Air Transat loses A310 rudder inflight
Whereas Boeing's new plastic plane, the 7E7, is made entirely from such materials.....
Probably why they've been rather quiet about the A310 rudder failure?
Probably why they've been rather quiet about the A310 rudder failure?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A former Airbus pilot, who now flies Boeings, told The Observer of Britain that rudders just didn't fall apart like that -- until now.
Regards
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A former Airbus pilot, who now flies Boeings, told The Observer of Britain that rudders just didn't fall apart like that -- until now.
Rudder control malfunctions resulting in crashes are not unheard of with B707 and B737. Most of the time the result is aircraft loss.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dublin
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have followed this Thread with Interest as an A300/310 Engineer. Some of the posters have made some very good points which the Incident Report may back up in due time. Does anybody know if the A/C is still in Varadero or has it been returned to service with a new V. Fin & Rudder + Test Flight while Airbus examine the old Fin. Does anyone know if the old rudder has been located or is the Sea too deep in the area of the Incident for Diving?Maybe some of our Canadian Ppruners can shed a little more light on this.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last I heard, that aircraft is going to be on the ground at VRA for several months. It needs a major rebuild in the rear end, so to speak, including a totally new tail and mounting assembly.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SNA
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'experts' in the press.....from ETOPS to delaminiation, and grounding...
Sun, March 20, 2005
A-300s, 310s likely flawed
By Eric Margolis
Good news/bad news for air travelers.
First, good. The world has grown smaller.
Boeing just rolled out its new 777-200 Longer Range passenger jet. This twin-engine transport can carry 301 passengers 15,000 km, meaning non-stop, direct service between most cities on earth.
Alas, as is the case with existing aircraft, passengers will still be denied adequate fresh air or moisture, a serious health risk on long flights.
Pakistan International Airways is one of the first 777-LR launch customers. It will use the 777 on a direct Karachi-Houston route, the limit of the plane's range.
The 777-LR, Boeing's 787, and Airbus A-350, both under development, will allow travellers to avoid congested hubs like London Heathrow or Frankfurt, and fly direct to less heavily trafficked destinations. The 777-LR and its sister, 777-ER, compete head on with my favourite aircraft, the superb, comfortable four-engine Airbus A-340 series.
Now, the bad news. Last week, the 9-metre-high tail of a Canadian Air Transat Airbus twin-engine A-310 outbound from Cuba fell off. That's right: Fell off.
Its superb pilots managed to use wing and tail flaps to return to Cuba safely. In 1985, pilots of a Japan Airlines 747 whose tail controls were wrecked by an explosion lost control and crashed.
Last week's incident was Transat's second aeronautical miracle after a 2001 flight ran out of fuel at mid-Atlantic, and its pilots managed to glide to a safe landing.
The Airbus A-300 and A-310s should be grounded until their tails can be proven 100% safe. When these aircraft were introduced 15-20 years ago, their tails, made of lightweight composite fibres, were a radical innovation. It's now clear the 300-series tails might have defects, perhaps along their hinge joints.
In Nov., 2001, the tail of American Airlines flight 587, an A-300 bound for the West Indies, disintegrated over New York City, killing all 260 aboard. Investigators blamed pilot error, turbulence, and the plane.
It now seems more likely the culprit was delamination of the A-300 tail.
Soon after, 20 American Airlines pilots flying A300's asked to be transferred to Boeing aircraft. Since then, I have refused to fly A-300 or A-310's, about 800 of which remain in service. For full disclosure, I was hijacked aboard a Lufthansa A-310 in 1993. This event did not influence my judgment of the aircraft.
My next concern is twin-engine jets flying long over-water routes. Airlines save great amounts on fuel by using two-engine planes. Over water, I prefer a four-engine aircraft, like the magnificent Boeing 747-400 or the newer, sexier Airbus A-340 series.
Airlines and manufacturers insist engine technology is so advanced that long over-water flights are safe. I disagree.
On March 17, 2003, a United twin-engine 777 outbound from New Zealand with 225 aboard lost an engine over the mid-Pacific and had to limp for three hours against strong headwinds on a single engine to reach Hawaii. If a problem had developed with the over-stressed second engine, disaster would have ensued.
Insist they're safe
According to Aviation Week, Boeing's 777s have had 16 in-flight shutdowns since May, 1995. Airlines insist the aircraft, which have flown 2.3 million miles, are safe even on a single engine.
Call me old-fashioned, but four engines are always better than two. Two pilots and a flight engineer are always better than a two-man crew. Automation means you don't need a third crew member -- until things start going wrong.
The 1998 crash of a burning Swissair MD-11 off Nova Scotia, and the 1995 crash of an American 757 in Colombia might have been averted had there been a flight engineer to help the confused pilots.
Government regulators, not airlines and cost-saving, should determine safety.
I'd rather pay more and know there is backup when I'm flying at 39,000 feet in pitch blackness over the icy North Pacific.
Sun, March 20, 2005
A-300s, 310s likely flawed
By Eric Margolis
Good news/bad news for air travelers.
First, good. The world has grown smaller.
Boeing just rolled out its new 777-200 Longer Range passenger jet. This twin-engine transport can carry 301 passengers 15,000 km, meaning non-stop, direct service between most cities on earth.
Alas, as is the case with existing aircraft, passengers will still be denied adequate fresh air or moisture, a serious health risk on long flights.
Pakistan International Airways is one of the first 777-LR launch customers. It will use the 777 on a direct Karachi-Houston route, the limit of the plane's range.
The 777-LR, Boeing's 787, and Airbus A-350, both under development, will allow travellers to avoid congested hubs like London Heathrow or Frankfurt, and fly direct to less heavily trafficked destinations. The 777-LR and its sister, 777-ER, compete head on with my favourite aircraft, the superb, comfortable four-engine Airbus A-340 series.
Now, the bad news. Last week, the 9-metre-high tail of a Canadian Air Transat Airbus twin-engine A-310 outbound from Cuba fell off. That's right: Fell off.
Its superb pilots managed to use wing and tail flaps to return to Cuba safely. In 1985, pilots of a Japan Airlines 747 whose tail controls were wrecked by an explosion lost control and crashed.
Last week's incident was Transat's second aeronautical miracle after a 2001 flight ran out of fuel at mid-Atlantic, and its pilots managed to glide to a safe landing.
The Airbus A-300 and A-310s should be grounded until their tails can be proven 100% safe. When these aircraft were introduced 15-20 years ago, their tails, made of lightweight composite fibres, were a radical innovation. It's now clear the 300-series tails might have defects, perhaps along their hinge joints.
In Nov., 2001, the tail of American Airlines flight 587, an A-300 bound for the West Indies, disintegrated over New York City, killing all 260 aboard. Investigators blamed pilot error, turbulence, and the plane.
It now seems more likely the culprit was delamination of the A-300 tail.
Soon after, 20 American Airlines pilots flying A300's asked to be transferred to Boeing aircraft. Since then, I have refused to fly A-300 or A-310's, about 800 of which remain in service. For full disclosure, I was hijacked aboard a Lufthansa A-310 in 1993. This event did not influence my judgment of the aircraft.
My next concern is twin-engine jets flying long over-water routes. Airlines save great amounts on fuel by using two-engine planes. Over water, I prefer a four-engine aircraft, like the magnificent Boeing 747-400 or the newer, sexier Airbus A-340 series.
Airlines and manufacturers insist engine technology is so advanced that long over-water flights are safe. I disagree.
On March 17, 2003, a United twin-engine 777 outbound from New Zealand with 225 aboard lost an engine over the mid-Pacific and had to limp for three hours against strong headwinds on a single engine to reach Hawaii. If a problem had developed with the over-stressed second engine, disaster would have ensued.
Insist they're safe
According to Aviation Week, Boeing's 777s have had 16 in-flight shutdowns since May, 1995. Airlines insist the aircraft, which have flown 2.3 million miles, are safe even on a single engine.
Call me old-fashioned, but four engines are always better than two. Two pilots and a flight engineer are always better than a two-man crew. Automation means you don't need a third crew member -- until things start going wrong.
The 1998 crash of a burning Swissair MD-11 off Nova Scotia, and the 1995 crash of an American 757 in Colombia might have been averted had there been a flight engineer to help the confused pilots.
Government regulators, not airlines and cost-saving, should determine safety.
I'd rather pay more and know there is backup when I'm flying at 39,000 feet in pitch blackness over the icy North Pacific.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that's funny, I read in the paper yesterday the air industry was never safer, based on fatalities per pax carried, and that the total is much lower than 2002 and 2003! The way that guy goes on, with all these two crew cockpits replacing the last of the three crew, planes should be dropping like flies! Someone should ask him why having a FE didn't save AF001. Idiot. Which rag published that?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: IO83VI
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus issued, about four days ago, an AOT specifically aimed at several (about six) A330-300 airframes, all early MSNs, with a specific rudder Pt No, as fitted at the factory, calling for a detailed NDT inspection (tap test and ultra sonic). They refered to the TransAt incident but it was NOT urgent IIRC within 850hrs.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Margolis
This Margolis wants to be careful what he writes.
The case of SR 111 has been well (you could say brilliantly) researched and documented by the Canadian authorities and he should read the report.
This was no standard failure but a complicated chain of constructional and material events with aggravating circumstances. No standard available checklist or procedure was of any use.
The part which impressed me is that the time taken to the point where the cockpit was no longer occupiable (fire in the ceiling) or no longer useable (complete electrical failure and smoke) occured 5 to 6 minutes before the aircraft - even on a direct course - could have reached the field.
At no point is there a suggestion that a third crewmember could have had any influence on this.
He won't fly far in the future with his growing list of banned aircraft. But Hey! it sells newspapers - for a day.
The case of SR 111 has been well (you could say brilliantly) researched and documented by the Canadian authorities and he should read the report.
This was no standard failure but a complicated chain of constructional and material events with aggravating circumstances. No standard available checklist or procedure was of any use.
The part which impressed me is that the time taken to the point where the cockpit was no longer occupiable (fire in the ceiling) or no longer useable (complete electrical failure and smoke) occured 5 to 6 minutes before the aircraft - even on a direct course - could have reached the field.
At no point is there a suggestion that a third crewmember could have had any influence on this.
He won't fly far in the future with his growing list of banned aircraft. But Hey! it sells newspapers - for a day.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Margolis should get some kind of award for writing the most inaccurate aviation article I have ever read. What a hoot....
Canadians - please write to your local editor and tell them to censure this guy.
Canadians - please write to your local editor and tell them to censure this guy.
Would you have a URL for this AD please. Darned if I can find it.
I just followed aerolearner's link to the French site to read that AD...and........noticed that, yesterday, they issued a SECOND AD...expanding the scope TO INCLUDE A330'S AND 340'S.
Reason: "The CFRP rudder PN fitted on the A310 aircraft involved in the reported event is also installed on certain
A340 and A330 aircraft."
hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....the plot thickens
Reason: "The CFRP rudder PN fitted on the A310 aircraft involved in the reported event is also installed on certain
A340 and A330 aircraft."
hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....the plot thickens
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Testing versus Experience
Seems that no amount of testing can stress up an airframe as continuous line flying does.
Things come to light down the road of experience and get "fixed" rather than designed out.
Remember the fuse pins holding on the 747 engines - the rear pressure dome on MD-80 and 747 - the screw jack on the MD-80 -the geriatric effects of regular short range flights on the Aloha 737 - you can go right back to the DH Comet, which showed us the effects of metal fatigue with continued pressurisation cycles.
I think this will be one more thing in the long list of items which will have to be checked frequently on ground stops. Thank goodness that it didn't take an accident this time to show it up. Thank goodness that the manufacturer is acting quickly and responsibly.
FC.
Things come to light down the road of experience and get "fixed" rather than designed out.
Remember the fuse pins holding on the 747 engines - the rear pressure dome on MD-80 and 747 - the screw jack on the MD-80 -the geriatric effects of regular short range flights on the Aloha 737 - you can go right back to the DH Comet, which showed us the effects of metal fatigue with continued pressurisation cycles.
I think this will be one more thing in the long list of items which will have to be checked frequently on ground stops. Thank goodness that it didn't take an accident this time to show it up. Thank goodness that the manufacturer is acting quickly and responsibly.
FC.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I understand that AD right, there are
6 A-330-300 and
34 A-340-200/300 concerned
http://213.30.153.174/Gsac/ad_cns.ns...il_FR?OpenPage
open first line: U F-2005-053 (B)
Regards
Edit for reference
6 A-330-300 and
34 A-340-200/300 concerned
http://213.30.153.174/Gsac/ad_cns.ns...il_FR?OpenPage
open first line: U F-2005-053 (B)
Regards
Edit for reference