Air Transat loses A310 rudder inflight
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Catchup, it's called a BAe 146 
But seriously, the Japanese 747 indeed lost it's entire fin as well as hydraulics to the elevator and the pilots kept it in the air for a while by changing the power settings to control pitch. With this, I suspect that neither directional nor pitch control would have been so adversely affected. Regardless, well done to the crew
ive348, i suspect you may be correct....
But seriously, the Japanese 747 indeed lost it's entire fin as well as hydraulics to the elevator and the pilots kept it in the air for a while by changing the power settings to control pitch. With this, I suspect that neither directional nor pitch control would have been so adversely affected. Regardless, well done to the crew
ive348, i suspect you may be correct....
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crosswind limit about 1 1/2 kts I should think!
I've only just learnt of this myself. A bit disingenuous to start implying because it's Yoo-ropean we don't want to discuss it. Conc had rudders fall off- not surprising at 2000mph with delamination problems. A technical masterpiece God Bless her.
Now the Aibus- how many rudder problems in history? Can't think of many. Looks like this one will be easily solved. Meanwhile, 737s are flying around with potential hardover problems that have never really been explained. Should a Lauda 767 have had a full power reverse inflight leading to breakup? How many 747s have fallen apart due to unsatisfactory repair jobs on the rear pressure bulkhead? I would like SAFETY to be the main issue, not making political and nationalistic points out of each incident, presumably to support a desperate attempt to make more of the Airbus JFK incident than just an overcontrol situation.
I've only just learnt of this myself. A bit disingenuous to start implying because it's Yoo-ropean we don't want to discuss it. Conc had rudders fall off- not surprising at 2000mph with delamination problems. A technical masterpiece God Bless her.
Now the Aibus- how many rudder problems in history? Can't think of many. Looks like this one will be easily solved. Meanwhile, 737s are flying around with potential hardover problems that have never really been explained. Should a Lauda 767 have had a full power reverse inflight leading to breakup? How many 747s have fallen apart due to unsatisfactory repair jobs on the rear pressure bulkhead? I would like SAFETY to be the main issue, not making political and nationalistic points out of each incident, presumably to support a desperate attempt to make more of the Airbus JFK incident than just an overcontrol situation.
I saw an A310 in Darwin about 5 or 6 years ago with a hole in the fin about 18 inches square. As I recall, crew did not realise anything was amiss until they landed in DRW for fuel.
Aircraft belonged to an Egyptian operator and was on a military charter from Nadi (I think) to somewhere in the Middle East.
Anyone else recall seeing it?
Aircraft belonged to an Egyptian operator and was on a military charter from Nadi (I think) to somewhere in the Middle East.
Anyone else recall seeing it?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe - I'm sensing a slight bias here.
Well, how about the fatal crash at new york a couple of years back? Whether it was the pilot or the equipment at fault, the problem was most definitely the rudder.
The word here being potential.
You say we shouldn't make political or nationalistic points out of incidents, and then proceed to do exactly that!
All aircraft will have faults, nothing and no one is perfect. The important thing is how the manufacturers react to those faults.
the Aibus- how many rudder problems in history? Can't think of many
Meanwhile, 737s are flying around with potential hardover problems
You say we shouldn't make political or nationalistic points out of incidents, and then proceed to do exactly that!
All aircraft will have faults, nothing and no one is perfect. The important thing is how the manufacturers react to those faults.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Em...not 'potential'. Two violent 737 crashes plus other events. I would like to see complete neutrality in the investigation of such incidents- safety is the issue, not US v Airbus. Someone else raised it first.
At the risk of kicking off the whole AA discussion again, previous history and the manner of the event satisfies me that the JFK accident was reasonably caused by overcontrol during a wake encounter. Aeroplanes are not designed to have full rudder applied in that manner. There is obviously a rudder problem here- whether there is a whole fin problem is not at stake- this incident has nothing to do with a fin problem.
At the risk of kicking off the whole AA discussion again, previous history and the manner of the event satisfies me that the JFK accident was reasonably caused by overcontrol during a wake encounter. Aeroplanes are not designed to have full rudder applied in that manner. There is obviously a rudder problem here- whether there is a whole fin problem is not at stake- this incident has nothing to do with a fin problem.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope.
"The vertical stabilizer on Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes with Airbus Modification 4886 is manufactured of advanced composite materials. The vertical stabilizer on Airbus Model A310 series airplanes with the same modification is manufactured of the same materials."
Regards
Edit for history:
"The original A-300 design had this primary structure as aluminum. Then Airbus designed the A-310, which was actually the first airliner with an all-composite vertical stabilizer. Later, Airbus rolled out an improved A-300-600, which basically used the A-310 composite tail design." Hope that helps.
"The vertical stabilizer on Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes with Airbus Modification 4886 is manufactured of advanced composite materials. The vertical stabilizer on Airbus Model A310 series airplanes with the same modification is manufactured of the same materials."
Regards
Edit for history:
"The original A-300 design had this primary structure as aluminum. Then Airbus designed the A-310, which was actually the first airliner with an all-composite vertical stabilizer. Later, Airbus rolled out an improved A-300-600, which basically used the A-310 composite tail design." Hope that helps.
Last edited by Captain104; 8th Mar 2005 at 13:29.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also the original A300 with the aluminum fin had a ratio changer rudder load limiter that worked in the conventional manner.
The A310 and the A300600 have a fixed ratio rudder load limiter that is a trap for an oscilation, and is a VERY bad design.
Whether you break the whole fin off or just the rudder would be a function of the speed of the incident.
Cheers
Wino
The A310 and the A300600 have a fixed ratio rudder load limiter that is a trap for an oscilation, and is a VERY bad design.
Whether you break the whole fin off or just the rudder would be a function of the speed of the incident.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A310 has the same overly sensitive rudder limiter system that the A300-600 has. Since this failure occurred 30 minutes into the flight, the aircraft should have been at cruise speed when this happened, thus the rudder limiter would have been fully activated (i.e. in the configuration creating the highest sensitivity).
It will be interesting to see what "control problem" was encountered that initiated this event.
I would also imagine that this aircraft cannot possibly be put back into service without the vertical fin being thoroughly inspected (including all 6 attactment lugs).
It will be interesting to see what "control problem" was encountered that initiated this event.
I would also imagine that this aircraft cannot possibly be put back into service without the vertical fin being thoroughly inspected (including all 6 attactment lugs).
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would also imagine that this aircraft cannot possibly be put back into service without the vertical fin being thoroughly inspected (including all 6 attactment lugs).
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: outer space
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see a very important story here, first for this airline, secondly for the manufacturer and Boeing, NTSB, and FAA, and third for all non US operators that fly in this part of the world.
First Air Transat's maintenance practices were shown to be questionable after the dead stick landing by one of their A330's into the Azores. Of course the Azores incident, which could have so easily turned into a disaster, was also blamed on the captain's poor judgement in monitoring his fuel state and properly excuting checklists. None the less the incident began with a maintenance error, and transport authorities in Canada will not forget this.
Secondly all those who have followed the story of AA A300 loss in New York shortly after 9-11 know just how important this story is, given that the NTSB conclusions from this accident clearly pinned the blame for the structural failure of that A/C's tail on poor piloting techniques induced by poor training practices at AA. The findings of the A300 accident caused a huge wave in the way that large jet operators train their aircrew, as Airbus and Boeing issued new documents on how aircrew should use the rudder in jet upset conditions. At the same time and in the same documents both manufactures took great pains in defending the strength of their rudders. However judging by the images posted clearly the strength of composite structures and in particular on Airbus aircraft will be questioned, and this in turn could very likely affect the findings of NTSB about the AA300 accident.
Third, the aircraft turned back to Varedero, and judging by the statements that have been made by the airline it could have landed in Florida, but turned back to Varedaro at the PIC's discretion. A sound desicion and absolutely not as benign as people percieve. Any non US aircrew that has operated into this part of the world know the consequences to all involved if the A/C would have landed on US soil. The A/C had departed from Cuba, was not a US carrier, was registered to a state that is having it's share of a differing political opinions lately with the US so that would have surely set off a less than hospitable reaction. I remember that on a flight for a non US airline I operated into the US from Panama a few years back, a crew member had bought a $5 bottle of cuban rum IN PANAMA and unwittingly declared it to US customs in Miami. The reaction by US authorities was incredible in its zealousness, as we waited for the crewmember to pass customs a squad of customs officers arrived, the bottle was confiscated and put in a hermetically sealed box, the crewmember was reprimanded verbally, and later sent a letter from the US state department that any additional violations he commited to the "trading with the enemy" act would result in a massive fine, deny him of his right to enter the US ever again and or land him in jail. I know that the PIC of the Air Transat flight made his decision to turn back to Varedaro considering these kinds of potential problems, but it also makes me wonder just how different this story would have been if the Air Transat flight had not made it back or had crashed on landing at Varedero?
First Air Transat's maintenance practices were shown to be questionable after the dead stick landing by one of their A330's into the Azores. Of course the Azores incident, which could have so easily turned into a disaster, was also blamed on the captain's poor judgement in monitoring his fuel state and properly excuting checklists. None the less the incident began with a maintenance error, and transport authorities in Canada will not forget this.
Secondly all those who have followed the story of AA A300 loss in New York shortly after 9-11 know just how important this story is, given that the NTSB conclusions from this accident clearly pinned the blame for the structural failure of that A/C's tail on poor piloting techniques induced by poor training practices at AA. The findings of the A300 accident caused a huge wave in the way that large jet operators train their aircrew, as Airbus and Boeing issued new documents on how aircrew should use the rudder in jet upset conditions. At the same time and in the same documents both manufactures took great pains in defending the strength of their rudders. However judging by the images posted clearly the strength of composite structures and in particular on Airbus aircraft will be questioned, and this in turn could very likely affect the findings of NTSB about the AA300 accident.
Third, the aircraft turned back to Varedero, and judging by the statements that have been made by the airline it could have landed in Florida, but turned back to Varedaro at the PIC's discretion. A sound desicion and absolutely not as benign as people percieve. Any non US aircrew that has operated into this part of the world know the consequences to all involved if the A/C would have landed on US soil. The A/C had departed from Cuba, was not a US carrier, was registered to a state that is having it's share of a differing political opinions lately with the US so that would have surely set off a less than hospitable reaction. I remember that on a flight for a non US airline I operated into the US from Panama a few years back, a crew member had bought a $5 bottle of cuban rum IN PANAMA and unwittingly declared it to US customs in Miami. The reaction by US authorities was incredible in its zealousness, as we waited for the crewmember to pass customs a squad of customs officers arrived, the bottle was confiscated and put in a hermetically sealed box, the crewmember was reprimanded verbally, and later sent a letter from the US state department that any additional violations he commited to the "trading with the enemy" act would result in a massive fine, deny him of his right to enter the US ever again and or land him in jail. I know that the PIC of the Air Transat flight made his decision to turn back to Varedaro considering these kinds of potential problems, but it also makes me wonder just how different this story would have been if the Air Transat flight had not made it back or had crashed on landing at Varedero?
six7driver
I see that you went to great pains to develop your Tom Clancy immaginative story to get us to believe in the nationalistic jingo being a causal factor in this incident.
I believe that we should be searching for facts and answers rather than making them up to serve an obvious agenda.
I see that you went to great pains to develop your Tom Clancy immaginative story to get us to believe in the nationalistic jingo being a causal factor in this incident.
I believe that we should be searching for facts and answers rather than making them up to serve an obvious agenda.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: outer space
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo, I don't know how how you drew the conclusion about a "Tom Clancy story" out of my comments. I challenge you to tell me where I state any causal factors of this incident in my comments? All I say in my comments is that this is an important story, for the reasons I believe it is. All I express is my opinion. Tell me just were I have made up a fact? and what agenda you are refering to that is so obvious in my comments? The only thing I understand from your reply is that YOU read Tom Clancy books.
I'll leave the searching for the facts and answers to those investigating the incident.
I'll leave the searching for the facts and answers to those investigating the incident.
"Yes, I remember the 727 which was build that way. Upper and lower rudder.
What, if upper says left - but lower says right?"
Errm, you turn the faulty one off?
To make the point to a pilot who had failed to notice a PFCU red warning light (in the VC10 simulator) below V1 (mandatory abort for that type) - we gave the crew a middle rudder PFCU failure and a lower rudder hardover. Stupid sods then spent the next 10 minutes fannying about trying to get the failed middle rudder back instead of first attempting to turn off the 'hardover' lower rudder (electrohydraulic servo - the fault was an input signal error)....
But they worked it out eventually - and the pilot in question never missed a 'below V1 red light' again!
But if all 3 PFCUs are driving the same surface, I can well imagine it breaking up if 2 say one way and the 3rd says the other. Unless there's some other protection system, of course...
Is there?
And the AA accident was down to inappropriate and ultimately fatal mishandling. All a/c have their quirks - you don't leave flap down above Mach 0.9 in a Hunter, you don't select airbrakes with flap in a VC10 - and you don't pedal the rudder of an A300/310 like a demented harmonium player!
What, if upper says left - but lower says right?"
Errm, you turn the faulty one off?
To make the point to a pilot who had failed to notice a PFCU red warning light (in the VC10 simulator) below V1 (mandatory abort for that type) - we gave the crew a middle rudder PFCU failure and a lower rudder hardover. Stupid sods then spent the next 10 minutes fannying about trying to get the failed middle rudder back instead of first attempting to turn off the 'hardover' lower rudder (electrohydraulic servo - the fault was an input signal error)....
But they worked it out eventually - and the pilot in question never missed a 'below V1 red light' again!
But if all 3 PFCUs are driving the same surface, I can well imagine it breaking up if 2 say one way and the 3rd says the other. Unless there's some other protection system, of course...
Is there?
And the AA accident was down to inappropriate and ultimately fatal mishandling. All a/c have their quirks - you don't leave flap down above Mach 0.9 in a Hunter, you don't select airbrakes with flap in a VC10 - and you don't pedal the rudder of an A300/310 like a demented harmonium player!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of things:
737 rudder problem is not a mystery. They know what caused the accident. Secondary slide jammed in the PCU. There is a new rudder PCU that fixes the problem. They also have a mod that reduces the A system pressure most of the time with the old PCU (lowers rudder travel and therefore crossover speed). Also being shown a rudder hardover in the sim and the procedures for recovery, makes it much easier to deal with. Aluminum structure is easier to inspect than composite.
I have over 5000 hours in the 737 and am satisfied with the solutions to the rudder PCU problems. I am currently an A 320 driver and think that both Airbus and Boeing make good airplanes.
As far as the missing rudder, looks more to me like the upper hinge came apart or something of that nature, not a plastic airplane part failure initially.
737 rudder problem is not a mystery. They know what caused the accident. Secondary slide jammed in the PCU. There is a new rudder PCU that fixes the problem. They also have a mod that reduces the A system pressure most of the time with the old PCU (lowers rudder travel and therefore crossover speed). Also being shown a rudder hardover in the sim and the procedures for recovery, makes it much easier to deal with. Aluminum structure is easier to inspect than composite.
I have over 5000 hours in the 737 and am satisfied with the solutions to the rudder PCU problems. I am currently an A 320 driver and think that both Airbus and Boeing make good airplanes.
As far as the missing rudder, looks more to me like the upper hinge came apart or something of that nature, not a plastic airplane part failure initially.