Interesting note about AA Airbus crash in NYC

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by theamrad

I just hate the fact that I think the pilot was unfairly blamed.

Again, he wasn’t.

Originally osted by theamrad
Well….To quote the Probably Cause from the NTSB report:
……created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs.”
Seems a lot like blame to me.

Originally Posted by AirRabbit

The reason it seems a lot like blame is because it IS blame. It’s just not unfair blame. But, having said that, there certainly isn’t a shortage of blame to go around on this one. Inadequate information available on the airplane; at least as far as the kinds of controller deflection amounts and forces yielding the kinds of control surface deflections achieved. Inadequate regulations; or, at least inadequate understanding of what the regulations say. Inadequate understanding of the aerodynamics involved; at least as far as what was known, what was thought to be known, what was not considered about the rules, and how those rules play out in an airplane. Inadequate training; at least as far as correctly stressing when, if, and how the rudder should be used in recovering from inadvertent upsets. Inadequate follow-up; at least as far as one pilot’s opinion is concerned.
No; there is enough blame available to satisfy almost any one’s prurient interests.

Looks like you think its everyone's fault. Since it seems you don't want to discuss/debate any of my specific points in a rational manner, (and that's kind of my reason is for being here) and would rather get into a personal insults match - I don't have any interest in engaging in juvenile badenage - I've no further comment to make except to say that I'm in agreement with the spirit of airsupport's statement:

Hey! Lighten up just a bit, there theamrad! I did not say “the accident is everyone’s fault.” And, I am at a loss to understand why you think my opinion is any less valuable than your opinion or that any comments I’ve made are any less rational than anyone else’s here. I certainly did not insult you (or anyone else) personally OR professionally … at least not that I am aware of and certainly not intended if you or anyone else took my comments that way. I certainly didn’t accuse you of posting “juvenile badinage.”

I said that if one was looking to assign “blame” there is a lot that could be assigned. I said that because I believe it to be true – for all the reasons I indicated in my earlier post.

I understand that you believe the negative comments made by a former colleague are not any more conclusive than the positive comments made by other former colleagues. Fair enough. But I believe that any such negative comments would have to be prompted by a control input response worthy of such comment. I also believe that this pilot was only prompted to apply control inputs this way under very limited circumstances. If what I believe is actually correct, this pilot would not have been seen exhibiting such negative tendencies during otherwise “normal” flight conditions.

I also understand that you (and perhaps airsupport) believe that the vertical stabilizer on that aircraft had (and perhaps you believe it still has) a problem. IF that is true, I don’t see anything in this particular accident that would confirm such a suspicion. The vertical stabilizer separation on the accident aircraft appears to have occurred at the point where multiple maximum rudder deflections would have resulted in failure of the component. FDR data recordings indicate that control inputs were not made in response to aircraft uncommanded movement. Instead, it appears that aircraft movement was precisely and accurately a result of commanded controller input – in all three axes.

You said that you believe the issue of whether or not the PF was or was not exercising “poor or otherwise” airmanship was inconclusive – and, that the official report “moots” that specific point. I disagree. I read the report as stating what it states – that there were multiple, maximum, continually reversed control inputs, ultimately leading to structural failure of the vertical stabilizer. I think you have every right to disagree with the official findings. However, to say that the official findings make “moot” (or relegates the finding to be questionable or irrelevant) the particular point of over controlling and reversing the inputs is … well … simply not accurate. The official report does not dismiss the over control – it, in fact, cites that as cause.