American 587 question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American 587 question
12 November 2001 when AAL587 came down we were told it was due to an over-reaction to wake-turbulence by the FO, at the time American Airlines trained its pilots to react to a sudden 90 degree bank angle induced by wake turbulence something the NTSB said was highly unrealistic and unlikely to out do 40 degrees - The FO in trying to maintain level wings in the wake he was encountering caused by the JAL 747 ahead smacked the rudder right and immediately left fearing the aircraft would suddenly bank to 90 degrees something he had trained for, he repeated the rudder commands until the stress load in the rudder reached a point where all three bearings failed simultaneously and the rudder detached leading to the deadly crash.
14 January 2014 - An Alaska 737-400 encountered two sudden 70 degree bank angles (both different directions) landing in Vancouver caused by an Air Canada A330, but continued for a safe landing.
My question - Have the NTSB stopped American training their pilots for something that could now definitely happen? They stopped training them to deal with 90 degree sudden bank angles caused by wake following the release of the final report for American 587.
I understand that the stress load put on the rudder caused it to out do its design limits, however when confronted with two massive 70 degree bank angles like the Alaska flight above you have no option but to command rudder in the opposite direction. And say you were confronted with 4 sudden different bank angles then the stress load will inevitably build to match that on AAL587, Some may say my above point is unrealistic however the Alaska flight proved that the 40 degree theory to be totally incorrect.
14 January 2014 - An Alaska 737-400 encountered two sudden 70 degree bank angles (both different directions) landing in Vancouver caused by an Air Canada A330, but continued for a safe landing.
My question - Have the NTSB stopped American training their pilots for something that could now definitely happen? They stopped training them to deal with 90 degree sudden bank angles caused by wake following the release of the final report for American 587.
I understand that the stress load put on the rudder caused it to out do its design limits, however when confronted with two massive 70 degree bank angles like the Alaska flight above you have no option but to command rudder in the opposite direction. And say you were confronted with 4 sudden different bank angles then the stress load will inevitably build to match that on AAL587, Some may say my above point is unrealistic however the Alaska flight proved that the 40 degree theory to be totally incorrect.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go ahead and mash the rudder in such a '70 degree death spiral' and we'll be reading about you on the Daily Mail.
Where did you read the 737 crew had tapped all aileron authority and had to resort to rudder to correct, or is it your theory?
Where did you read the 737 crew had tapped all aileron authority and had to resort to rudder to correct, or is it your theory?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see you already have a position in the daily mail, I merely asked a question and never once said they did any such maneuver.
However my colleague is trained to do it, my point still stands.
However my colleague is trained to do it, my point still stands.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A a materials engineer I think you have to factor in several "highly unlikely" scenarios when designing aircraft parts. The rudder is consequently designed to take huge loads, much higher that you'd expect in normal flight and upset.
That said, I would like to know more about the incident you refer to. What actions did the crew take, for instance. How did they handle the rudder, for example. Do you have a link to the accident/incident report?
The important thing about the rudder is to handle it carefully while in the air, because the loads there will be much higher since you have much more speed. This goes for all rudders of all materials - composites as well as aluminium. 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.
Adjusting the rudder for wake turbulence may very well be done if it is made with caution and combined with other evasive control surface maneuvres. The solution for big jets would not necessarily be to repeatedly slam the rudder to its maximum position left-right-left-right. This would work for WWII piston fighters because of their other handling characteristics (among them: much lower speeds) but passenger jets is a whole'nother piece of cake.
That said, I would like to know more about the incident you refer to. What actions did the crew take, for instance. How did they handle the rudder, for example. Do you have a link to the accident/incident report?
The important thing about the rudder is to handle it carefully while in the air, because the loads there will be much higher since you have much more speed. This goes for all rudders of all materials - composites as well as aluminium. 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.
Adjusting the rudder for wake turbulence may very well be done if it is made with caution and combined with other evasive control surface maneuvres. The solution for big jets would not necessarily be to repeatedly slam the rudder to its maximum position left-right-left-right. This would work for WWII piston fighters because of their other handling characteristics (among them: much lower speeds) but passenger jets is a whole'nother piece of cake.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jack1985
and never once said they did any such maneuver.
Originally Posted by Jack1985
when confronted with two massive 70 degree bank angles like the Alaska flight above you have no option but to command rudder in the opposite direction.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What actions did the crew take, for instance.
The solution for big jets would not necessarily be to repeatedly slam the rudder to its maximum position left-right-left-right.
But you did.
Reading and understanding are overrated skills, dude!
Originally Posted by Jack1985
An Alaska 737-400 encountered two sudden 70 degree bank angles (both different directions)
Originally Posted by The Aviation Herald
An Alaska Airlines Boeing 737-400, registration N756AS performing flight AS-703 from Los Angeles,CA (USA) to Vancouver,BC (Canada), was on final approach to Vancouver's runway 08L at 1900 feet about 6.5nm behind an Air Canada Airbus A330-300, registration C-GFAJ performing flight AC-855 from London Heathrow,EN (UK) to Vancouver,BC (Canada), when the aircraft rolled left to 70 degrees of bank twice.
Originally Posted by Jack1985
The FO in trying to maintain level wings in the wake he was encountering caused by the JAL 747 ahead smacked the rudder right and immediately left fearing the aircraft would suddenly bank to 90 degrees something he had trained for, he repeated the rudder commands until the stress load in the rudder reached a point where all three bearings failed simultaneously and the rudder detached leading to the deadly crash.
Originally Posted by mr snuggles
in the 587 accident the rudder managed to snap off the tail fin bolted to the fuselage with conventional metal materials
Originally Posted by Jack1985
I'm not sure if there's going to be an investigation there's a small bit of information here
Originally Posted by small bit of information here
The Canadian TSB reported...
Originally Posted by Jack1985
You'll notice I gave my own opinion, christ bugger off.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am of course not at all informed of any training made by American Airlines, not now nor before. I can only give general information about aircraft materials and parts.
As for your link to the incident I read:
which seems a bit odd. This being a 737-400 I start wonder if they have the same rudder system as the infamous USAir 427 et al. (I know this is a veeery long shot! LOL) Sure, the A330-300 is bigger than the B737-400 but not THAT much bigger. If they maintained separation it is strange that they should have had such a severe reaction, unless other factors were involved. I will leave this strange behaviour to be explained by a seasoned pilot.
As for your link to the incident I read:
the aircraft rolled left to 70 degrees of bank twice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clandestino
My question from the start of this thread has been to ask pilots there own views about one of the NTSB's determinations that American used irenaeus training techniques in relation to wake turbulence. My question was why did the NTSB make such a determination to American which actually stopped the training for a sudden 90 degree bank. Although such a bank of 90 degrees has never been reported from wake turbulence, the investigator at the time said he had never heard of more than 40 degree wake bank angle, the Alaska two days ago encountered two sudden 70 degree banks.
You, KBPsen and FIRESYSOK would rather play the big boy role behind a computer screen and detract from a valid argument in which I would like to hear comments from people who actually fly.
Thank you.
My question from the start of this thread has been to ask pilots there own views about one of the NTSB's determinations that American used irenaeus training techniques in relation to wake turbulence. My question was why did the NTSB make such a determination to American which actually stopped the training for a sudden 90 degree bank. Although such a bank of 90 degrees has never been reported from wake turbulence, the investigator at the time said he had never heard of more than 40 degree wake bank angle, the Alaska two days ago encountered two sudden 70 degree banks.
- I never mentioned any maneuvers of any kind by the Alaska crew.
- I pointed out the maneuvers performed by the FO on 587.
You, KBPsen and FIRESYSOK would rather play the big boy role behind a computer screen and detract from a valid argument in which I would like to hear comments from people who actually fly.
Thank you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which seems a bit odd. This being a 737-400 I start wonder if they have the same rudder system as the infamous USAir 427 et al. (I know this is a veeery long shot! LOL) Sure, the A330-300 is bigger than the B737-400 but not THAT much bigger. If they maintained separation it is strange that they should have had such a severe reaction, unless other factors were involved. I will leave this strange behaviour to be explained by a seasoned pilot.
In relation to the historic 737 classics rudder problem the pilots in both cases the PF I believe (definitely on USAir 427) was trying to deflect the rudder in the opposite direction to get out of the roll actually horribly only to end up assisting in the crash, because the motor for the rudder had reversed in its operation i.e. the rudder pedals had switched, left was now right and so on, such a horrible outcome when both crews on the USAir and United flights had fought to the very end with the aircraft both those accidents.
My question was why did the NTSB make such a determination to American which actually stopped the training for a sudden 90 degree bank.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question is nonsensical because no such thing ever occurred.
''The NTSB indicated that American Airlines' Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program tended to exaggerate the effects of wake turbulence on large aircraft. Therefore, pilots were being trained to react more aggressively than was necessary.''
Link - Press Release [October 26, 2004] - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jack1985
detract from a valid argument
As for your opening post, you are mixing fact (what few reported and you got some of it wrong) with fiction (your assumptions) and then you expect people to relate to the result in a serious way or answer a question that has little basis in reality.
And you have posted in the wrong forum, btw.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you please stop bitching about details?
As I understood it, the OP wants to know if there is any training regarding <70 degrees of bank angle due to (what may be) wake turbulence.
The Alaska flight is used by the OP as an example of a real life situation where the bank angle exceeds the estimated maximum of 40 degrees suggested by the NTSB after the 587 incident.
OP then, albeit somewhat vague, poses the question if it is possible to get out of the 70 degree bank angle without heavy rudder use.
As I understood it, the OP wants to know if there is any training regarding <70 degrees of bank angle due to (what may be) wake turbulence.
The Alaska flight is used by the OP as an example of a real life situation where the bank angle exceeds the estimated maximum of 40 degrees suggested by the NTSB after the 587 incident.
OP then, albeit somewhat vague, poses the question if it is possible to get out of the 70 degree bank angle without heavy rudder use.
NTSB stepped down on AA Advanced maneuvering program which overemphasized the use of rudder in recovery from extreme bank and understated the dangers of using it. As such it turned out to be lethal when misunderstood and misapplied. Training for 90 degrees (and more) bank recovery was never stopped! It is still happily ongoing everywhere, we are just careful to teach people there is no point in using rudder when roll authority is sufficient.
This is fiction.
In relation to the historic 737 classics rudder problem the pilots in both cases the PF I believe (definitely on USAir 427) was trying to deflect the rudder in the opposite direction to get out of the roll actually horribly only to end up assisting in the crash, because the motor for the rudder had reversed in its operation i.e. the rudder pedals had switched, left was now right and so on, such a horrible outcome when both crews on the USAir and United flights had fought to the very end with the aircraft both those accidents.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you please stop bitching about details?
As I understood it, the OP wants to know if there is any training regarding <70 degrees of bank angle due to (what may be) wake turbulence.
The Alaska flight is used by the OP as an example of a real life situation where the bank angle exceeds the estimated maximum of 40 degrees suggested by the NTSB after the 587 incident.
OP then, albeit somewhat vague, poses the question if it is possible to get out of the 70 degree bank angle without heavy rudder use.
As I understood it, the OP wants to know if there is any training regarding <70 degrees of bank angle due to (what may be) wake turbulence.
The Alaska flight is used by the OP as an example of a real life situation where the bank angle exceeds the estimated maximum of 40 degrees suggested by the NTSB after the 587 incident.
OP then, albeit somewhat vague, poses the question if it is possible to get out of the 70 degree bank angle without heavy rudder use.
This is fiction.
Link - Accident Investigations - NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board
Again on the program air crash investigation, this is shown in the episode ''Hidden Danger'' which dramatizes the crash of UsAir 427, United Airlines Flight 585 and Eastwind Airlines Flight 517.
Hmm yes fiction, from your mouth since all you want to do is detract from my argument you continue to lose, now please leave if you have nothing to contribute.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack1985:
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.
If the wing went down 70 degrees at approach speed a coordinated recovery with aileron and rudder would be most appropriate. If shortly thereafter the other wing went down to 70 degrees, the same control inputs in the appropriate direction would also be valid. That would be far different than rapid opposite direction large inputs of the rudder only at 25o KIAS.
What I am suggesting in the Alaska case is some rudder, not full rudder.
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.
If the wing went down 70 degrees at approach speed a coordinated recovery with aileron and rudder would be most appropriate. If shortly thereafter the other wing went down to 70 degrees, the same control inputs in the appropriate direction would also be valid. That would be far different than rapid opposite direction large inputs of the rudder only at 25o KIAS.
What I am suggesting in the Alaska case is some rudder, not full rudder.