AMR 587 Airbus Crash (merged)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino.
I totally disagree with your comment "So what did we learn?
The Boeings weren't damaged in the slightest, and the Airbus crashed... "
The two situations were totally different....speeds, size of wake vortecies etc were unknown on this first encounter. Remember the A300 was travelling fairly fast and encountered the wake from a very heavy 747 with a separation less than it should have been.
Both Airbus & Boeing design their tails to meet the same requirements and the NTSB have shown the A300s tail failed way past its ultimate load.
Both Airbus and Boeing produce very good aircraft and both very safe. Many argue that the Airbus has composite tail sections.....but so does B777 and so too will 7E7 and even so both manufacturers meet the same requirements laid out by the FAA and other authorities whether they have composite or 'good old metal' tails.
Healthy competition between Airbus & Boeing is good for both sides, but lets leave advantages/disadvantages to the marketing guys and not use scare tactics relating to safety to try to prove one is better than the other.
Both are great manufacturers, and the high levels of competition will only drive them on to better and more advanced aircraft which benefits all who have a interest and passion in flight.
I totally disagree with your comment "So what did we learn?
The Boeings weren't damaged in the slightest, and the Airbus crashed... "
The two situations were totally different....speeds, size of wake vortecies etc were unknown on this first encounter. Remember the A300 was travelling fairly fast and encountered the wake from a very heavy 747 with a separation less than it should have been.
Both Airbus & Boeing design their tails to meet the same requirements and the NTSB have shown the A300s tail failed way past its ultimate load.
Both Airbus and Boeing produce very good aircraft and both very safe. Many argue that the Airbus has composite tail sections.....but so does B777 and so too will 7E7 and even so both manufacturers meet the same requirements laid out by the FAA and other authorities whether they have composite or 'good old metal' tails.
Healthy competition between Airbus & Boeing is good for both sides, but lets leave advantages/disadvantages to the marketing guys and not use scare tactics relating to safety to try to prove one is better than the other.
Both are great manufacturers, and the high levels of competition will only drive them on to better and more advanced aircraft which benefits all who have a interest and passion in flight.
Hello all!
I need some help with understanding an issue posted on the Flight Internations dated 9-15 March.
The editorial states that the A300-600 rudder is very sensitive. My question is why this should be relevant given that the pilots are normally trained on a single type at a time and thus they are trained to cope or take under consideration that sensitivity?
Any help would be most welcome!
Rwy in Sight
I need some help with understanding an issue posted on the Flight Internations dated 9-15 March.
The editorial states that the A300-600 rudder is very sensitive. My question is why this should be relevant given that the pilots are normally trained on a single type at a time and thus they are trained to cope or take under consideration that sensitivity?
Any help would be most welcome!
Rwy in Sight
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1 says: ... "Do you mean that an experienced co-pilot would change his mode of operation with each different Captain he flew with? All the other Captains lauded Sten's piloting abilities..."
I don't think so, ...but not every flight includes a wake encounter.
Capt LaVelle's recollection and comment to the NTSB about F/O Sten Molin's aggressive manipulation of the rudder on the B727 at an earlier time is a statement of fact and not a judgement about his character or about his overall flying ability. It's an important observation that may help in determining a probable cause for structural failure. Already many carriers have issued revised guidelines and cautions on the use of rudder.
I don't think so, ...but not every flight includes a wake encounter.
Capt LaVelle's recollection and comment to the NTSB about F/O Sten Molin's aggressive manipulation of the rudder on the B727 at an earlier time is a statement of fact and not a judgement about his character or about his overall flying ability. It's an important observation that may help in determining a probable cause for structural failure. Already many carriers have issued revised guidelines and cautions on the use of rudder.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed they have Glueball, from hard learned lessons that date from more than thirty years ago.
Stomp on the rudder at higher speeds in a swept wing heavy jet transport, and the results may well not be to your liking.
Maybe...just maybe the younger guys will learn from this accident.
Ain't holding my breath however....from some of the comments on PPRuNe, many of these same younger guys already know it all...
Stomp on the rudder at higher speeds in a swept wing heavy jet transport, and the results may well not be to your liking.
Maybe...just maybe the younger guys will learn from this accident.
Ain't holding my breath however....from some of the comments on PPRuNe, many of these same younger guys already know it all...
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a
No one has advocated STOMPING on a rudder pedal in a swept wing jet.
However, there are occasional needs for the use of coordinated rudder.
You too have been left behind. We are a long way from the old 727 707 days when slowing down and putting out flaps would unlock an outboard aileron and give you more roll authority. Indeed, in an aircraft like the A300-605r that Sten and Ed were flying that day, the outboard airlineron was completely deleted in the name of aerodynamic clean up and fuel efficiency, leading to some scary situations where there is not nearly enough aileron effectiveness for the aircraft at times.
Also, The Airbus and Boeing are CERTIFIED under the same criteria they are not built and designed to the same criteria, and boeing has said that they design the rudders to a stronger level than certification requirements (which is all Airbus designed to) though they do not design to the ability to take a doublet (Which Russian certification requires)
CHeers
Wino
No one has advocated STOMPING on a rudder pedal in a swept wing jet.
However, there are occasional needs for the use of coordinated rudder.
You too have been left behind. We are a long way from the old 727 707 days when slowing down and putting out flaps would unlock an outboard aileron and give you more roll authority. Indeed, in an aircraft like the A300-605r that Sten and Ed were flying that day, the outboard airlineron was completely deleted in the name of aerodynamic clean up and fuel efficiency, leading to some scary situations where there is not nearly enough aileron effectiveness for the aircraft at times.
Also, The Airbus and Boeing are CERTIFIED under the same criteria they are not built and designed to the same criteria, and boeing has said that they design the rudders to a stronger level than certification requirements (which is all Airbus designed to) though they do not design to the ability to take a doublet (Which Russian certification requires)
CHeers
Wino
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fine. This AAR is admirable in my book.
Among other things, it dispells the myth that anybody "stomped on the rudder". Heck, they did controlled experiments and none of the test pilots were able to get anything other than no or full deflection on the pedals at that speed.
If you want to know why the rudder control system is a bad design, read this thread from the beginning, or read the AAR.
If you insist it's pilot error, then you'll be forced to explain why several other pilots committed similar errors; and if an error is so routine, why did this manufacturer not act to prevent a catastrophe?
everyone makes mistakes. We've seen many times that even the best flight crews screw up. But this isn't one of those cases.
(oh yeah, and as for the free rudder: principle of parsimony (aka ockham's razor or the tinfoil hat-wearer's enemy) -- don't posit more beings than necessary to explain the phenomena).
Among other things, it dispells the myth that anybody "stomped on the rudder". Heck, they did controlled experiments and none of the test pilots were able to get anything other than no or full deflection on the pedals at that speed.
If you want to know why the rudder control system is a bad design, read this thread from the beginning, or read the AAR.
If you insist it's pilot error, then you'll be forced to explain why several other pilots committed similar errors; and if an error is so routine, why did this manufacturer not act to prevent a catastrophe?
everyone makes mistakes. We've seen many times that even the best flight crews screw up. But this isn't one of those cases.
(oh yeah, and as for the free rudder: principle of parsimony (aka ockham's razor or the tinfoil hat-wearer's enemy) -- don't posit more beings than necessary to explain the phenomena).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that an ALPA F/O, an American Airlines test pilot, and an Airbus test pilot could not command 50 percent rudder deflection at a simulated 250kts, when specifically asked to do so, tells you what you need to know regarding the design of the rudder control system for the A300-600. At this speed the rudder system seems only capable of delivering deflection that is all or nothing, when a reversal is required.
Combine this with a pilot who seemed to like to use the rudder during a wake encounter, and you have this accident in a nutshell.
Combine this with a pilot who seemed to like to use the rudder during a wake encounter, and you have this accident in a nutshell.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airbus Input
Airbus Submission on AA587 (for comparison)
LINK (.89mb pdf file)
Some very dubious contentions therein.
IMHO
All PIO events have a trigger and can be potentially destructive. That's why (in the most part) they are sought out in the design and test phase and eliminated from the design (or compensated out). That's why yaw dampers were invented in the first place (for instance).
Blaming a pilot for an APC development that is built into the airplane design is like blaming the man for an unwanted pregnancy.
And blaming that man for the woman ultimately conceiving is like saying that he was responsible for her deciding not to use contraception or later NOT to have her pregnancy terminated.
*APC = aircraft-pilot coupling
Edited to correct LINK
LINK (.89mb pdf file)
Some very dubious contentions therein.
IMHO
All PIO events have a trigger and can be potentially destructive. That's why (in the most part) they are sought out in the design and test phase and eliminated from the design (or compensated out). That's why yaw dampers were invented in the first place (for instance).
Blaming a pilot for an APC development that is built into the airplane design is like blaming the man for an unwanted pregnancy.
And blaming that man for the woman ultimately conceiving is like saying that he was responsible for her deciding not to use contraception or later NOT to have her pregnancy terminated.
*APC = aircraft-pilot coupling
Edited to correct LINK
Last edited by TheShadow; 16th Mar 2004 at 17:57.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading both Airbus's and AA's response, I do not see how the A300 Flight ops of AA and the Airbus A300 support Group can continue to work with each other. Each report is an indictment of the other. Where's the trust?
My company has only done a tiny bit of sim training for unusual attitude recovery.
Anyway, it is very unlikely that any pilot, other than with a V1 engine failure, has ever pushed very hard and fast on any rudder pedal(s). It just does not happen, except in a fighter, attack jet or other aerobatic planes during certain violent manuevers (Julie Clark, Patty Wagstaff, Gene Soucy, Ed Johnson)!
On our older twin-engine narrow-bodies, the rudder restriction (powered by air bellows via small tube on leading edge of vertical stabilizer) begins at about 170 knots and is fully restricted at 300. The book also says that only an inch of rudder pedal movement is available at 300 knots.
Anyway, it is very unlikely that any pilot, other than with a V1 engine failure, has ever pushed very hard and fast on any rudder pedal(s). It just does not happen, except in a fighter, attack jet or other aerobatic planes during certain violent manuevers (Julie Clark, Patty Wagstaff, Gene Soucy, Ed Johnson)!
On our older twin-engine narrow-bodies, the rudder restriction (powered by air bellows via small tube on leading edge of vertical stabilizer) begins at about 170 knots and is fully restricted at 300. The book also says that only an inch of rudder pedal movement is available at 300 knots.
Finger-Pointing Over Air Crash in Queens -- New York Times
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMR 587 accident.
GlueBall,
All of Captain Lavelle's statements re. co-pilot Sten Molin's pilot abilities are completely irrelevant! Sten did not have control of the rudders!
The 0.3 and 0.4G rotating vortices striking the rudders, broadside, alternately on one side and then the other, severed the linkages to the rudder actuators. (No linkages attached to the actuators, in the haul out pictures, of the vertical stabilizer)
The final 0.8G force striking the vertical stabilizer broadside, initiated an instantaneous left Yaw, which created an abrupt left Dutch Roll into the ground.
The extreme inertia forces involved in the instantaneous left Yaw, tore off both engines from their support structures and the tail from its attachment Lugs.
Although there was evidence that Sten applied a full right aileron input to counter the steep left bank, there is no evidence that he applied any right rudder, to assist in the attempted recovery maneuver! There was no rudder input available!
This is the first accident, of this type, in 100 years of flight! (A perfect formation join-up on the center of a horizontal tornado, the left wing tip vortex of the B747 "Heavy".)
All of Captain Lavelle's statements re. co-pilot Sten Molin's pilot abilities are completely irrelevant! Sten did not have control of the rudders!
The 0.3 and 0.4G rotating vortices striking the rudders, broadside, alternately on one side and then the other, severed the linkages to the rudder actuators. (No linkages attached to the actuators, in the haul out pictures, of the vertical stabilizer)
The final 0.8G force striking the vertical stabilizer broadside, initiated an instantaneous left Yaw, which created an abrupt left Dutch Roll into the ground.
The extreme inertia forces involved in the instantaneous left Yaw, tore off both engines from their support structures and the tail from its attachment Lugs.
Although there was evidence that Sten applied a full right aileron input to counter the steep left bank, there is no evidence that he applied any right rudder, to assist in the attempted recovery maneuver! There was no rudder input available!
This is the first accident, of this type, in 100 years of flight! (A perfect formation join-up on the center of a horizontal tornado, the left wing tip vortex of the B747 "Heavy".)
Last edited by wsherif1; 4th Apr 2004 at 16:18.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Feltham, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall that the rudder deflections corresponded with pedal movement. Since the only system to back-drive the pedals is the autopilot, which was not engaged, I think it is likely that the 5 rudder deflections were a result of pilot input.
Even more conclusive (IMO) is that pedal inputs preceded rudder deflections.
Also looking at the pictures of the rudder fragments, I get the impression that the rudder structure failed first, followed by the actuator and hinge attachements. The reasoning being that the fractures across the rudder surfaces where caused by tensile loads rather than tearing. If the actuator attachments/brackets had failed first, there would be nothing to impart the magnitude and type of loads to cause the structural failures we see.
The fact that Airbus and FAA pilots could not perform partial rudder deflections (i.e. it was all or nothing) during recent tests is also significant.
Even more conclusive (IMO) is that pedal inputs preceded rudder deflections.
Also looking at the pictures of the rudder fragments, I get the impression that the rudder structure failed first, followed by the actuator and hinge attachements. The reasoning being that the fractures across the rudder surfaces where caused by tensile loads rather than tearing. If the actuator attachments/brackets had failed first, there would be nothing to impart the magnitude and type of loads to cause the structural failures we see.
The fact that Airbus and FAA pilots could not perform partial rudder deflections (i.e. it was all or nothing) during recent tests is also significant.
wsherif1 you overlook several fundamental points of flight mechanics. First ‘g’ is an acceleration; to generate force you have to specify which mass is being accelerated (F=ma). Was this mass the air or the rudder? If it was the rudder then who moved it?
Second, if it was an external force (air mass) it would have been applied reasonably equal to all of the aircraft or at least the rear end. A vortex may have been local to the fin and rudder in combination but not just one or the other in separate instances. Furthermore, with a nose high / turning climb the forward fuselage should also be under the effect of the vortex, thus the whole aircraft is deemed to move. Or are you suggesting that the earth moved instead?
Second, if it was an external force (air mass) it would have been applied reasonably equal to all of the aircraft or at least the rear end. A vortex may have been local to the fin and rudder in combination but not just one or the other in separate instances. Furthermore, with a nose high / turning climb the forward fuselage should also be under the effect of the vortex, thus the whole aircraft is deemed to move. Or are you suggesting that the earth moved instead?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safetypee
The rotating vortices around the aircraft moved the rudder. The rapid reversal of rudder movements was another indication of a free floating rudder. No pilot would kick the rudder back and forth in this manner, even if it were physically possible to do so.
Your comment,
"A vortex may have been local to the fin and rudder in combination."
Yes, you are right, the 27' tall vertical stabilizer is now an additional flight control surface, inoperable by the pilot!
The rotating vortices striking this large surface area, BROADSIDE, turns the aircraft into a very effective Weather Vane!
The rotating vortices around the aircraft moved the rudder. The rapid reversal of rudder movements was another indication of a free floating rudder. No pilot would kick the rudder back and forth in this manner, even if it were physically possible to do so.
Your comment,
"A vortex may have been local to the fin and rudder in combination."
Yes, you are right, the 27' tall vertical stabilizer is now an additional flight control surface, inoperable by the pilot!
The rotating vortices striking this large surface area, BROADSIDE, turns the aircraft into a very effective Weather Vane!
Last edited by wsherif1; 4th Apr 2004 at 20:53.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1 says: "...No pilot would kick the rudder back and forth in this manner, even if it were physically possible to do so."
How do you know that F/O Stan Molin didn't kick the rudder after the recorded wake encounter during climb out at JFK?
How do you know that Capt Lavelle's report to the NTSB about F/O Sten Molin having kicked the rudder at an earlier time while flying copilot on the B727 was...made up?
How do you know that F/O Stan Molin didn't kick the rudder after the recorded wake encounter during climb out at JFK?
How do you know that Capt Lavelle's report to the NTSB about F/O Sten Molin having kicked the rudder at an earlier time while flying copilot on the B727 was...made up?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball,
Your comments,
"How do you know that Capt Lavelle's report to the NTSB about F/O Sten Molin having kicked the rudder at an earlier time while flying copilot on the B727 was...made up?"
I did not say it was made up. It was just irrelevant. Sten had no control of the rudder, after the rotating vortices struck it on alternate sides and severed the linkages to the actuators.
"How do you know that F/O Stan Molin didn't kick the rudder after the recorded wake encounter during climb out at JFK?"
Would you kick the rudder in this manner? Hell no, or any other pilot!
Your comments,
"How do you know that Capt Lavelle's report to the NTSB about F/O Sten Molin having kicked the rudder at an earlier time while flying copilot on the B727 was...made up?"
I did not say it was made up. It was just irrelevant. Sten had no control of the rudder, after the rotating vortices struck it on alternate sides and severed the linkages to the actuators.
"How do you know that F/O Stan Molin didn't kick the rudder after the recorded wake encounter during climb out at JFK?"
Would you kick the rudder in this manner? Hell no, or any other pilot!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this 'spin' about the First Officer not using the rudder in an inappropriate manner is so much AA APA nonsense.
When one places his size twelves on the rudder pedals and pushes hard (as the previous Captain indicated happened before), the results are not pretty, as all can clearly see now.
Strange that only AA have had these problems with the A300-600...and no wonder why.
Less than adequate flying abilities (and certainly poor uninformed training) at the pointy end...not good.
AA, to be avoided whenever possible.
When one places his size twelves on the rudder pedals and pushes hard (as the previous Captain indicated happened before), the results are not pretty, as all can clearly see now.
Strange that only AA have had these problems with the A300-600...and no wonder why.
Less than adequate flying abilities (and certainly poor uninformed training) at the pointy end...not good.
AA, to be avoided whenever possible.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A,
Your comments,
"Strange that only AA have had these problems with the A300-600...and no wonder why."
What other Airline has flown into the center of a horizontal tornado lately? (This is the first such accident in 100 years of flight.)
"When one places his size twelves on the rudder pedals and pushes hard (as the previous Captain indicated happened before), the results are not pretty, as all can clearly see now."
In this case, the previous Captain's comments are irrelevant, as the co-pilot had no control of the rudders, after a certain point in time!
Your comments,
"Strange that only AA have had these problems with the A300-600...and no wonder why."
What other Airline has flown into the center of a horizontal tornado lately? (This is the first such accident in 100 years of flight.)
"When one places his size twelves on the rudder pedals and pushes hard (as the previous Captain indicated happened before), the results are not pretty, as all can clearly see now."
In this case, the previous Captain's comments are irrelevant, as the co-pilot had no control of the rudders, after a certain point in time!