Plane's rudder partially fell off
 

FROM CBC.COM

Air Transat took some of its A-310 aircraft out of service on Sunday after an incident involving one of its planes en route from Cuba to Quebec.

On Saturday, an Air Transat Airbus 310 flying from Varadero, Cuba to Quebec City developed what the airline is calling a "mechanical problem" about 25 minutes into the flight.

A spokesperson for the airline said the plane's rudder "partially fell off."

On Sunday three Airbus planes in Toronto and two in Vancouver were suspended from flying until they are thoroughly inspected.

Air Transat has a total of 10 A-310 models.

The airline had to make alternate arrangements for affected passengers.
------------------------

Air Transat : Status on Flight TS961 of March 6, 2005
Monday March 7, 12:28 am ET

MONTREAL, March 7 /CNW Telbec/ - Air Transat Flight TS 961 that left Varadero, Cuba, for Québec City, had to return to Varadero approximately 30 minutes after take-off, due to a mechanical failure. There were 261 passengers and 9 crewmembers on board the Airbus A310 aircraft, which landed normally in Varadero at 4:18 p.m. local time on Sunday. Deplaning occurred normally through the loading bridge.

Passengers were sent to hotels in Varadero. Passengers will arrive in Québec City in the early morning hours of Monday.

Preliminary observations indicate that a portion of the rudder detached from the aircraft, as the flight was progressing under normal conditions at its cruising altitude.

Air Transat operates 10 Airbus A310s. The Company immediately carried out a thorough visual examination of all its Airbus A310s. The inspection was completed in the following hours and no anomaly was detected. The inspection caused delays on certain flights but no Air Transat flights have been cancelled. The Company expects to be back to a normal schedule on Monday.

Following the incident, Air Transat immediately advised Airbus, Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Based on available information, an investigation will be conducted by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, with support and participation of Cuban authorities, Air Transat and Airbus.

The aircraft involved in Flight TS 961, an Airbus A310, was put into service in 1991. It had an A-Check inspection on March 1, 2005 and its next major C-Check inspection is scheduled for 2006.

Flight TS 961 left Varadero at 2:48 a.m. on Sunday, March 6.The problem occurred sometime about 3:15 a.m. and the aircraft landed normally at 4:18 a.m. in Varadero

Air Transat loses A310 rudder inflight
 

Was reading through A.net and came across a very interesting topic regarding an Air Transat A310 that lost most of the rudder
after take off from Varadero this past weekend. The photo shows the rudder almost completely gone. Sorry dont know how to post it on here. My question is, this is a significant incident. How come it hasnt been throughly dissected by the experts on PPRUNE?
This is much worse than the Concorde delamination problems.
Any comments greatly appreciated.

Do you have the link?

regards

----------------------------------------Occurrence 4----------------------------------------

Occurrence No. : A05F0047 Occurrence Type: ACCIDENT
Class : CLASS 2 Reportable Type:
Date : 06-03-2005 Time : 07:15 UTC
Region of Responsibility : HEAD OFFICE
Location : VARADERO (MUVR), CUBA


Aircraft Information:

Registration : C-GPAT Operator : AIR TRANSAT
Manufacturer : AIRBUS Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model : A310-300 CARs Info: 705 - AIRLINER
Injuries: Fatal : 0 Serious : 0 Minor : 0 None : 268 Unknown : 0


Occurrence Summary :

A05F0047: Air Transat 961, an Airbus A310-300, registration C-GPAT, serial # 597, departed Varadero, Cuba for Quebec (Quebec). While in the early enroute phase of the flight, aircraft control problems were encountered. The flight then returned to Varadero, and On arrival at Varadero, it was discovered that the aircraft rudder was missing. The TSB sent 2 investigators to Cuba, accompanied by a Transport Canada Technical Advisor. It appears that the occurrence commenced over international waters. In accordance with Annex 13, Canada, as the State of Registry, will be investigating. Cuba has offered assistance.

There is a picture posted of the Verticle stab at:

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewt...?p=53588#53588

different angle (for what it's worth)

here

What's x-wind limit with this config?

might qualify as the understatement of the year ....

Looks like hinges are still there

"Understatement is definitely putting it mildly"
How about a freakin miracle. Reminds me of the
drawings of what happened to the JAL B747 that
had the fuselage bulkhead rupture and tear off the
rudder. We all know what happened with that.
How lucky was this aircraft to get back down to
terra firma with out becoming shark bait.
I read a report that said the aircraft came out of an
"A" check on Mar 1st. Usually that is just routine maintenance.
Is a rudder check usually part of an "A" check?

Well done to the pilots, but please can an A310 pilot or a design engineer state whether it would be expected that the aircraft be landed safely every time in this rudderless condition, or could this easily develop into a full loss of control situation?

Thanks in advance.

Florida divert?
 

Comments in the avcanada forum suggest that, if they had diverted to Florida (as might seem reasonable given their position when they turned around), there would have been Big Trouble due to contravention of Cuba embargo; even in an emergency situation, it's suggested that a landing in the USA would result in aircraft being seized and crew jailed.

I've never operated in the Caribbean so have no personal knowledge; would someone please tell me this is BS, and a flight originating in Cuba can make an emergency landing in the US without legal problems?!

IF not, surely ICAO could and would throw the book at the Americans...?

R1

Its complete BS.

Cheers
Wino

Slight difference - the JAL 747 lost its entire fin, IIRC.

Boy, those Transat crews sure are building a great reputation for their superior stick and (ahem) rudder skills. :cool:

Well done to the pilots for putting this plane down safely.

Although I'm not a pilot or engineer, I would think losing the rudder completely should actually be less of a problem than having it stuck in "full left" or "full right" , provided the rest of the fin is big enough to provide longitudinal stability. Still looks like Airbus should have another carefull look at the tail of the A300/310 series, as this seems to be the weak spot on this aircraft

BoeingMEL

I suspect you would be comparing a 767 to the 310 for the same capacity, but since it was obviously just a kneejerk fanboy comment I'll just mention the sardine can/convertible 737 and leave it at that.

Ratherbeflying - well put

Amazing that some here want the A300/310 dead for tail issues when Concorde lost tail rudder parts with quite interesting frequency and yet other folk want them resurrected!

I would think that a flight from Cuba would be allowed to land in the US due to an emergency without much problem. I have flown charter flights from JFK to Havana and Guantanamo so it is possible. I'm not sure what hoops my company (JFK based) had to jump through for these flights but apparently it isn't too difficult.

There are daily charter flights between the US and Cuba... including American, United, Continental etc... so there is absolutely no reason Air Transat would not be allowed to land its Cuba flight in the US under normal circums let alone if they declared an emergency... fact is that Air Transat released the following this afternoon :

MONTREAL, March 7 - Air Transat wishes to point out that the decision to return to Varadero rather then land in Florida was made by the captain together with the Operational Control Center because the Company has access to maintenance staff at this airport. It is untrue that American authorities were opposed to allowing the plane to land on their territory.

I've always thought it a bit odd that the A310 has a single section rudder with 3 hydraulic actuators - what if top and bottom say 'left' and middle says 'right'?

Older a/c, such as the VC10, had multi-section rudders with each section driven independently from separate actuators and each had its own yaw damper.

@BEagle

Yes, I remember the 727 which was build that way. Upper and lower rudder.

What, if upper says left - but lower says right?

;)

regards

Catchup, it's called a BAe 146 ;)

But seriously, the Japanese 747 indeed lost it's entire fin as well as hydraulics to the elevator and the pilots kept it in the air for a while by changing the power settings to control pitch. With this, I suspect that neither directional nor pitch control would have been so adversely affected. Regardless, well done to the crew:ok:

ive348, i suspect you may be correct....

Crosswind limit about 1 1/2 kts I should think!
I've only just learnt of this myself. A bit disingenuous to start implying because it's Yoo-ropean we don't want to discuss it. Conc had rudders fall off- not surprising at 2000mph with delamination problems. A technical masterpiece God Bless her.
Now the Aibus- how many rudder problems in history? Can't think of many. Looks like this one will be easily solved. Meanwhile, 737s are flying around with potential hardover problems that have never really been explained. Should a Lauda 767 have had a full power reverse inflight leading to breakup? How many 747s have fallen apart due to unsatisfactory repair jobs on the rear pressure bulkhead? I would like SAFETY to be the main issue, not making political and nationalistic points out of each incident, presumably to support a desperate attempt to make more of the Airbus JFK incident than just an overcontrol situation.

I saw an A310 in Darwin about 5 or 6 years ago with a hole in the fin about 18 inches square. As I recall, crew did not realise anything was amiss until they landed in DRW for fuel.

Aircraft belonged to an Egyptian operator and was on a military charter from Nadi (I think) to somewhere in the Middle East.

Anyone else recall seeing it?

Don't know the circumstances, but if you put "B52 tailless landing" in Google image search, you will see a B52 that managed to land with virtually no tail..........

A friend sent me this link with more pics.

Rainboe - I'm sensing a slight bias here.

Well, how about the fatal crash at new york a couple of years back? Whether it was the pilot or the equipment at fault, the problem was most definitely the rudder.

The word here being potential.

You say we shouldn't make political or nationalistic points out of incidents, and then proceed to do exactly that!

All aircraft will have faults, nothing and no one is perfect. The important thing is how the manufacturers react to those faults.

Em...not 'potential'. Two violent 737 crashes plus other events. I would like to see complete neutrality in the investigation of such incidents- safety is the issue, not US v Airbus. Someone else raised it first.
At the risk of kicking off the whole AA discussion again, previous history and the manner of the event satisfies me that the JFK accident was reasonably caused by overcontrol during a wake encounter. Aeroplanes are not designed to have full rudder applied in that manner. There is obviously a rudder problem here- whether there is a whole fin problem is not at stake- this incident has nothing to do with a fin problem.

I believe that the A-310 Vertical Stab is metal...rudder composite

The A-300, both vertical stab and rudder composite.

Can anyone confirm?

Nope.

"The vertical stabilizer on Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes with Airbus Modification 4886 is manufactured of advanced composite materials. The vertical stabilizer on Airbus Model A310 series airplanes with the same modification is manufactured of the same materials."

Regards

Edit for history:
"The original A-300 design had this primary structure as aluminum. Then Airbus designed the A-310, which was actually the first airliner with an all-composite vertical stabilizer. Later, Airbus rolled out an improved A-300-600, which basically used the A-310 composite tail design." Hope that helps. :ok:

Also the original A300 with the aluminum fin had a ratio changer rudder load limiter that worked in the conventional manner.

The A310 and the A300600 have a fixed ratio rudder load limiter that is a trap for an oscilation, and is a VERY bad design.

Whether you break the whole fin off or just the rudder would be a function of the speed of the incident.

Cheers
Wino

The A310 has the same overly sensitive rudder limiter system that the A300-600 has. Since this failure occurred 30 minutes into the flight, the aircraft should have been at cruise speed when this happened, thus the rudder limiter would have been fully activated (i.e. in the configuration creating the highest sensitivity).

It will be interesting to see what "control problem" was encountered that initiated this event.

I would also imagine that this aircraft cannot possibly be put back into service without the vertical fin being thoroughly inspected (including all 6 attactment lugs).

Surely the Fin in question will never fly again? .....

I see a very important story here, first for this airline, secondly for the manufacturer and Boeing, NTSB, and FAA, and third for all non US operators that fly in this part of the world.

First Air Transat's maintenance practices were shown to be questionable after the dead stick landing by one of their A330's into the Azores. Of course the Azores incident, which could have so easily turned into a disaster, was also blamed on the captain's poor judgement in monitoring his fuel state and properly excuting checklists. None the less the incident began with a maintenance error, and transport authorities in Canada will not forget this.

Secondly all those who have followed the story of AA A300 loss in New York shortly after 9-11 know just how important this story is, given that the NTSB conclusions from this accident clearly pinned the blame for the structural failure of that A/C's tail on poor piloting techniques induced by poor training practices at AA. The findings of the A300 accident caused a huge wave in the way that large jet operators train their aircrew, as Airbus and Boeing issued new documents on how aircrew should use the rudder in jet upset conditions. At the same time and in the same documents both manufactures took great pains in defending the strength of their rudders. However judging by the images posted clearly the strength of composite structures and in particular on Airbus aircraft will be questioned, and this in turn could very likely affect the findings of NTSB about the AA300 accident.

Third, the aircraft turned back to Varedero, and judging by the statements that have been made by the airline it could have landed in Florida, but turned back to Varedaro at the PIC's discretion. A sound desicion and absolutely not as benign as people percieve. Any non US aircrew that has operated into this part of the world know the consequences to all involved if the A/C would have landed on US soil. The A/C had departed from Cuba, was not a US carrier, was registered to a state that is having it's share of a differing political opinions lately with the US so that would have surely set off a less than hospitable reaction. I remember that on a flight for a non US airline I operated into the US from Panama a few years back, a crew member had bought a $5 bottle of cuban rum IN PANAMA and unwittingly declared it to US customs in Miami. The reaction by US authorities was incredible in its zealousness, as we waited for the crewmember to pass customs a squad of customs officers arrived, the bottle was confiscated and put in a hermetically sealed box, the crewmember was reprimanded verbally, and later sent a letter from the US state department that any additional violations he commited to the "trading with the enemy" act would result in a massive fine, deny him of his right to enter the US ever again and or land him in jail. I know that the PIC of the Air Transat flight made his decision to turn back to Varedaro considering these kinds of potential problems, but it also makes me wonder just how different this story would have been if the Air Transat flight had not made it back or had crashed on landing at Varedero?

six7driver

I see that you went to great pains to develop your Tom Clancy immaginative story to get us to believe in the nationalistic jingo being a causal factor in this incident.

I believe that we should be searching for facts and answers rather than making them up to serve an obvious agenda.

lomapaseo, I don't know how how you drew the conclusion about a "Tom Clancy story" out of my comments. I challenge you to tell me where I state any causal factors of this incident in my comments? All I say in my comments is that this is an important story, for the reasons I believe it is. All I express is my opinion. Tell me just were I have made up a fact? and what agenda you are refering to that is so obvious in my comments? The only thing I understand from your reply is that YOU read Tom Clancy books.

I'll leave the searching for the facts and answers to those investigating the incident.:cool:

"Yes, I remember the 727 which was build that way. Upper and lower rudder.

What, if upper says left - but lower says right?"

Errm, you turn the faulty one off?

To make the point to a pilot who had failed to notice a PFCU red warning light (in the VC10 simulator) below V1 (mandatory abort for that type) - we gave the crew a middle rudder PFCU failure and a lower rudder hardover. Stupid sods then spent the next 10 minutes fannying about trying to get the failed middle rudder back instead of first attempting to turn off the 'hardover' lower rudder (electrohydraulic servo - the fault was an input signal error)....

But they worked it out eventually - and the pilot in question never missed a 'below V1 red light' again!

But if all 3 PFCUs are driving the same surface, I can well imagine it breaking up if 2 say one way and the 3rd says the other. Unless there's some other protection system, of course...

Is there?

And the AA accident was down to inappropriate and ultimately fatal mishandling. All a/c have their quirks - you don't leave flap down above Mach 0.9 in a Hunter, you don't select airbrakes with flap in a VC10 - and you don't pedal the rudder of an A300/310 like a demented harmonium player!

@BEagle


Errm, you turn the faulty one off?

Indeed, and it's much easier if two say left and one says right, isn't it?

Regards

A couple of things:

737 rudder problem is not a mystery. They know what caused the accident. Secondary slide jammed in the PCU. There is a new rudder PCU that fixes the problem. They also have a mod that reduces the A system pressure most of the time with the old PCU (lowers rudder travel and therefore crossover speed). Also being shown a rudder hardover in the sim and the procedures for recovery, makes it much easier to deal with. Aluminum structure is easier to inspect than composite.
I have over 5000 hours in the 737 and am satisfied with the solutions to the rudder PCU problems. I am currently an A 320 driver and think that both Airbus and Boeing make good airplanes.
As far as the missing rudder, looks more to me like the upper hinge came apart or something of that nature, not a plastic airplane part failure initially.

Captain 104 and Wino, thanks for the response and info.....