View Full Version : NTSB and the A-300
Shore Guy
29th May 2004, 17:46
*************************************************
NTSB SAFETY RECOMMENDATION
*************************************************
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
May 28, 2004
*************************************************
Safety Recommendations A-04-44 through -45
*************************************************
The National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the
Federal Aviation Administration:
Require Airbus to develop a design modification for the
A300-600 rudder travel limiter system so that it can respond
effectively to rapid airspeed changes such as those that might
be experienced during upsets and not be adversely affected by
pedal forces, and issue an airworthiness directive to require
the installation of that modification. (A-04-44)
Evaluate other transport-category airplanes with rudder
limiting systems to determine whether any of those systems
are unable to effectively respond to rapid airspeed changes
such as those that might be experienced during upsets, or
whether any of those systems are adversely affected by pedal
forces and, if so, require corrective modifications to those
systems. (A-04-45)
*************************************************
Full document at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2004/A_04_44_45.pdf
Flying Mech
29th May 2004, 23:59
That AD may be a good idea where the FAA are doinng a "Belt & Braces" approach to the Accident Investigation but isnt it true that the cause of the Accident was the pilots applying Rudder full deflection commands which was an AA internal procedure to counteract wake turbulence and Neither approved nor recommended by Airbus. As far as I can remember there was a big discussion about this on PPrune around the time the accident happened
No its not true.
The airplane experienced a POI. Pilot Induced Oscilation. Don't get hung up in the world pilot. It was a design flaw that allowed it get out of hand.
Cheers
Wino
Absolute horse pucky, Wino.
Pure AA mis-directed and poorly thought out jet upset recovery.
Plain and simple.
Lessons learned a very long time ago with heavy jet transports, and inappropriate rudder inputs at higher speeds by crew, have been long forgotten by the AA training department.
They should all hang their collective heads in shame.:sad:
Halfnut
30th May 2004, 02:26
On the A-300; how much rudder peddle movement is needed to get full rudder throw at 250 knots?
1 inch,
as opposed to over 4 inches when you tested the rudder pedals on the runways or when you rotated for takeoff or kicked the rudder to remove the crab in a cross wind landing.
411a,
I was directly involved in the investigation, and am an A300 pilot for AA.
On this one particular case I GUARANTEE I know a lot more about what I am talking about then you do.
Cheers
Wino
Wino,
We'll see, when the final NTSB report is released.
Have to ask tho, why is it that only AA have had this problem with the -600R AirBus models.
For example, have friends at SV, and they report absolutely no problems whatsoever.
And they have operated these aircraft for over 17 years.
If it ain't the aircraft, it has to be a rogue pilot induced problem, in my view.
Either that, or improper instruction from the training department.
This is not to say that AirBus aircraft are not just a little bit 'strange' regarding systems design.
There were 2 other serious POI not in the AA fleet, the reports of which were NOT circulated to other operators, and for that Airbus is being faulted.
Airbus is going along with the recomendations btw....
Also AA fleet of 35 was by far the largest body of flying time on the aircraft so the law of averages was bound to catch up with them eventually....
Big fleet of jets doing very high time and cycles.... There is not much virgin terrirtory left there...
(yes I know UPS later orderd 60 but they are much newer at a lower utilization.)
Cheers
Wino
NigelOnDraft
30th May 2004, 08:04
My I suggest all of (bar one) stop making complete and utter idiots of yourselves. Why not actually read the link above...
It has nothing to do with the New York accident. It was to do with the earlier "upset" that was re-investigated post New York... and again, if you read it, I think you will find it difficult to conclude anything other than the mod is completely reasonable.
If you cannot be bothered to read the link, in essence the Rudder Travel Limiter (RTL), which needs to alter the maximum rudder available according to airspeed, cannot "keep up" if either the airspeed increases rapidly, and/or a large rudder input is already being vigorously applied.
One can argue that such rudder inputs are inappropriate, maybe so. But if a RTL is required for certification, then it should do its job at all times - not just sometimes.
And before the Airbus bashers get going, the NTSB is also investigatiing if other types have either of the problems noted above. I would say it is less likely, since A300-600 is more than a little "odd" with it's RTL directly restricting pedal movement, rather than altering, say, the gearing further downstream...
NoD
Shore Guy
30th May 2004, 08:27
The PR games have begun....
NTSB Cites Airbus Rudder Design
System in Use When American Airlines Flight Crashed in 2001
The National Transportation Safety Board yesterday recommended that Airbus change the rudder system design on an aircraft that has been involved in two serious incidents, including the November 2001 crash of American Airlines Flight 587 that killed 265 people.
The board recommended that Airbus modify the rudder system on its A300-600 aircraft, particularly how the system responds during rapid airspeed changes, such as sudden turbulence or a storm. The NTSB also urged the Federal Aviation Administration to evaluate other aircraft with similar rudder systems to determine whether they operate safely.
The NTSB issued its recommendation late yesterday, citing a 1997 incident aboard an American Airlines flight to Miami in which the plane suddenly rolled to the right, then the left, then right again before stalling and plunging more than 3,000 feet in a matter of seconds. One flight-crew member and a passenger were seriously injured, but the plane landed safely.
The board has not determined what caused Flight 587 to crash shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport into a Belle Harbor, N.Y., neighborhood. Its investigation has focused on the performance of the rudder and the pilots' use of it after the plane encountered wake turbulence. The NTSB is expected to reach its final conclusion this summer.
As the Flight 587 investigation continues, American Airlines and Airbus are in a bitter debate over the cause of the crash. American said yesterday that the NTSB recommendation indicated that the Airbus rudder was flawed. American is the only U.S. passenger carrier that flies the A300-600.
The rudder "limitations, along with others related to the sensitivity of the system, are precisely the concerns American addressed in its final submission and recommendations to the NSTB regarding the Flight 587 accident," American said in a statement yesterday.
Airbus downplayed the relevance of yesterday's recommendation to the crash. "This has nothing to do with 587. American is trying to pin it on the airplane," said Clay McConnell, an Airbus spokesman. "We're supportive of the recommendation. This is something we can do to enhance safety even in those extremely rare circumstances" of rapid airspeed changes, he said.
Captain104
30th May 2004, 10:11
NoD,
absolutely correct as the safety recommendation refers specifically to AA 903. But-as you may notice-it stirrs up the well known AA 587 discussion and calls for heavy public relation activity by all parties involved. IMHO we should stay reasonable cool and wait for the final NTSB report.
Nevertheless I think Marion Blakey's recommendation will be accepted and even welcomed by the industrie.
Interesting point there:
"Evaluate other transport-category airplanes with rudder
limiting systems..."
We will see.
411A
In this case you hit the nail.
In AB trainer meetings embedded within major European carriers(A B4, A310-200/300, A300-600/R) comments about AA's policy of upset recovery training procedures used to be very nasty and still are. Who is responsible for the crazy assumption that upset training in simulators outside their well defined envelope will enable pilots to react appropriate? Stomping the rudder in heavy jet airliners like a fighter pilot, my goodness. And than train all pilots accordlingly? Sad.
Wino
In my opinion your contributions to the AA 587 thread and now here concerning AA 903 are overshadowed by your personal involvement, your friendship to Sten Molin and your union activity. That's ok for me. No further comment and reply.
BTW: Even on the other side of the pond there are some pilots who know the AC you fly very well and are responsible for the operation of a number of Airbus AC you would not be able to count in a sober state. ;)
Regards
look,
The AA maneuver program was NEVER what it has been claimed to be. It was simply to add COIRDINATED rudder. Yes there was discussions of fighers and other things, but it was only to ILLUSTRATE a point.
It was in response to a series of loss of controll accidents at other airlines in which the use of the controlls would have saved the aircraft.
infact the A310/A300 is one of the aircraft that precipitated the course when the Romanian A310 crashed simply because of the jammed auto thottle and the pilots did not make aggressive enough use of the controlls available to them and the aircraft turned over on its back killing all aboard.
yeah yeah yeah, you are right, a lot of spin from airbus.
A lot of people judging the course based on the what? Have you TAKEN the course? I have. It is NOT as you describe.
Cheers
Wino