Some AA Pilots Want A300 Grounded
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some AA Pilots Want A300 Grounded
I may have missed it somewhere in R&N, but think this is news to this forum. Please see:. . <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020124/n24369253_1.html" target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020124/n24369253_1.html</a> . .Please note - this action NOT sanctioned by APA.
This is very big news in the USA and very bothersome to AA pax/slf on East Coast of USA. For me, I have never seen an AA A300 so far, so doesn't worry me. crosses fingers silently. .dAAvid -. .edited to fix the Union ID -dAAvid
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: AA SLF ]</p>
This is very big news in the USA and very bothersome to AA pax/slf on East Coast of USA. For me, I have never seen an AA A300 so far, so doesn't worry me. crosses fingers silently. .dAAvid -. .edited to fix the Union ID -dAAvid
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: AA SLF ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: MiddleEast
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on this thaught process then B747 and B737 and a number of other aircraft should also be grounded for there very well known and well publicised problems.
Let the authorities make these decisions
Have a nice day <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Let the authorities make these decisions
Have a nice day <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's right rabbit...well known problems....but the reason for this is unknown...that's why it's scary...until they find out why the vertical fin separated
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't ground the 747 just because one was shot down over Long Island.
The 737, on the other hand.... .now that's a malfunction of a completely different flavor.
As for the A300: I still have an open mind but I'm not too keen on plastic airplanes.
(Edited because I had a little more to say.)
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: zerozero ]</p>
The 737, on the other hand.... .now that's a malfunction of a completely different flavor.
As for the A300: I still have an open mind but I'm not too keen on plastic airplanes.
(Edited because I had a little more to say.)
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: zerozero ]</p>
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This type of story is good for selling papers and keeping some talking heads on the TV but is will do untold dammage to the aviation industry as mis-understood half facts are reported as cast iron truth for the benifit of the media.
I am sure that if a good technical reason for grounding the A300 had come to light then the NTSB would have recomended it and the FAA taken action.
The whole thing puts me in mind of the press assasination of the Electra in the 60s.
I am sure that if a good technical reason for grounding the A300 had come to light then the NTSB would have recomended it and the FAA taken action.
The whole thing puts me in mind of the press assasination of the Electra in the 60s.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it fair for some of the A300 fleet's pilots to be somewhat cautious when a tailfin on one of their airplanes just "falls off", so far without explanation?
If you were driving a car and the steering wheel came off in your hand without OBVIOUS cause and the car veered uncontrollably into the nearest crash barrier would you want to jump back into the car and blast up the motorway/freeway without some hesitation?
Were ALL the former Comet pilots just lining up to go fly again, prior to the latent cause of their inflight breakups being discovered?
If you KNOW the reason the A300 crashed please let the pilots know, they're all ears! However, please bear in mind that so far the best brains in the industry (including those in Tolouse) are still puzzled.
As many pilots as AA has lost in the last 6 months, don't knock someone for resisting the urge to join that hallowed list.
If you were driving a car and the steering wheel came off in your hand without OBVIOUS cause and the car veered uncontrollably into the nearest crash barrier would you want to jump back into the car and blast up the motorway/freeway without some hesitation?
Were ALL the former Comet pilots just lining up to go fly again, prior to the latent cause of their inflight breakups being discovered?
If you KNOW the reason the A300 crashed please let the pilots know, they're all ears! However, please bear in mind that so far the best brains in the industry (including those in Tolouse) are still puzzled.
As many pilots as AA has lost in the last 6 months, don't knock someone for resisting the urge to join that hallowed list.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please wait a little bit until proficient people (FAA, Airbus in Toulouse...) draw their conclusion (which will take a little bit of time)
After all, never an Airbus came and landed as a convertible (or maybe should it be considered as an achievement of sturdiness ?!?)
And the best brains in the industry are definitely not the airline pilots
After all, never an Airbus came and landed as a convertible (or maybe should it be considered as an achievement of sturdiness ?!?)
And the best brains in the industry are definitely not the airline pilots
Oops!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael B Wrote:
it took just one Concorde crash to ground the entire fleet until fixed, this sounds like a much more general and serious problem than the likelihood of hitting large metal parts on the runway.
That, is a VERY good point!!
it took just one Concorde crash to ground the entire fleet until fixed, this sounds like a much more general and serious problem than the likelihood of hitting large metal parts on the runway.
That, is a VERY good point!!
I had an arsehole transplant but the arsehole rejected me, which is why I write such rubbish
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rabbit;
. .You're absolutely correct the 737s should have been grounded by the FAA. You know why they weren't? Because commercial flying within the U.S. would have ground to a halt. Period, end of discussion.
A fair decision? Probably not. Economically sound...sure !!
Nuf said
. .You're absolutely correct the 737s should have been grounded by the FAA. You know why they weren't? Because commercial flying within the U.S. would have ground to a halt. Period, end of discussion.
A fair decision? Probably not. Economically sound...sure !!
Nuf said
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WhatshouldIuse
No that is not true.. .The reason the 737 was not grounded was that an immediate fix was implemented, one that is satisfactory to all parties involved.
That immediate fix required operators to fly the aircraft at all times above "crossover speed" which is the speed at which the ailerons are more powerfull than the rudder. As long as that is done then a rudder hard over is an inconvienience not a tradgedy as witnessed by several aircraft that have been brought back to earth since with rudder problems. Crossoverspeed is an easily definable aerodynamic principal just like lift and drag. If needed I can explain it for you. But the long and the short of it is that 5-10 knots were added to the minimum speeds for all configurations.
There is no speed in the world that will make an A300 flyable without a vertical stab, and all parties involved have admitted there is no way to inspect the stab, hence the call for many pilots to ground the aircraft.
Cheers. .Wino (A300-605R f/o)
No that is not true.. .The reason the 737 was not grounded was that an immediate fix was implemented, one that is satisfactory to all parties involved.
That immediate fix required operators to fly the aircraft at all times above "crossover speed" which is the speed at which the ailerons are more powerfull than the rudder. As long as that is done then a rudder hard over is an inconvienience not a tradgedy as witnessed by several aircraft that have been brought back to earth since with rudder problems. Crossoverspeed is an easily definable aerodynamic principal just like lift and drag. If needed I can explain it for you. But the long and the short of it is that 5-10 knots were added to the minimum speeds for all configurations.
There is no speed in the world that will make an A300 flyable without a vertical stab, and all parties involved have admitted there is no way to inspect the stab, hence the call for many pilots to ground the aircraft.
Cheers. .Wino (A300-605R f/o)
Guest
Posts: n/a
I flew some time ago on one of the AA A300-600s, as a passenger doing a positioning flight from Miami up to New York, one of the best flights I have ever had.
However I must confess I would be a little nervous repeating that same flight now, cannot really blame those that fly them every day for being concerned, at least until someone finds the cause.
However I must confess I would be a little nervous repeating that same flight now, cannot really blame those that fly them every day for being concerned, at least until someone finds the cause.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those with looooong memories....the rudder "problems" with the B737 can be directly traced to the original B707 design...and its rudder problems.. .AirBus...with the "plastic" fin...a whole new ballgame.. .Ground the A300-600?...may be the way to go until the "problems" are sorted out. But...will not happen for economic reasons, sad to say.
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A,
Would I be naive to question your prediction above by pointing out that the Airbus is not built by a US manufacturer <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Would I be naive to question your prediction above by pointing out that the Airbus is not built by a US manufacturer <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The post-mortems on the 737 Colorado and Pittsburgh accidents are still inconclusive.However,the design of the 737 rudder is flawed and could be the reason behind these accidents.. .I wouldnt use the term ´proficient´when referring either to Airbus or the FAA.One will say white is black to protect its reputation,and the other has to be continually dragged kicking and screaming to mandate AD´s(most notoriously in the DC-10 Windsor incident which would have precluded the THY Paris DC-10 crash).. .The answer is to empower the NTSB who only have one axe to grind,that of improved safety.
Recceguy: Just some comments about our "friends" at the FAA. I never knew that the FAA's Certification Branch cared about the highest levels of flight safety, or were proficient in having common sense regarding flight safety. Many of their upper bureaucrats appear to only want legal documentation to be correct, and in order. Certain concerns with Valuejet (now Airtran) were allegedly "misplaced" for a while. How about certain "alleged" prejudices within the FAA's Western Region during the Continental strike in the early 80's? Threre is plenty of evidence that the FAA was under strong pressure to promote Ronald Reagan's promotion of deregulation, no matter what the consequences upon passenger safety. The FAA was a political tool: all accidents can rightly or wrongly be attributed to the pilots or mechanics-but a corporation's safety culture (i.e. "pilot-pushing": "if you refuse that airplane, Captain, you might need another job for your wife's medical bills") is not always insignificant. I have a newspaper article quoting former maintenance personnel during the Eastern strike, and the management attitude there regarding compliance with FAA-approved manuals and procedures...
Let's all think back to the ATR-42 incidents in Europe, and how the FAA ignored problems with the ATR's roll control in icing conditions, until American passengers died (crewmembers don't count). Has anyone here heard of the earlier Metroliner's rocket in the tail? All of this is only a tiny tip of the iceberg (no pun intended), regarding the FAA's "alleged" (magic word) callous disregard of many known aircraft problems. Never mind their constant refusal over decades to enact a regulation which would designate a planned rest period for crewmembers with multiple 24-hour days and nights (when should I sleep?) of reserve/standby flight duty. The dead passengers in the Little Rock MD-80 accident removed another FAA excuse not to act. The dead or seriously injured pilots in the Kallita DC-8 which cartwheeled at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, years ago resulted in what new FAA regulations? This was the first accident in which the NTSB (had the 'marbles' to say) claimed that crew fatigue was the primary factor. But no passengers died, therefore there was no public awareness.
I'm not so sure that, in the name of commercial exports, the French 'FAA' is more detached from the industry than are our "friends" over here.
[ 27 January 2002: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
[ 27 January 2002: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]</p>
Let's all think back to the ATR-42 incidents in Europe, and how the FAA ignored problems with the ATR's roll control in icing conditions, until American passengers died (crewmembers don't count). Has anyone here heard of the earlier Metroliner's rocket in the tail? All of this is only a tiny tip of the iceberg (no pun intended), regarding the FAA's "alleged" (magic word) callous disregard of many known aircraft problems. Never mind their constant refusal over decades to enact a regulation which would designate a planned rest period for crewmembers with multiple 24-hour days and nights (when should I sleep?) of reserve/standby flight duty. The dead passengers in the Little Rock MD-80 accident removed another FAA excuse not to act. The dead or seriously injured pilots in the Kallita DC-8 which cartwheeled at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, years ago resulted in what new FAA regulations? This was the first accident in which the NTSB (had the 'marbles' to say) claimed that crew fatigue was the primary factor. But no passengers died, therefore there was no public awareness.
I'm not so sure that, in the name of commercial exports, the French 'FAA' is more detached from the industry than are our "friends" over here.
[ 27 January 2002: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
[ 27 January 2002: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: MiddleEast
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have followed this thread with interest. I have some 7000 hours on boeings and a further 8000 hours on various airbus aircraft and I firmly believe that both manufacturers produce very good aircraft.
As was pointed out earlier the 737 was not grounded until the cause of various accidents was determined for purely commercial reasons. To ground the A300-600 would also mean grounding the A310. The resultant commercial impact would be devistating to many companies especially considering the current climate in the industry. The same argument can be applied to the 747 as the real cause of the TWA accident has not been found/released.
The investigators I am sure will look into this situation very thouroughly and hopefully find the reason.
Have a nice day <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
As was pointed out earlier the 737 was not grounded until the cause of various accidents was determined for purely commercial reasons. To ground the A300-600 would also mean grounding the A310. The resultant commercial impact would be devistating to many companies especially considering the current climate in the industry. The same argument can be applied to the 747 as the real cause of the TWA accident has not been found/released.
The investigators I am sure will look into this situation very thouroughly and hopefully find the reason.
Have a nice day <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anyone watching CNN about a month ago would have seen a lady running a support group trying to get the 737 grounded. She lost relatives on one of the aircraft that fell apart in the states. Her story is that the NTSB has put out an advisory to the FAA that a major redesign needs to take place in the rudder, the FAA agrees but Boeing (with it's pull in Congress) and commercial pressure dictate that it will never happen. There are alot of them flying so I suppose you could have a couple of dozen fall out of the sky due uncommanded yaw before Boeing really needs to listen to the NTSB or FAA. Crashes aside, it makes a very good product. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it,Airbus has checked the tails of the A300/A310 fleet worldwide and found nothing.. .The FDRs,CVR,wreckage etc all fell to earth in a civilised country where they have been recovered & are being analysed. If there were a 'straightforward' mechanical explanation I would have thought there would have been an AD by now. The continuing silence puts me in mind of the aftermath of the B737 tragedy at Kegworth,UK,a few years ago, and the drawn-out and rather unsatisfactory conlusion in that case.. .I fly the A300-600 myself,and whilst I'm as anxious as everybody to know the reason,I'm happy to wait for the official conclusion.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Latest from AvFlash:. .FLIGHT 587 MAKES SOME A300 PILOTS BALK: Some 60 American Airlines (AA). .pilots know they're not comfortable flying a jet that may shed its. .vertical fin and engines for reasons that can't yet readily be. .explained, and would like to see the jet grounded. An email campaign. .that intended to have A300 pilots at AA boycott the aircraft has so far. .enlisted the "signatures" of roughly 15 percent of the 413 pilots who. .could ultimately contribute their names to the list. Of particular. .concern to the pilots is the inspection technique used to determine the. .tail's structural integrity -- they find existing methods lacking and. .feel that the loss of 265 lives supports that opinion. The AA A300. .that was Flight 587 took less than three minutes to go from takeoff. .roll to ejecting its vertical fin and both engines and impacting the. .densely populated suburb of Belle Harbor, Queens, N.Y.
NOTE: The NTSB is following up on possibly related events aboard. . A300 jets; see AVweb's NewsWire at <http://avweb.com/n/?05a>.
NOTE: The NTSB is following up on possibly related events aboard. . A300 jets; see AVweb's NewsWire at <http://avweb.com/n/?05a>.