Originally Posted by
jondc9
have we forgotten the A310 that lost a portion of the rudder climbing out of Cuba?
Hadn't heard about that one, it's important, but not likely to be related - I found this article, and it cautions that Airbus and Boeing were watching it closely.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_n13458444
Originally Posted by
Graybeard
It's folly to assume the NTSB is immune from political pressure
...
Five years and three accidents does not inspire confidence the NTSB got it right on AA 587.
I don't think anyone is assuming that, GB. Though their independence from the FAA/airline/manufacturer circle has been considered fairly sacrosanct since the aftermath of the DC10 decompression failure debacle, and that was nearly 30 years ago.
Originally Posted by
jondc9
I recall, way back when, in my first 20 hours of flying or so, that the instructor had me demonstrate remaining in a stalled condition and keeping the wings level using JUST rudder. while modern planes allow aileron useage into the stall, this was a nice maneuver. The rudder didn't come off of my PA 28, we didn't break apart in flight.
The DC9 I flew for many years had a rudder limiter, no one knocked the tail off the dc9.
Jon, if you know your physics, you'll know full well that the aerodynamic stresses on a PA28 dont even compare with those on a large transport-category aircraft. I also doubt you were in a sideslip following a wake turbulence encounter when you performed that maneuvre. And I've already said that the DC9's rudder surface area in comparison with the A300's makes that comparision unfair too.
No-one 'blamed' the pilot - he was doing as he'd been trained. That training should not have been applied to all aircraft in the fleet. It was a systemic failure.
Also, I think that there's some confusion creeping in - no one was saying that putting full rudder in was the wrong thing to do. They were saying that putting in full rudder in opposite directions while in a sideslip was a bad idea.