Ground the Airbus???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got this far in the article: ".....three of the Airbus crashes involved a separation of the composite vertical stabilizer (tail fin) from the fuselage..." then stopped reading. 100% of CFIT crashes involved flying - maybe the question should be "Let's Ban Flying"; or 100% of airplane crashes involved aircraft, so "Should we Ban Aircraft".
If they had a better premise to start I might have read further, but for now - Sensational rubbish (IMHO)
If they had a better premise to start I might have read further, but for now - Sensational rubbish (IMHO)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brasil
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got as far as.....
The indications so far are that the fin came off on impact with the surface, and not in flight as the writer implies. If the statement had been
What we do know is that the plane fell almost seven miles into the ocean killing everyone aboard and it's plastic tail fin fell off
then the article would have a little more credibility.
As it stands, any valid points are obscured by the sensationalist nature of the argument.
What we do know is that its plastic tail fin fell off and the plane fell almost seven miles into the ocean killing everyone aboard.
What we do know is that the plane fell almost seven miles into the ocean killing everyone aboard and it's plastic tail fin fell off
then the article would have a little more credibility.
As it stands, any valid points are obscured by the sensationalist nature of the argument.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Due to the recalculation of loads for the Multi Role Transporter
and Tanker (MRTT) aircraft, it has been found that a structural
reinforcement at the aft section of the fuselage (FR (frame) 87-
FR91) is required for A300-600 aircraft and A310 aircraft with a
Trim Tank installed. * * *
The unsafe condition is the potential loss of structural integrity in
the aft section of the fuselage between FR87 through FR91, inclusive,
during extreme rolling and vertical maneuver combinations. The proposed
AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI.
and Tanker (MRTT) aircraft, it has been found that a structural
reinforcement at the aft section of the fuselage (FR (frame) 87-
FR91) is required for A300-600 aircraft and A310 aircraft with a
Trim Tank installed. * * *
The unsafe condition is the potential loss of structural integrity in
the aft section of the fuselage between FR87 through FR91, inclusive,
during extreme rolling and vertical maneuver combinations. The proposed
AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Folks ,
If everyone thought like you , no investigation would be needed to make aviation safer.
Accident investigation would be just to serve public curiosity and blame crew and the airlines and get some profit from the accident.
The problem is that accident investigation nowadays has a tendency to bend to comercial and financial interests.
As I read on a book a couple of years ago , "If a pilot is not dead in an accident , investigation will kill him".
This kind of report is of ultimate importance and shows up the true which is hidden behind the interests.
Of course I will not quit flying because of this , but I will not die stupid.
A-3TWENTY
If everyone thought like you , no investigation would be needed to make aviation safer.
Accident investigation would be just to serve public curiosity and blame crew and the airlines and get some profit from the accident.
The problem is that accident investigation nowadays has a tendency to bend to comercial and financial interests.
As I read on a book a couple of years ago , "If a pilot is not dead in an accident , investigation will kill him".
This kind of report is of ultimate importance and shows up the true which is hidden behind the interests.
Of course I will not quit flying because of this , but I will not die stupid.
A-3TWENTY
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code:
With the autopilot disengaged, the pilots had to manually contend with an ever-escalating series of failures in the flight control systems. All of this had to be done with alarms sounding, in absolute darkness, with no natural horizon to observe and with aerodynamic forces erasing all sense of up or down. The pilots were entirely dependent upon the plane’s instruments and the sensors that provided electronic data. Then, there was a cascading series of failures within the flight control computer and systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. The pilots were flying blind. The wing spoilers failed, the rudder limiter became inoperative and the rudder may have locked into place. At this point, it is likely that the plastic stabilizer was ripped from the plane. [64]
Code:
All we know for sure is that the plastic tail fin separated from the fuselage under conditions that should have been expected to occur at some time during the life of the airplane.
Media Sensationalism, no doubt fueled by a vested lobby.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Of course I will not quit flying because of this , but I will not die stupid.
So A3-TWENTY will you be looking to retrain on a Boeing aircraft then?
Are any ATPLs aware that the quote below is based on any facts at all?
More than 20 American Airlines pilots asked to be transferred to Boeing aircraft, “although this meant months of retraining and loss of earnings.” One pilot wrote that “he had refused to let any of his family take an A300 or A310 and had paid extra to take a circuitous route on holiday purely to avoid them.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a canadian/american report.
I am not one for bad mouthing....but that gives the guys over the western side of the pond, the 'idiotic' reputation they deserve!
When would us 'easteners' ever say ground the Boeing purely for competition stakes!
I am not one for bad mouthing....but that gives the guys over the western side of the pond, the 'idiotic' reputation they deserve!
When would us 'easteners' ever say ground the Boeing purely for competition stakes!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just read the article which heads this thread, whilst I agree with a lot of the comments, I have a feeling that there may be some truth.
There has recently been a "Seconds from Disaster" program re the Bristow helicopter tail separation & crash in the North Sea in 1996.
AAIBs Edward Trimble was the lead investigator, & his conclusion was the composite tail rotor failed after a lightning strike which partially melted, damaged. the structure. The original design had used metal which allowed electrical energy to disipate easily. This discharge does not happen so easily with composites and can lead to heating. His conclusions were not accepted by the CAA, and to my knowledge no redesign has been ordered.
SO could we read this across to composite fins etc on current fixed wing a/c. They do get struck by lightning and presumably discharge through their empenage. Could this lead to a weakening of the tail fastenings, and could this explain the large number of tail separations which seem to be occuring on Airbus a/c.
We do know that AF 447 went through a severe thunderstorm, a lightning strike may? have been a major/minor contributory factor.
There has recently been a "Seconds from Disaster" program re the Bristow helicopter tail separation & crash in the North Sea in 1996.
AAIBs Edward Trimble was the lead investigator, & his conclusion was the composite tail rotor failed after a lightning strike which partially melted, damaged. the structure. The original design had used metal which allowed electrical energy to disipate easily. This discharge does not happen so easily with composites and can lead to heating. His conclusions were not accepted by the CAA, and to my knowledge no redesign has been ordered.
SO could we read this across to composite fins etc on current fixed wing a/c. They do get struck by lightning and presumably discharge through their empenage. Could this lead to a weakening of the tail fastenings, and could this explain the large number of tail separations which seem to be occuring on Airbus a/c.
We do know that AF 447 went through a severe thunderstorm, a lightning strike may? have been a major/minor contributory factor.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sin City
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If composites is the problem, then they should ground all B787s as almost the whole a/c is made of it.
Oh!, wait a minute, it hasn't even flown.
FYI, B777 vertical and horizontal stabilizers are also made of composites mainly.
Oh!, wait a minute, it hasn't even flown.
FYI, B777 vertical and horizontal stabilizers are also made of composites mainly.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before this turns into a "Airbus are rubbish, Boeing are great" thread, as mentioned the B787 and B777 use composite and the B737 rudder hasn't exactly had great publicity for its flight safety.....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My posting was not taking sides but merely pointing out that the ex head of the AAIB was not happy that enough testing had been done on composites, which he agreed were stronger weight for weight, but could have problems with electrical discharges flowing through them. It is possible that electrical bonding is superior in Boeings. Also until the B 787 flies then I dont believe that much structual composite material has been used on Boeings.
The Bristow helecopter which crashed in 1996 had its rotor blades (tail & main) retrofitted with composite blades viz metal. They were proved to be stronger BUT, the AAIB found in certain circumstances they could fail. So if for example the A 330 has a composite fin attached with a mixture of metal and composite attachments, then is it not possible in certain cases for similar delamination to take place. I do believe the CAA should consider running an investigation.
I consider the Airbus range to be a fine product, but to bury your head in the sand is not good airmanship.
The Bristow helecopter which crashed in 1996 had its rotor blades (tail & main) retrofitted with composite blades viz metal. They were proved to be stronger BUT, the AAIB found in certain circumstances they could fail. So if for example the A 330 has a composite fin attached with a mixture of metal and composite attachments, then is it not possible in certain cases for similar delamination to take place. I do believe the CAA should consider running an investigation.
I consider the Airbus range to be a fine product, but to bury your head in the sand is not good airmanship.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: England
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even bits of Concorde's tail "fell off" a few times.
BBC NEWS | UK | Part of Concorde tail 'fell off'
27 November 2002: New York flight loses part of lower rudder
8 October 1998: Part of lower rudder detaches off Newfoundland
21 March 1992: Large section of upper rudder lost at twice speed of sound
4 January 1991: Portion of upper rudder separates during London - New York flight
12 April 1989: Part of upper rudder detaches at 44,000 feet
The old girl(s) survived all these - Tough as old boots.
Flying Lid
BBC NEWS | UK | Part of Concorde tail 'fell off'
27 November 2002: New York flight loses part of lower rudder
8 October 1998: Part of lower rudder detaches off Newfoundland
21 March 1992: Large section of upper rudder lost at twice speed of sound
4 January 1991: Portion of upper rudder separates during London - New York flight
12 April 1989: Part of upper rudder detaches at 44,000 feet
The old girl(s) survived all these - Tough as old boots.
Flying Lid
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Walnut. You said: "It is possible that electrical bonding is superior in Boeings. Also until the B 787 flies then I dont believe that much structual composite material has been used on Boeings."
It is just as possible that the electrical bonding in Boeings is inferior. Your statement is without foundation, and, it appears, without reason. Also, what you BELIEVE about the use of composite material on Boeings is irrelevant - what they ACTUALLY use has far greater relevance than your beliefs. Check the facts.
It is just as possible that the electrical bonding in Boeings is inferior. Your statement is without foundation, and, it appears, without reason. Also, what you BELIEVE about the use of composite material on Boeings is irrelevant - what they ACTUALLY use has far greater relevance than your beliefs. Check the facts.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sin City
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My posting was not taking sides
It is possible that electrical bonding is superior in Boeings.
I consider the Airbus range to be a fine product, but to bury your head in the sand is not good airmanship.
When any aircraft is rolled out, the major aviation authorities such as FAA and EASA would conduct numerous amount of tests to validate its airworthiness. I'm pretty sure that electrical conductivity and lightning tests is among them. If there were any problems, the a/c would not be allowed to fly. If there were fundamental design flaws discovered in the course of AF447 investigation, or any other for that matter, that needs immediate attention, they will be grounded till they are fixed.( E.g: DC 10)
If you concerned about safety, please do so without double standards.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well Boeing denied responsibility for the rudder problems until enough people had died to make it financially viable to fix despite the evidence and it seems to be the same scenario with the Airbus fin. It happens with ALL manufacturers of cars, trains, boats whatever.....and is perfectly normal. Money is King.
Time will tell and in the meantime the Censorship Ostriches will continue to tell everyone what they can and cannot believe.
Time will tell and in the meantime the Censorship Ostriches will continue to tell everyone what they can and cannot believe.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats wrong with the Airbus fin? One failed having been subject to loads above it's maximum design strength, one fell off after the aircraft hit the sea at high speed. Where's the evidence of a design flaw?