Flight Safety,
Despite what my collegue Captain104 has said, the A310-300 vertical tail is 0,5 m shorter than the A300-600. It also has a different aspect ratio, taper ratio, tail arm, and its aerodynamic properties are also different to the A300-600. They do share the same 1/4 chord sweep and overall area.
Aircraft sharing the same type certificate such as the A300/A310 do not need to have parts that interchange, for example the A345/A346 has a vertical tail 0,99 m longer than the A343/A342. The suggestion you have made is true with Boeing aircraft, eg the overall dimensions of a B774 vertical tail is the same as a B741, however as far as I am aware the parts are not interchangeable either.
I am not an expert in forensic analysis of photographs of aircraft failure modes. I would suggest you are not either. I see no basis for your unqualified comments “The rudder separation damage does appear very similar to the separation damage seen (sic) on AA587” and “The physical rudder separation damage (on the vertical stab) does appear very similar.”
Again, for the benefit of those naive enough to take your line of thought, the initial failure mode on the AA587 was the vertical stabilizer.
The failure mode in this event is the rudder, everything I have seen suggests that the vertical stabilizer is undamaged and still attached to the aircraft.
The rudder is an aeroelastic structure, no one is suggesting at this stage any dynamic or static loads (i.e. in your vernacular “force”) were exceeded to cause the failure. Structures can and have failed without and design loads being exceeded.
For example with metal structures corrosion can lead to failure of fasteners or the interface between fasteners well before design loads are exceeded. Aircraft are designed “damage tolerant” if such a failure does occur, in the case the crew returned to base without being aware of the extent of damage until after landing.
The airframe is over 13 years old. I am unaware that the maintenance or modification status of that part in that aircraft has been released, nor the results of testing of samples and detailed analysis of FDR/QAR/CVR devices.
As I said above, there is a correlation, they are both Airbus aircraft, that’s about where it stops.
I welcome any and all sound postulations as to the cause of this event, however to draw any correlation between this event and AA587 is unfounded.
