NTSB and Rudders Take 2 Airbus A-300

[Bubbette]

There was a recent article in the US Vanity Fair commenting on the alloys used in the rudder of AA flight 587 as causing the crash. One problem mentioned was that it was not recommended to use ultrasound to check for strain in the rudder. They had a quote from someone taking a pay cut to be retrained on Boeings. Any further information on whether or not this is a design flaw?

[Final 3 Greens]

They had a quote from someone taking a pay cut to be retrained on Boeings

Do you think that there just might be an itsy bitsy case of sour grapes here?

[Volume]

Bubbette,

any link to this US Vanity Fair article on the web ?
Did´nt quite get the point, you are talking of ´alloys´and of the rudder, the part failed was the fin, not the rudder. And the lugs mode of aluminum alloys were undamaged, the composite failed.
And the ´ultrasound (you mean ultrasonic) check for strain´ you mention is also unknown to me. You can´t detect strain by means of ultrasonic inspection, you can detect internal damages and manufacturing defects, but no stain.

Might be an interesting article to read completely to get all these points.

[MarkD]

I only read Vanity Fair for the pictures :D :D :D

[Taildragger67]

Here's the site mentioned in the Vanity Fair article:

http://www.usread.com

[Lu Zuckerman]

Representatives of Airbus and by implication the certification authorities have stated that safety in the design of commercial aircraft is paramount when questioned about the crash of the AA A-300 in New York.

This is not necessarily so. When informed that there were design defects and lack of testing on the A-310 the only action taken by the FAA was to have two senior officials of a German company fired but the design was never changed. These problems included the flaps and slats not being earthed to the airframe, the lack of proper testing of the flap system and the possibility of having a flap or slat uncommanded operation. This same information was provided to the UK CAA, the French DGCA and the German LBA with no action taken. This same information was withheld from Airbus by their suppliers and when they became aware of it they took no action. Recently the FAA, the Canadian MOT and the DGCA were contacted telling them that there was a possible mistranslation of an Airbus AD by those organizations that could cause major problems in the flap and slat systems. To this date no action has been taken to investigate the possibility of a mistranslation from the French to the English. There is also evidence that Airbus did not follow their own technical documentation because if they did they would have discovered that the flaps and slats were not earthed to the airframe.

All of the above is documented and if the moderators object to my statements I can provide the documentation.


:cool:

[Plastic Bug]

That's how the NTSB described this article. There are a few glaring errors in the article and although it is well written, it would appear that there was an intent to create a story.

While there is indeed a story to be written about this accident, it would help to stick to the facts and not allow emotions to get in the way of the truth.

I'll cite one example of an error, which to me, sours the entire article, as it is a principle tenet of their theory.

VF claims that the accident aircraft was involved in a severe turbulance incident in the early 1990's.

Here are some details from the NTSB's accident database, which I have cut and pasted here to save you the 2 minutes a VF fact checker would have had to expend.

Flight 587:

"NTSB Identification: DCA02MA001

14 CFRPart 121 operation of Air Carrier AMERICAN AIRLINES INC
Accident occurred Monday, November 12, 2001 at Belle Harbor, NY
Aircraft:Airbus Industrie A300-600, registration: N14053
Injuries: 265 Fatal.

NTSB Identification: MIA91IA207 . The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 45358."

Here are the previous incidents, note the registrations:

"14 CFRPart 121 operation of Air Carrier AMERICAN AIRLINES
Incident occurred Wednesday, August 28, 1991 at ATLANTIC OCEAN, AO
Aircraft:Airbus Industrie A-300-600R, registration: N18066
Injuries: 33 Minor, 152 Uninjured.
THE AIRLINER ENCOUNTERED IN-FLIGHT TURBULENCE ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPING CONVECTIVE CONDITIONS. THE FLIGHTCREW HAD PREVIOUSLY ILLUMINATED THE SEATBELT SIGN AND THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS HAD MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. SOME PASSENGERS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS AND WERE INJURED. THE FLIGHT DIVERTED TO ANOTHER AIRPORT AND THE PASSENGERS, WHO ONLY RECEIVED MINOR INJURIES WERE TREATED AND RELEASED FROM A LOCAL HOSPITAL."

...and:

"NTSB Identification: NYC91LA164 . The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 44869.

14 CFRPart 121 operation of Air Carrier AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
Accident occurred Monday, July 01, 1991 at NEWARK, NJ
Aircraft:Airbus Industrie A-300-605R, registration: N41063
Injuries: 2 Serious, 10 Minor, 204 Uninjured.
THE A-300 WAS DEVIATING AROUND A THUNDERSTORM, APPROXIMATELY 25 MILES AHEAD, WHEN SEVERE TURBULENCE WAS ENCOUNTERED. SEVERAL CREWMEMBERS AND PASSENGERS WERE SERIOUSLY INJURED. THE FLIGHT WAS CRUISING AT 35,000 FEET IN CIRRUS CLOUDS. THE CAPTAIN HAD PUT ON THE SEAT BELT SIGN PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.

THE INADVERTENT ENCOUNTER WITH IN-FLIGHT TURBULENCE, RESULTING IN SERIOUS INJURIES TO A CREWMEMBER AND A PASSENGER."

About the only way VF can wiggle out of this one would be if they could PROVE that AAL had changed the registration, but I really doubt that is the case.

For info, you can access the database publicly here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/months.htm

PB

[Diesel8]

Lu,
Where does "non earthed" come in with regards to this particular rudder failure???

Your opinion of Airbus has been duly noted!

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Diesel8

My post was in respect to Airbus’s comments about safety of design being of great importance in their response to the VF article. When the facts I mentioned in my post were presented to their major suppliers, the certification authorities and eventually Airbus no corrective action was taken. The inadequate testing of the flap system showed up on the first Lufthansa revenue flight to Cairo when they could not retract the flaps after landing forcing the aircraft to fly back to Frankfurt with the flaps extended, in non-revenue status. The runaway flap slat system was discovered during testing and neither Airbus nor the operators were informed of the problems, which was required of all suppliers and constructors as a part of the contract.

The unearthed slats under the right conditions could result in a fuel tank explosion during a lightning attachment to an extended slat.


:cool:

[Wino]

Plastic Bug

Tail numbers 063 066 and 070 were involved in a severe turbulence encounter as well as 053.

After the initial emergency AD calling for visual inspections was complied with, it was decided to take the tail off the other 3 severe turbulence aircraft completely to examine the lugs with an ultrasound inspection. A couple of planes were done at UPS and FEDEX as well.

At AA they found damage in one of the lugs THAT WAS UNDETECTED BY THE MANDATED VISUAL INSPECTIONS. The Tail was imediately junked and the aircraft is still sitting on the ground in TULSA awaiting a new tail from Airbus.

Furthermore for Final 3 greens. Several of the pilots that were involved in investigating the accident have bid off the aircraft based on what they learned. That isn't sour grapes, they weren't forced off the aircraft. They were genuinely concerned for their safety. I know and have flown with these people. Most of them were on the aircraft from the day they came from Toulouse. Bidding off the aircraft was not something they did lightly or based on prejudice.

What the pilot's position was (and I am not sure you understand it) was not that the airbus needed to be grounded. It was just that the inspection protocol for composit structures is not good enough. The theory that visual inspections would uncover damage was debunked by tail number 070 having the undetected internal damage through several visual inspections.

The feeling was that once the damage was discovered in another aircraft, ALL aircraft should have been inspected. It was not terribly expensive or time consuming, and could have been done as part of a B or C level check. It was the refusal to inspect the remaining 32 aircraft that drove them off the airbus and onto the 767 or MD80.

Composits are an unknown over the long term at the moment. No one really understood aging aluminum untill the Aloha poptop 737. However that one aircraft by itself wasn't what caused the whole aging aircraft inspection program. It was when they went to the ramp and found another aircraft with cracks that the FAA leaped into action and created the aging aircraft program. Xrays amd eddycurrents were now required where visual inspections had previously been sufficient. It has been PROVEN that visual inspections will not find damage in composits. The technology exists to inspect these composits more thoroughly, yet it is not being done. Unfortunately it looks like more lives will have to be sacrificed before it will be done.


The second aircraft has been found. It is tail number 070. Drive out TULSA Oklahoma and go see it, its sitting on the ramp with no tail. Yet nothing was done, and so the pilots stream off the A300.

Cheers
Wino

Added later:

Plastic bug
Nov of 94 was 053's encounter with Clear Air turbulence near Sanjuan. Here is the report from the FAA database.

Pray tell, could you point out some more mistakes in the article?

Cheers
Wino

NASDAC BRIEF REPORT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL INFORMATION

Data Source: ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT DATABASE
Report Number: 19941128043499C
Local Date: 28-NOV-94
Local Time:
City: SAN JUAN
State: PR
Airport Name:
Event Type: INCIDENT - AIR CARRIER
Mid Air Collision: NOT A MIDAIR


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

Aircraft Damage: MINOR
Aircraft Make: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Aircraft Model: A300
Aircraft Series: B4
Airframe Hrs: 18594
Operator: AMERICAN AIRLINES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NARRATIVE

ENCOUNTERED SEVERE CLEAR AIR TURBULENCE AT CRUISE. PASSENGERS INJURED. LANDED SAN JUAN WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detail

Primary Flight Type: SCHEDULED AIR CARRIER
Secondary Flight Type: PASSENGERS
Type of Operation: AIR CARRIER/COMMERCIAL
Registration Nbr: 14053
Total Aboard: 221
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 47
Landing Gear: RETRACT TRICYCLE
Aircraft Weight Class: OVER 12500 LBS
Engine Make:
Engine Model:
Engine Group:
Number of Engines: 2
Engine Type:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental/Operations Info

Primary Flight Conditions: VISUAL FLIGHT RULES
Secondary Flight Conditions: TURBULENCE
Wind Direction(deg):
Wind Speed(mph):
Visibility(mi.): GREATER THAN 10 MILES
Visibility Restrictions:
Light Condition: DAY
Flight Plan Filed: INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES
Approach Type:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilot In Command

Pilot Certificates: AIRLINE TRANSPORT
Pilot Rating: AIRPLANE SINGLE, MULTI-ENGINE LAND
Pilot Qualification: QUALIFIED
Flight Time Total Hours:
Total in Make/Model:
Total in Last 90 days:
Total in last 90 days Make/Model:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
END REPORT

[Plastic Bug]

Hey there Wino!

Now I have to dig out the VF issue and read it again....

It is strange that the accident aircraft has an incident logged in the FAA database (isn't that a relatively new site?), but the Nov 94 incident does not appear in the NTSB list. I thought the FEDS pulled their data from the NTSB? Why would or how could the incident be in one database and not the other?

I've eaten crow before, and I even have a few good recipes, but I still think the article was a little much. In any event, I'll warm up the oven....

PB

[Wino]

The only problem with that article was the magazine in which it was placed. One doesn't go to Vanity Fair to get their aviation information.

I suspect that had more to do with the contacts of the reporter rather than the validity of the story which was amply researched by all the AA pilots involved.

I like crow myself, its right up their with squirrel, possum and spotted owls <G>...

Cheers
Wino