American 587 question
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I had the 'Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program' presented during sim training in the late '90's.
I was skeptical of these rudder excursions and not surprised when the AA 587 NTSB report came out:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/25723...ml#post3033522
AA Captain Warren Vanderburgh is credited with developing the Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program in response to some airliner accidents involving upsets. In theory at least, some of these upsets may have been recoverable through timely aggressive control inputs. However, like moving the flap handle when you get a GPWS, unless you do it just right, you may make the situation worse, not better, in my opinion.
Captain Vanderburgh is more widely known for his 'Children of the Magenta Line' lectures warning of the dangers of reliance on ever increasing flight deck automation.
I was skeptical of these rudder excursions and not surprised when the AA 587 NTSB report came out:
Interesting note about AA Airbus crash in NYC
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of
this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program."
I'm not sure if this has been covered before but a safety award was given for developing that program five days before the accident.
http://www.flightsafety.org/citation...burgh_cit.html
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of
this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program."
I'm not sure if this has been covered before but a safety award was given for developing that program five days before the accident.
http://www.flightsafety.org/citation...burgh_cit.html
Airbubba: Yep, this program filtered down to the other airlines. I was given a version of the training that included the hard rudder kicks to get the nose back down to the horizon in some attitudes. I questioned whether you really wanted to do this in a transport aircraft but was told that it was all within the design envelope. I guess it turns out that it wasn't...
AA Captain Warren Vanderburgh is credited with developing the Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program in response to some airliner accidents involving upsets. In theory at least, some of these upsets may have been recoverable through timely aggressive control inputs. However, like moving the flap handle when you get a GPWS, unless you do it just right, you may make the situation worse, not better, in my opinion.
Captain Vanderburgh is more widely known for his 'Children of the Magenta Line' lectures warning of the dangers of reliance on ever increasing flight deck automation.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MrSnuggles:
I don't think this is quite accurate. I happened to watch the "DISCOVERY" documentary about the 587 crash yesterday and an NTSB investigator showed that the laminated composite 'eye-holes' on the tailfin mountings failed when they were subjected to a side load of about 250,000 lbs. (The maximum design load was stated to be 100,000 lbs). The NTSB actually tested to destruction a sample tailfin supplied by Airbus. There was no mention in the programme of the steel bolts which go through the tailfin mountings having failed.
Remember, in the 587 accident the rudder managed to snap off the tail fin bolted to the fuselage with conventional metal materials, just as in any airplane. It wasn't so much a composite failure as it was a metal material overload on the tail fin bolts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the speed and configuration of the Alaska 737-400? I presume it was likely well below the 250 KIAS the ill-fated American flight was doing.
What I am suggesting in the Alaska case is some rudder, not full rudder.
Now thats my opinion and assumption I have no idea how the Alaska crew responded.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think this is quite accurate. I happened to watch the "DISCOVERY" documentary about the 587 crash yesterday and an NTSB investigator showed that the laminated composite 'eye-holes' on the tailfin mountings failed when they were subjected to a side load of about 250,000 lbs. (The maximum design load was stated to be 100,000 lbs). The NTSB actually tested to destruction a sample tailfin supplied by Airbus. There was no mention in the programme of the steel bolts which go through the tailfin mountings having failed.
These are facts:
This is misunderstanding of the facts:
The actuator did not reverse, it went into extreme position and jammed there.
AA587 case tends to get resurrected around here every couple of months by someone whose strength of opinion is inversely proportional to aeronautical knowledge and understanding. As for Alaska incident, TSBC will tell.
Originally Posted by NTSB
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the USAir flight 427 accident was a loss of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder surface to its blowdown limit. The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots as a result of a jam of the main rudder power control unit servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position and overtravel of the primary slide.
Originally Posted by Jack1985
the motor for the rudder had reversed in its operation i.e. the rudder pedals had switched, left was now right and so on
AA587 case tends to get resurrected around here every couple of months by someone whose strength of opinion is inversely proportional to aeronautical knowledge and understanding. As for Alaska incident, TSBC will tell.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are completely misunderstanding the facts you so like to confuse.
The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots
UsAir 427 rolled right, the captain applied full left rudder - the rudder had reversed so that actually applying left rudder was now right - The NTSB investigator states this on the program ''Hidden Danger'' on ACI - I only brought up this thread because I watched that documentary last Thursday, American 587 Saturday and noticed the Alaska incident today.
May I ask do you actual fly? Because I've met you're type to frequently, the type who likes to believe there in the industry.
The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots
UsAir 427 rolled right, the captain applied full left rudder - the rudder had reversed so that actually applying left rudder was now right - The NTSB investigator states this on the program ''Hidden Danger'' on ACI - I only brought up this thread because I watched that documentary last Thursday, American 587 Saturday and noticed the Alaska incident today.
May I ask do you actual fly? Because I've met you're type to frequently, the type who likes to believe there in the industry.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you mean get back to the subject, which I'm curious what exactly is, as it seems to be all over the place.
I'm concerned that too much emphasis was put on the stamping of the rudder, we all know thats wrong. Not enough emphasis was put on the fact that 90 degrees roll is very much plausible, and you're not going to get out of that without rudder - if you're at 250kts passing through 2,300 (or any high speed/altitude) as was the case for AAL587 and confronted with that you mean to tell me we aren't going to see another accident.
I'm very much concerned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a swept wing aircraft the rudder is used for engine failures and cross wind landings.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at all I've sourced all my information before posting just check back on other posts, and I'm hoping you're not saying ACI is falsifying NTSB and numerous other world crash reports with the aid of the original investigators??
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jack1985
I'm very much concerned.
Oh, and I've been flying swept-wing aircraft for just over seven years now, and haven't used the rudder outside of crosswinds and OEI practice so much as once yet. I'm still alive.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jack1985
Not at all I've sourced all my information before posting just check back on other posts, and I'm hoping you're not saying ACI is falsifying NTSB and numerous other world crash reports with the aid of the original investigators??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't sweat it, based on you being from Ireland, I'd say the odds of you ending up on an AS 734 are pretty well nil.
Oh, and I've been flying swept-wing aircraft for just over seven years now, and haven't used the rudder outside of crosswinds and OEI practice so much as once yet. I'm still alive.
Oh, and I've been flying swept-wing aircraft for just over seven years now, and haven't used the rudder outside of crosswinds and OEI practice so much as once yet. I'm still alive.
I'm not questioning that, and in the cases you've given you don't need to, but are you telling me you're not going to use rudder when thrown by two 70 degree rolls?
ACI is first and foremost an entertainment product, not a terrible one, but one nonetheless.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jack1985
I'm not questioning that, and in the cases you've given you don't need to, but are you telling me you're not going to use rudder when thrown by two 70 degree rolls?
Sorry if that's not what you want to hear, I have a knack for disappointing people.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all a bit too contrived for my taste.
That's exactly what I'm telling you. Between the ailerons and spoilers I've got plenty of roll authority. Now, if the aircraft is not responding to aileron inputs, that's a whole separate conversation.
Sorry if that's not what you want to hear, I have a knack for disappointing people.
Sorry if that's not what you want to hear, I have a knack for disappointing people.
It's weird I've been taught (granted a C172 - going for my PPL) positive (i.e. gentle) rudder and aileron opposite direction then stabilise - the airline I'm a ground handler for from speaking to pilots about it do the same. Is it airline specific or even down to what the person would rather do which are both totally respectable decisions once its all done right!