Thank goodness that the manufacturer is acting quickly

The incident happened at march 7th.

When "acted" EADS?

regards

The attention from Airbus seems to be focused on one part number A55471500 for the rudder on all 4 aircraft types. This rudder part number is fitted to many (if not most) of the A300-600 and A310 fleet, but appears to be fitted to only certain earlier models of the A330 and A340.

I wonder if this part number is still current on new A300-600s, and why was it replaced on later production A330s and A340s? What is different about the rudders fitted to later A330s and A340s compared to this part number rudder? What design changes were made?

Safety Guy said:
Does anyone know what other damage was done to this aircraft when the rudder came off?

Quickly
 

Hi Catchup,

Have you ever seen a pilot rush into some wrong action in a sim check?

When you consider that the part has to be examined, the problem found and then action taken, I would say it has been done quickly and positively.

FC.

When you consider that the part has to be examined, the problem found

To my knowledge, neither the part has been examined nor has the problem been found.

regards

Well that is a pretty serious allegation. Do you mean no-one from Airbus has seen the damage?

As far as the AD goes they are checking "structural Integrity" of the part which I agree is a pretty broad canvas but is a positive step to catching further damage before an incident or accident happens.

I say thank goodness, because there have been other occasions on which very little action has resulted and rather late.

FC

True, in as far as it goes. However, there's what looks like a contradiction here. The check is within the next 550 flight hours, or 3 months, so apparently not a panic, but in the body, it then says "in case of findings..or if damage to the rudder exceeds..... refer to Airbus structure engineering Customer support for an approved repair solution before next flight

Somewhere, the timeframes don't quite tie in for me. Either there's damage that means it's not airworthy, or there is not, and to allow up to 3 months before finding out that it's not airworthy seems to me to be contradictory, or at least questionable.

the AA587 tail:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trans...lash_image.jpg

Not having seen this pic till today. and in the light of this latest incident, I am forced to wonder if there is any significance in the fact that the pic only shows the fin, and there's no visible evidence of a rudder anywhere. We'll never know, but did the rudder part company with the fin before the fin then separated from the airframe, or did it all come off together?

Pause for thought!

CFRP density
 

I think that there's enough trapped air in the honeycomb that the rudder will float, and may eventually wash up on the beach somewhere. IIRC the AA587 fin & rudder were found floating in the bay.

The AA 587 rudder was found. In three big pieces. There are some pics here...

http://usread.com/flight587/Coast_Guard_Pix.html

And an attempt to "reconstruct" the rudder here...

http://usread.com/flight587/RudderReconstruct.html

The above site belongs to someone who has some theories of his own about the AA 587 accident (he thinks the tail wasn't the first thing to fail). I'm only posting this link because it's the only place I could find the pictures - not because I am convinced by (or have even really read) his theories.

Thanks for the reference to the pics of the AA587 rudder. The NTSB report stated that entrapped water was detected in the lower portion of the rudder, and the locations of the water appeared to correspond to areas where the facesheet had separated from the honeycomb. It was the opinion of investigators that the water was most likely water from Jamaica Bay.

The NTSB considered five possible scenarios for the cause of the initial failure, before deciding that fracture of the right rear main attachment lug was the most probable one. Two other scenarios (for which there is no detail) were rudder skin fracture, and actuation of a bent rudder hinge line resulting in rudder fracture or rudder hinge line failure.

FAA Orders Inspections of Airbus Rudders (AP)

By LESLIE MILLER Associated Press Writer

Posted: 3/25/2005 2:22 PM
WASHINGTON

U.S. airlines will be ordered to inspect the rudders of certain Airbus jets following an incident in which most of the rudder fell off an A310 in flight, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday.

The FAA directive, to be issued Monday, affects A310s and A300-600s. American Airlines and FedEx, the only U.S. airlines that fly those models, have a combined 112 of those planes.

A plane operated by Canadian-based Air Transat lost nearly all of the rudder _ the vertical moving part at the back of the tail fin _ soon after leaving Cuba for Quebec on March 6. The pilot was able to control the aircraft and returned to Varadero, Cuba. None of the 270 passengers and crew was injured.

"No one knows for sure what really happened, but we feel this is a prudent measure," FAA spokesman Les Dorr said of the order. "The basic idea is to get somebody up looking at the rudder to see if there are any problems that can be detected visually or with the tap test."

A tap test is a way to inspect parts by tapping a piece of metal or a coin against the surface while listening for dull spots. Bill Waldock, an aviation safety professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona, said it's an extremely time-consuming process. "You got a mechanic out there who's going to spend a lot of time tapping."

The FAA directive follows a similar order by French civil aviation authorities on March 18. European aircraft maker Airbus SAS also asked airlines to inspect the planes last week out of what it called "an abundance of caution."

Airbus spokeswoman MaryAnne Greczyn said the Airbus request speeds up the regular five-year inspection cycle.

The Air Transat incident has prompted discussion about the aging characteristics of composites, a relatively new building material which the A300 rudders are made of. Composites are man-made materials made of at least two different kinds of substances; the Airbus rudders are made of carbon fiber and reinforced epoxy.

Composites have been used in aircraft manufacture since the 1970s, first as smaller components and then as larger parts. Airbus was the first manufacturer to use composites extensively on large commercial aircraft. Boeing also uses them.

An Airbus A300-600, which has the same rudder system as the A310, crashed in New York in November 2001 after its tail fell off and killed 265 people. The National Transportation Safety Board blamed pilot error, inadequate pilot training and overly sensitive rudder controls.

Investigators conducted extensive tests on the tail and found no evidence of fatigue, which occurs in aging components and can cause cracking.

Dorr said U.S. airlines have to inspect the plans within 550 flight hours or three months.

French civil aviation authorities also told airlines to inspect A330s and A340s because the rudders are the same or similar to the A300-600 and A310. The FAA didn't order A330s to be inspected because the planes used in the United States have different rudders. There are no A340s registered in the United States.

Surely there must be a more sophisticated test than this? :confused:

Apparently not, that is the problem with composites.

And when you make the whole aircraft from composites, Mr Boeing?

The 'plastic plane' 7E7, for instance....in which the majority of the primary structure, including the fuselage and wing, will be made of composite materials... :confused:

Coming from a composite/plastics boating background, I must say there are literally millions of combinations of reinforced plastics. There is also continuous research being conducted by hundreds of university educated technicians every week.

With that in mind, I should think the plastics technology that Boeing are employing today are somewhat more advanced than the technology employed by Airbus when designing the A310.

No diss on Airbus but, there you go.

The same would probably apply to Airbus.

These problems/inspections seem to be confined to their A300-600s/A310s and early models only of the A330s/A340s, their composite technology has also improved greatly since then.

What hasn't seemed to improve over the years is the diagnostic technology for evaluating the soundness of Airbus composite parts and structures.

Let's not even suggest whether there could be a possible connection between the Air Transat incident and the AA crash. This type of thinking is clearly 'out of bounds' on Pprune.

Even to bring up the question is too much for some who debate technical topics on Pprune. Check previous pages.

If Boeing uses materials which can not be inspected and evaluated in the 7E7 etc, then they have somehow screwed up. Aside from that, does the 7E7 have a yoke or a stick?

Why is it out of bounds. :confused:

In my personal opinion as a Professional Engineer, and one with considerable A300-600/A310 experience, in exactly the same environment as these 2 Aircraft, I think there could well be a big connection. :(

Continual water (ice) ingress into these composites over a long period. :(