Air Transat loses A310 rudder inflight
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere between Europe and Africa
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way the rudder system is designed makes it difficult for one servo control to be pulling one way and the others the other way. Of course, it could happen if maintenance makes a mistake when connecting the cables, but in that case shouldn't it jam the"bad" servo?
I, also, don't like to drivel before a thorough investigation is done. But my experience and the images incline me to look at corrosion problems on the composite material.
Most of all, I would like to congratulate the crew for the excellent job on putting this baby on the ground.
I, also, don't like to drivel before a thorough investigation is done. But my experience and the images incline me to look at corrosion problems on the composite material.
Most of all, I would like to congratulate the crew for the excellent job on putting this baby on the ground.
Far, far better to have the rudder depart the hinges than for the hinges to hold and allow the rudder to take the fin off.
My compliments to the structural engineers.
My compliments to the structural engineers.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
six7driver:
I would beg to suggest that is by no means the whole story as regards the NTSB conclusions. Yes, they (justifiably) had things to say about AA training, and the handling skills of the PF.
But they also (justifiably) had criticism for the Airbus rudder system, in particular the breakout forces and difficulty achieving progressive response/control inputs at speed.
R1
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.
But they also (justifiably) had criticism for the Airbus rudder system, in particular the breakout forces and difficulty achieving progressive response/control inputs at speed.
R1
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: outer space
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ranger One, you are entirely correct here's the quote from directly from the NTSB
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident [AA 587] was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program. "
Regardless, I'm sure this incident will highly interest those that were involved with AA587 investigation.
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident [AA 587] was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program. "
Regardless, I'm sure this incident will highly interest those that were involved with AA587 investigation.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
six7driver, you obviously failed to read the preceeding threads;
MONTREAL, March 7 - Air Transat wishes to point out that the decision to return to Varadero rather then land in Florida was made by the captain together with the Operational Control Center because the Company has access to maintenance staff at this airport. It is untrue that American authorities were opposed to allowing the plane to land on their territory.
I've only skimmed over the first and second pages of replies, but wonder whether the same "experts", even those who write to the editor of "Aviation Week and ST" will still insist that sections of the rudder or vertical stabilizer can ONLY come off when a pilot does so-called "bicycling" on the rudder pedals.
Let's not clarify the reported fact that increasing movement on a A-300/310 pedal seems to cause a disproportionate increase in rudder angle (increased sensitivity?), or whether Airbus tested the composite materials throughout the temperature and pressure ranges of actual flight conditions. Heaven help any Air Transat mechanics who could have made a mistake.
Let's rest assured that there can never be a connection between the AMR 587 disaster and the Transat incident? No chance of that..... I suppose.
Let's not clarify the reported fact that increasing movement on a A-300/310 pedal seems to cause a disproportionate increase in rudder angle (increased sensitivity?), or whether Airbus tested the composite materials throughout the temperature and pressure ranges of actual flight conditions. Heaven help any Air Transat mechanics who could have made a mistake.
Let's rest assured that there can never be a connection between the AMR 587 disaster and the Transat incident? No chance of that..... I suppose.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition Override,
It was predictable that a handful of ppruners would automatically jump in and suggest that there is a correlation between this event and the AMR587.
Yes there is a correlation, they are both Airbus aircraft, that’s about where it stops. I have seen nothing else to suggest there was a wake turbulence encounter, or inappropriate control inputs, or a loss of life.
AMR587 was caused by inappropriate control inputs of the rudder leading to the whole of the vertical stabilizer detaching from the aircraft. If the causal factors were low breakout forces and inappropriate training, so be it, still at the end of the day was ultimately caused by inappropriate control inputs.
To put things into perspective there have been something like 3 million flights in A310s, with 6 hull losses, it has an accident rate less than that of the 747. As far as I am aware it was the first time a rudder detached from an A310.
Thinking out loud, with nothing to back me up, I could see this sort of event occurring from ice in the control surface leading to flutter. But as I said I have nothing to suggest this is the case, just the look of the photos.
I trust you are mature enough to know the difference between a vertical stabilizer and a rudder.
It was predictable that a handful of ppruners would automatically jump in and suggest that there is a correlation between this event and the AMR587.
Yes there is a correlation, they are both Airbus aircraft, that’s about where it stops. I have seen nothing else to suggest there was a wake turbulence encounter, or inappropriate control inputs, or a loss of life.
AMR587 was caused by inappropriate control inputs of the rudder leading to the whole of the vertical stabilizer detaching from the aircraft. If the causal factors were low breakout forces and inappropriate training, so be it, still at the end of the day was ultimately caused by inappropriate control inputs.
To put things into perspective there have been something like 3 million flights in A310s, with 6 hull losses, it has an accident rate less than that of the 747. As far as I am aware it was the first time a rudder detached from an A310.
Thinking out loud, with nothing to back me up, I could see this sort of event occurring from ice in the control surface leading to flutter. But as I said I have nothing to suggest this is the case, just the look of the photos.
I trust you are mature enough to know the difference between a vertical stabilizer and a rudder.
six7driver, you obviously failed to read the preceeding threads...It is untrue that American authorities were opposed to allowing the plane to land on their territory.
He stated that since no US airline can fly to Cuba, and this was a Canadian plane coming from Cuba, if it WOULD have landed on US soil, a potentially very messy situation for AT could have happened. Given the relation between Canada and the USA at this point, i would not have been surprised if they would have confiscated the plane, I'm not kidding.
Maybe my tone was a bit too conspiratorial, I apologise. I was merely trying to clarify what six7driver said.
Although I have to thank you for the automatic assumption that I am French and/or Canadian. Glass houses and everything. By the way, it is 'emanate'.
Although I have to thank you for the automatic assumption that I am French and/or Canadian. Glass houses and everything. By the way, it is 'emanate'.
Last edited by admiral ackbar; 10th Mar 2005 at 14:43.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zeke, we do not yet know whether there is any correlation between this event and AA587.
The rudder separation damage does appear very similar to the separation damage seem on AA587. I looked for a good photo of the AA587 vertical stab to compare with the photos of this event, and the best AA587 photo I could find is in the NTSB AA587 final report. It is figure 11, pdf page 64, document page 50 at the following link:
AA 587 NTSB Final Report
The physical rudder separation damage (on the vertical stab) does appear very similar.
However, in the AA587 accident, the vertical stab separated from the aircraft BEFORE the rudder separated from the stab (as indicated in the Final Report). The interesting part is that the force required to remove the rudder from the vertical stab, appeared to be greater than the force required to remove the vertical stab from the aircraft.
We don't know yet what happened in this event, and we don't know what force was required to remove the rudder from the vertical stab. But if the rudder attachment points were not faulty in some way, then it's still possible that a large amount of force was applied to the vertical stab in this event.
The rudder separation damage does appear very similar to the separation damage seem on AA587. I looked for a good photo of the AA587 vertical stab to compare with the photos of this event, and the best AA587 photo I could find is in the NTSB AA587 final report. It is figure 11, pdf page 64, document page 50 at the following link:
AA 587 NTSB Final Report
The physical rudder separation damage (on the vertical stab) does appear very similar.
However, in the AA587 accident, the vertical stab separated from the aircraft BEFORE the rudder separated from the stab (as indicated in the Final Report). The interesting part is that the force required to remove the rudder from the vertical stab, appeared to be greater than the force required to remove the vertical stab from the aircraft.
We don't know yet what happened in this event, and we don't know what force was required to remove the rudder from the vertical stab. But if the rudder attachment points were not faulty in some way, then it's still possible that a large amount of force was applied to the vertical stab in this event.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
six7driver:
Again I beg to differ. 587 involved a wake turbulence encounter, inappropriate control inputs (perhaps exacerbated by the 'on/off' nature of the Airbus rudder at the speeds involved), leading to overstress and failure of the entire vertical fin.
To my knowledge none of these factors are involved in the present case; no-one has suggested there were any relevant control inputs, overstress, or any form of upset or departure from controlled flight. The Transat investigation will have to discover why the rudder fell off during an otherwise unremarkable (so far as we know) flight!
R1
Regardless, I'm sure this incident will highly interest those that were involved with AA587 investigation.
To my knowledge none of these factors are involved in the present case; no-one has suggested there were any relevant control inputs, overstress, or any form of upset or departure from controlled flight. The Transat investigation will have to discover why the rudder fell off during an otherwise unremarkable (so far as we know) flight!
R1
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 51
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not think US customs would be breaking out the plasti-cuffs, at the thought of a Canadian aircraft, departing Cuba, and needing to make an emergency landing at a Florida airport because it's rudder fell off. That is complete dung as far as I am concerned. I am not an expert in US policy towards Cuba, but I think an aircraft in distress is an aircraft in distress. And I think in those circumstances, the US would be more than willing to render assistance.
Back on topic, with those pictures, It would appear that the rudder has actually shredded away from the hinges. And, I am surprised to see that it is made of composite, honeycombed material. Would this essential flight control surface not be made of a metalic material? I would have thought the elevators, ailerons and rudder would have all been produced out of aircraft aluminum?
Back on topic, with those pictures, It would appear that the rudder has actually shredded away from the hinges. And, I am surprised to see that it is made of composite, honeycombed material. Would this essential flight control surface not be made of a metalic material? I would have thought the elevators, ailerons and rudder would have all been produced out of aircraft aluminum?
Guest
Posts: n/a
So the luck hasn't run out as Air Transat;
Rememeber when one of their A330's had a fuel leak in it's wing, and the Captain thought the computer was just generating a random error message?
But if it was a random error message, why did he divert fuel from the other wing, thus causing the aircraft to loose all it's fuel, and turn a daft mistake into what could have become a major air crash.
It's a good thing Air Transat pilots are lucky, and that on this occasion they were flying so close to the Azores when this happened.
But luck is a fickle mistress, nobody's luck holds for a lifetime, and at some time or other, Air Transat will loose the last lucky charm from the bracelet...
I think it is naive to just look over an aircraft, say it's ok then send if off packing, epecially with a potentially leathal problem like this. If I were the brains behind the head, I would take the time to find out more about precisely what has happened. Otherwise you could be left with an accident waiting to happen.
Accidents don't just happen. They are a series of events in which each fail-safe measure, fails. Thus bringing about a chain of events which triggers a disaster.
Rememeber when one of their A330's had a fuel leak in it's wing, and the Captain thought the computer was just generating a random error message?
But if it was a random error message, why did he divert fuel from the other wing, thus causing the aircraft to loose all it's fuel, and turn a daft mistake into what could have become a major air crash.
It's a good thing Air Transat pilots are lucky, and that on this occasion they were flying so close to the Azores when this happened.
But luck is a fickle mistress, nobody's luck holds for a lifetime, and at some time or other, Air Transat will loose the last lucky charm from the bracelet...
I think it is naive to just look over an aircraft, say it's ok then send if off packing, epecially with a potentially leathal problem like this. If I were the brains behind the head, I would take the time to find out more about precisely what has happened. Otherwise you could be left with an accident waiting to happen.
Accidents don't just happen. They are a series of events in which each fail-safe measure, fails. Thus bringing about a chain of events which triggers a disaster.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: FL 410
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Skylark, I'm having "a bit of a go" trying to decipher exactly what your message is, other than Air Transat pilots are, on occasion, lucky.
Point 1. The leak was near the engine, not the wing.
Point 2. The Captain didn't think it was a random error message, he thought the computer was wrong (rightly or wrongly, his call)
Point 3. He didn't 'divert fuel', he crossfed, and therefore he had both engines 'feeding' from the 'good' side.
Point 4. What is your point with regards to stating that:
"it is naive to just look over an aircraft, say it's ok then send if off packing, epecially with a potentially leathal problem like this. If I were the brains behind the head, I would take the time to find out more about precisely what has happened. Otherwise you could be left with an accident waiting to happen."
Like I said, what is your point, and who implied whatever it is you're trying to say?
About the only thing that makes sense in your post is the last statement. Perhaps we've been into the grape?
Respectfully,
Jonny D
Point 1. The leak was near the engine, not the wing.
Point 2. The Captain didn't think it was a random error message, he thought the computer was wrong (rightly or wrongly, his call)
Point 3. He didn't 'divert fuel', he crossfed, and therefore he had both engines 'feeding' from the 'good' side.
Point 4. What is your point with regards to stating that:
"it is naive to just look over an aircraft, say it's ok then send if off packing, epecially with a potentially leathal problem like this. If I were the brains behind the head, I would take the time to find out more about precisely what has happened. Otherwise you could be left with an accident waiting to happen."
Like I said, what is your point, and who implied whatever it is you're trying to say?
About the only thing that makes sense in your post is the last statement. Perhaps we've been into the grape?
Respectfully,
Jonny D
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missing hinge?
This is really a question: How many hinge brackets are there holding the A310 rudder? The photos I'm seeing of the Air Transat fin suggest that there should be another bracket attached near the top of the fin/rudder. Did this top bracket get carried away when the rudder departed? If so, it could have been loose on the fin to begin with, and that looseless permitted flutter to develop, which precipitated the loss of rudder.
Again, this is speculative - I DO NOT KNOW how many A310 hinge brackets should be there. Details welcome.
(Ever read Gann's "Fate Is The Hunter" with the DC-4 elevator unporting episode?)
Again, this is speculative - I DO NOT KNOW how many A310 hinge brackets should be there. Details welcome.
(Ever read Gann's "Fate Is The Hunter" with the DC-4 elevator unporting episode?)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Fate is the Hunter'
Absolutely! The first half-dozen pages will do you in.
And the foreward is an amazing tribute to how far the industry has come. The first name there, AA's Capt. Al DeWitt, was a friend of my uncle.
And the foreward is an amazing tribute to how far the industry has come. The first name there, AA's Capt. Al DeWitt, was a friend of my uncle.