Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

AMR 587 Airbus Crash (merged)

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

AMR 587 Airbus Crash (merged)

Old 15th Sep 2004, 06:52
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In the State of Perpetual Confusion
Posts: 185
I don't know if Airbus fiddled with the numbers after the accident but it wouldn't be out of character for any of the manufacterers to try something like that. To the folks who worship at the alter of the Airbus, it appears to be true that both Airbus and Boeing had reservations about American's upset recovery program and let the airline know it. That's a pretty big deal in my opinion.

It appears to me that Airbus' agenda is to place 100% of the blame on AA while AA's agenda is to place 100% of the blame on Airbus. Big surprize there. There is big money involved here and the big corporations involved will always try to place blame on others. (I remember some pretty reprehensible statements from Boeing after the USAir 427 accident) What is interesting is that in the AA accident, even when exceeding the speed at which rudder travel was supposidly limited, that it was possible to achieve the full rudder travel anyway. It seems to me that as in most accidents, there is plenty of blame to go around.
Gillegan is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2004, 07:50
  #302 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 87
Posts: 2,206
Methinks one does not often get such an intellectual gap between two posts.
John Farley is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2004, 08:07
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,146
It is intresting to see if the "blame the other" campaign would have used by the airline and the manufactured if it were a Boeing 777, or the airline were a major customer of the manufacturer...

Yours sincrely (but not cynically enough)


Rwy in Sight
Rwy in Sight is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2004, 10:48
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 743
The original article appeared in last week's edition of Der Spiegel (# 37) and is summarized here:

http://www.vwd.de/vwd/news.htm?id=23138543

Claims of data manipulation by Airbus were put forward by lawyers representing victims' families.

From the link above (Babel Fish translated):
...in the computation, the forces, which affect with turbulences the vertical stabilizer, were reduced by the manipulation - probably, in order to avoid a reinforcement of the tail unit
cringe is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2004, 12:24
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,253
I'm still waiting for Airbus to hire a 747 and fly a fully instrumented A300-B4 through the accident profile (bang seats recommended for the crew) to find out just how the rudder behaves in a double wake encounter.

Hey, I'd settle down if the NTSB, AA or even the ambulance chasers did it.
RatherBeFlying is online now  
Old 15th Sep 2004, 14:44
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
RatherBeFlying,

There is plenty of video around of Boeing doing just that with a 737 and the 737 did not have the tail come off nor did it have much trouble at all until it was 100 yds behind the 747, then it looked like a bad boat design in rough water. But, the tail did not come off even though the pilot was wagging every control surface trying to keep in control.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2004, 19:18
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 274
swh; excellent post, you obviously know your stuff.
crewrest is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2004, 22:27
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 177
Angel

swh

adequate and competent post.
You just phrased it quite clear:
"If an airline then alledgedly subsequently decides to promulgate an upset recovery technique based upon the senior pilots previous military training, and not in accordance with the what the FAA had allowed for in the FARs, one will never know about this alledged deficiency in the check and training procedures until and accident such as this occurs resulting in a lot of finger pointing. Still some airlines say they know better than IFALPA, Boeing, and Airbus, putting their pilots and passengers into the experimental category."

Nothing to add, as a retired driver on A300-600(310-200,300) and former trainer.
In some threads WINO (Union goon) and others just neglegted all facts and retired from objective assumptions to gard their close friends in the cockpit of AA 587.( BTW my understanding and respect for that). Nevertheless you guide us back to the facts.

John Farley
IMHO it's more than an intellectuell gap, it's an ocean between profs and incompetence, in my old days sometimes boring.

Regards

Last edited by Captain104; 16th Sep 2004 at 07:05.
Captain104 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2004, 08:14
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dubai
Posts: 212
swh wrote

Still some airlines say they know better than IFALPA, Boeing, and Airbus, putting their pilots and passengers into the experimental category.
So what can IFALPA do about it ?

Boeing and Airbus will do nothing to upset them, they just want to sell..........
Cap 56 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2004, 09:07
  #310 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,972
Cap 56,

IFALPA cannot do anything more than what it has done by publishing Safety & Security Bulletins relating to rudder use.

The Safety & Security Bulletins promote discussion amongst pilot groups, and hopefully get people to question training they receive if it is perceived to be deficient.

swh is online now  
Old 16th Sep 2004, 12:09
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,253
747Focal, Nice to know that a 737 can handle a 747 wake, but my major curiosity is how an A300-B4 does it.
RatherBeFlying is online now  
Old 16th Sep 2004, 14:35
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 44
From what I remember about the original AA587 threads there was a lot of other issues talked around the B744 wake. e.g. strong vortex as the JAL 744 was at max weight, the separation between the two aircraft wasn't the required minimum and the wind direction all added to the vortex being worst case and therefore very strong when it hit the A300.

So it might not be a case of this aircraft is better than this one flying through a 744 wake, but on this particular day under the given conditions and contributing factors, any aircraft would have experienced difficulties.

Can anyone remember what the other contributing factors were on that day??

Cejk
Cejkovice is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2004, 14:55
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
So what you are telling me is that a 744 can out climb an A300 at max weight? I was under the impression that the only reason a 747 climbs is because the earth is round.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2004, 15:34
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
The <highly-respected German news magazine> linked by "cringe", is talking about an Airbus 330!

Nevertheless, for me as a "frontcustomer" of airbus it's a scandal that the AOM of this ship didn't contain anything about this "behavior". I'm just lucky that I've never stressed the MaxManeuvering speed on this, otherwise lovely, aircraft.

regards
catchup is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2004, 15:54
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 177
Angel

frontcustomer

1) The "highly respected" journos mixed up A330 with A300-600.
2) cringe mentioned it: "Claims of data manipulation by Airbus were put forward by lawyers representing victims' families."

Statements a bit fishy and obscure until now. If there is any truth in it, no chance for a cover-up. Wait and see.

Regards
Captain104 is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2004, 16:00
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
@captain104

too bad you don't have a "private message" button..
catchup is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2004, 05:02
  #317 (permalink)  
Union Goon
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
adequate and competent post.
You just phrased it quite clear:
"If an airline then alledgedly subsequently decides to promulgate an upset recovery technique based upon the senior pilots previous military training, and not in accordance with the what the FAA had allowed for in the FARs, one will never know about this alledged deficiency in the check and training procedures until and accident such as this occurs resulting in a lot of finger pointing. Still some airlines say they know better than IFALPA, Boeing, and Airbus, putting their pilots and passengers into the experimental category."

Nothing to add, as a retired driver on A300-600(310-200,300) and former trainer.
In some threads WINO (Union goon) and others just neglegted all facts and retired from objective assumptions to gard their close friends in the cockpit of AA 587.( BTW my understanding and respect for that). Nevertheless you guide us back to the facts.
That takes the cake for the biggest crock of sh1t ever posted on here.

Tell me how you can be guiding us back to the facts WHEN YOU NEVER TOOK THE CLASS. I TOOK THE CLASS. And the recurrents, and all the accusations you just floated are flat out lies.

Coordinated rudder if roll authority of the ailerons were exceded was the ONLY thing that was ever preached along with an excellent discussion of crossover speed, which was more germaine to the 737 problems.

You sir know not a thing about which you talk. I was there and I took the class, and I can tell you for certain that you have swallowed a pack of lies hook line and sinker. This is not to defend my friends but to defend the truth.

Congrats on helping airbus prove the one truth of aviation which is that dead pilots have bad lawyers and get hung out to dry, while the people that killed them sit at their nice safe warm desks.

Cheers
Wino
Wino is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2004, 18:41
  #318 (permalink)  

Iconoclast
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Thumbs up

To: Wino

Congrats on helping airbus prove the one truth of aviation which is that dead pilots have bad lawyers and get hung out to dry, while the people that killed them sit at their nice safe warm desks.
I too have questions about the efficacy of the management of Airbus. I made known to the FAA and other certification authorities two known design defects on the A-310. Several major suppliers in order to save money kept these design defects from Airbus. The contract required notification to Airbus of any design defect that would effect reliability, safety, and maintainability. Once the FAA made these defects known to Airbus management they did nothing to correct the design or chastise the subcontractors.

Lu Zuckerman is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2004, 05:29
  #319 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,972
Wino,

What everyone had assumed was that it was the fault of the "training system" how these rudder inputs were used for the recovery, not the fault of the pilots in the aircraft.

What you are now suggesting does not "defend my friends but to defend the truth" but you are suggesting that the respose they made to the upset was not in accordance with company training/procedures.

Yes, I agree, your friends are not here to defend themself, from the FAA, manufacture, or their company. May everyone who lost their life in the accident RIP.

swh is online now  
Old 22nd Sep 2004, 19:19
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/326530/L/

kinda blows the wake turb arguement out the arse don't it?
747FOCAL is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.