped. Many Airlines are using that system, now incorporated with GPS from pushback to gate
the incident to which you refer was a test flight by AirBUs, the computer miscalculated and if you know the slightest thing about turbines, there is a lag in spool up, especially when going from a low power setting (Landing) to full emergency. The pilot apparently relied on (I wasn't on the flight deck as many of you armchair pilots surely were) the computer to provide full emergency go around, but ity lagged and by the time he (The pilot) shoved the pedastal forward, you could watch the smoke from the unburned kero pouring out and the doomed bus settling in
Pilot error or mechanical?.. I wasn't there. Some would say mechanical as the system didn't perform as designed, some would say PE as the PIC failed to respond to an emergency situation, the computer was never PIC
BTW, have never been PIC in either a Bus or 7 series boeing, but prefer the Boeing iron to Euro plastic :-)
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|
|
