He stepped on the Rudder and redefined Va
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
I doff my cap to you for a thoughtful, well-reasoned and insightful post.
One thing I remember from the time was a BBC Horizon documentary that stated a significant number of that FO's colleagues on AA's A300 fleet had transferred to Boeing types because they believed whole-heartedly in the "weak tail" scenario. Such actions speak to camaraderie and loyalty and they are no doubt noble, even if the evidence points elsewhere.
But if we are to be rational about things then we must follow the evidence, even if we don't like where it may lead. Heaven knows I've been accused enough times of "defending" or "protecting" Airbus when sticking to the evidence is all I've been doing. At the end of the day, even with the speculation over why the FO may have handled the rudder the way he appeared to, there is no arguing with the fact that the vertical stab did not fail until the forces on it exceeded the load limit by a factor of 2.2 times, exceeding the Ultimate load reserve by a factor of 1.47 times.
One thing I remember from the time was a BBC Horizon documentary that stated a significant number of that FO's colleagues on AA's A300 fleet had transferred to Boeing types because they believed whole-heartedly in the "weak tail" scenario. Such actions speak to camaraderie and loyalty and they are no doubt noble, even if the evidence points elsewhere.
But if we are to be rational about things then we must follow the evidence, even if we don't like where it may lead. Heaven knows I've been accused enough times of "defending" or "protecting" Airbus when sticking to the evidence is all I've been doing. At the end of the day, even with the speculation over why the FO may have handled the rudder the way he appeared to, there is no arguing with the fact that the vertical stab did not fail until the forces on it exceeded the load limit by a factor of 2.2 times, exceeding the Ultimate load reserve by a factor of 1.47 times.
Quote:
Hey John – this forum, and by extension, YOU, do(es), and have done, what most here would describe as a magnificent job of reviewing the posts and allowing the development of what develops.
...You, sir, and this forum, deserve at least a handful of “atta-boys” for the kinds of information exchange you provide to all of us – and there’s probably no way to measure the value that has produced.
Hear, hear... Thanks for articulating those sentiments much better than I for one could have done, AirRabbit. Something as close to the truth as fallible humans can aspire to will out... eventually.
Hey John – this forum, and by extension, YOU, do(es), and have done, what most here would describe as a magnificent job of reviewing the posts and allowing the development of what develops.
...You, sir, and this forum, deserve at least a handful of “atta-boys” for the kinds of information exchange you provide to all of us – and there’s probably no way to measure the value that has produced.
Hear, hear... Thanks for articulating those sentiments much better than I for one could have done, AirRabbit. Something as close to the truth as fallible humans can aspire to will out... eventually.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And on a more personal note, I should thank the mods for being lenient to an enthusiast with scant qualifications, who as a result has learned more than he ever could hope to have done any other way. Not to mention making the acquaintance of several stellar pilots, engineers and people in the process.
Moderator
Guys .. enough, already ... lest I get an undeserved swelled head.
However, this forum is too important for the folks who use it to let it swing too far either way .. better we maintain a reasonably polite but vigorous and spirited debating platform for whatever topics arise.
We all have the potential to learn from PPRuNe.
I have a small insight into the IDs of some of the posters. If you or I were to seek their advice on a commercial consultancy basis (and many of them are highly regarded Industry Consultants), we would be paying a small fortune for what we are getting here as freebies.
That never ceases to amaze me.
However, this forum is too important for the folks who use it to let it swing too far either way .. better we maintain a reasonably polite but vigorous and spirited debating platform for whatever topics arise.
We all have the potential to learn from PPRuNe.
I have a small insight into the IDs of some of the posters. If you or I were to seek their advice on a commercial consultancy basis (and many of them are highly regarded Industry Consultants), we would be paying a small fortune for what we are getting here as freebies.
That never ceases to amaze me.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air - Their report will say the pilots shouldn't use too much rudder...but what isn't in the report is that Airbus has quietly inspected, fixed, and stiffened up all the tails.
Or did Airbus stiffen every Airbus tail ever built?
When did they do this? What was the 'fix'?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear, hear for and to those who quite rightly have applauded JT. A gentleman much experienced aviation wise, and does the greatest of jobs riding herd on this community of cats. Helo guy myself, know nought of big iron, but through these august pages have had the privalege of correspondance with proffesionals who have worked and flown on aircraft mere mortals can only dream about. All spilling errors tablet induced.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NTSB Accident Report on AA 587, paragraph 1.18.10 Airbus Technical Note, states:
The Airbus note is not discussed in the NTSB report that was published in october 2004, and I could not find it on the NTSB website. Has anyone more information?
On April 8, 2004, Airbus issued a technical note, titled “AAL 587 – Pedals Force Analysis,” that provided Airbus’ estimate of the rudder pedal forces during the seconds before the vertical stabilizer separated from the airplane. Airbus used FDR data for rudder pedal position, estimates of rudder position, estimates of yaw damper position, and ground test data to derive the pedal force estimate.
The technical note indicated that, during the accident sequence, the forces applied by the first officer to the rudder pedals were much higher than the forces required to reach the rudder travel limit for 240 knots. Airbus found that the highest force applied by the pilot during the accident sequence was about 140 pounds but that the pedal force required to reach the rudder travel limit during that time was about 30 pounds. The note further indicated that the rudder control cable was stretched each time that the rudder travel limit was contacted.
The technical note indicated that, during the accident sequence, the forces applied by the first officer to the rudder pedals were much higher than the forces required to reach the rudder travel limit for 240 knots. Airbus found that the highest force applied by the pilot during the accident sequence was about 140 pounds but that the pedal force required to reach the rudder travel limit during that time was about 30 pounds. The note further indicated that the rudder control cable was stretched each time that the rudder travel limit was contacted.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Air Rabbit #135
… remain ignorant of the facts …
Is it Defence secrecy? 
@Clandestino
Originally Posted by roulishollandais
What we learned first, Critical situation
• We don't have the same definition of "critical [situation]"
Last edited by Jetdriver; 1st Oct 2013 at 15:16.
Quote from dutchroll:
Despite reading PPRuNe and our august posters, I am still ignorant of the exact text of FAA's Va old and new definitions.
You and me both!
Despite reading PPRuNe and our august posters, I am still ignorant of the exact text of FAA's Va old and new definitions.
You and me both!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of Offa's dyke
Age: 88
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Chris, Roulis
I think you will find what you are looking for in posts #21 and 23 of the "Va Maneuvring" thread.
This involves subtle distinctions between "Maneuvring speed" and "Design Maneuvring speed". I suspect this was the origin of this thread, but Teldorserious hasn't confirmed that despite repeated requests.
I think you will find what you are looking for in posts #21 and 23 of the "Va Maneuvring" thread.
This involves subtle distinctions between "Maneuvring speed" and "Design Maneuvring speed". I suspect this was the origin of this thread, but Teldorserious hasn't confirmed that despite repeated requests.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of Offa's dyke
Age: 88
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Va is defined in FAR 25.335, last changed with Amdt. 25-91 Eff. 7/29/97. The change was made to harmonize FAR and JAR.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by roulishollandais
Quote:
Originally Posted by Air Rabbit #135
… remain ignorant of the facts …
Despite reading PPRuNe and our august posters, I am still ignorant of the exact text of FAA's Va old and new definitions Is it Defence secrecy?
Originally Posted by Air Rabbit #135
… remain ignorant of the facts …
Despite reading PPRuNe and our august posters, I am still ignorant of the exact text of FAA's Va old and new definitions Is it Defence secrecy?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure that because the aircraft was already in a sideslip, the resultant loss of opposing force from the rudder/stabiliser would have caused what amounted to an unrecoverable flat spin within a fraction of a second, would it not?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of Offa's dyke
Age: 88
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@AirRabbit
If you go back to the OP you will find it querying
I take this to mean the changes FAA made to their regulations as a result of NTSB pointing out the confusion that existed between Va used as a design speed and Va used as a manoeuvre speed.
If you check out the posts I cited earlier you will find that the FAA made changes to the definition of the latter, not to Va used as a design speed. Consequently I think that referring RH and CS to the latest definition of manoeuvre design speed won't help them - hence my reference to an earlier PPRuNe discussion.
@ Dozy
Not so much time to drain the systems Dozy, just that if the pipes are open to the atmosphere the working pressure drops to zero, so the remaining control surfaces will flop all over the place under whatever aerodynamic hinge moments they might experience.
I don't think we know anything about the subsequent gyrations and I would certainly not like to attempt any prediction - they were nowhere near stall when if happened so I don't see why it should develop an almost instantaneous flat spin - in fact a aircraft that size will not do anything much in a fraction of a second.
If you go back to the OP you will find it querying
FAA changes to "Va"
after the Airbus deal
If you check out the posts I cited earlier you will find that the FAA made changes to the definition of the latter, not to Va used as a design speed. Consequently I think that referring RH and CS to the latest definition of manoeuvre design speed won't help them - hence my reference to an earlier PPRuNe discussion.
@ Dozy
Not so much time to drain the systems Dozy, just that if the pipes are open to the atmosphere the working pressure drops to zero, so the remaining control surfaces will flop all over the place under whatever aerodynamic hinge moments they might experience.
I don't think we know anything about the subsequent gyrations and I would certainly not like to attempt any prediction - they were nowhere near stall when if happened so I don't see why it should develop an almost instantaneous flat spin - in fact a aircraft that size will not do anything much in a fraction of a second.
Last edited by Owain Glyndwr; 1st Oct 2013 at 16:25.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think we know anything about the subsequent gyrations and I would certainly not like to attempt any prediction - they were nowhere near stall when if happened so I don't see why it should develop an almost instantaneous flat spin - in fact a aircraft that size will not do anything much in a fraction of a second.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Owain Glyndwr
@AirRabbit
If you go back to the OP you will find it querying
Quote:
FAA changes to "Va"
Quote:
after the Airbus deal
I take this to mean the changes FAA made to their regulations as a result of NTSB pointing out the confusion that existed between Va used as a design speed and Va used as a manoeuvre speed.
If you check out the posts I cited earlier you will find that the FAA made changes to the definition of the latter, not to Va used as a design speed. Consequently I think that referring RH and CS to the latest definition of manoeuvre design speed won't help them - hence my reference to an earlier PPRuNe discussion.
If you go back to the OP you will find it querying
Quote:
FAA changes to "Va"
Quote:
after the Airbus deal
I take this to mean the changes FAA made to their regulations as a result of NTSB pointing out the confusion that existed between Va used as a design speed and Va used as a manoeuvre speed.
If you check out the posts I cited earlier you will find that the FAA made changes to the definition of the latter, not to Va used as a design speed. Consequently I think that referring RH and CS to the latest definition of manoeuvre design speed won't help them - hence my reference to an earlier PPRuNe discussion.
However, after all that, even with whatever level of understanding any of us may have had (even full understanding) with respect to what the revised regulation would have required or allowed, there is still the issue of not only control reversals, but multiple reversals, most of which were to the control limits, that would throw out all of the attempts to understand any logic or generate any sympathy for any such lack of intelligent understanding of those re-written rules. I still come back to not understanding why that pilot chose such wholly different control applications for what was essentially the same encounter twice.
Moderator
Re Regulations and, hence, in this case, what Va might have meant from time to time ...
FAA current and superseded regs can be tracked down from here.
Always one has to keep in mind that the regs should not be read in isolation but in conjunction with relevant ACs.
Tracking down superseded ACs can be a bit of a pain, unfortunately.
FAA current and superseded regs can be tracked down from here.
Always one has to keep in mind that the regs should not be read in isolation but in conjunction with relevant ACs.
Tracking down superseded ACs can be a bit of a pain, unfortunately.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Va definitions
@john_tullamarine, Owain Glyndwr, AirRabbit, Hazelnuts39, OK465, others...
Thank you very much to all : a big step has been done . I have much to read now before continuing to try to compare two definitions of Va. Strange but useful thread starting with a not so easy question as it seems. THANKS AGAIN!
Edit : add Short extract :
Code of Federal Regulations
Sec. 25.335
Part 25 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES Subpart C--Structure Flight Maneuver and Gust Conditions
Sec. 25.335
Design airspeeds.
The selected design airspeeds are equivalent airspeeds (EAS). Estimated values of and must be conservative. (a) Design cruising speed, V C . For V C ,the following apply: (1) The minimum value of V C must be sufficiently greater than V B to provide for inadvertent speed increases likely to occur as a result of severe atmospheric turbulence. [(2) Except as provided in Sec. 25.335(d)(2), V C may not be less than V B + 1.32 U REF (with U REF as specified in Sec. 25.341(a)(5)(i)). However V C need not exceed the maximum speed in level flight at maximum continuous power for the corresponding altitude.] (3) At altitudes where V D is limited by Mach number, V C may be limited to a selected Mach number. (b) Design dive speed, V D . V D must be selected so that V C / M C is not greater than 0.8 V D / M D ,or so that the minimum speed margin between V C / M C and V D / M D is the greater of the following values: (1) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at V C / M C ,the airplane is upset,flown for 20 seconds along a flight path 7.5° below the initial path, and then pulled up at a load factor of 1.5g (0.5g acceleration increment). The speed increase occurring in this maneuver may be calculated if reliable or conservative aerodynamic data is issued. Power as specified in Sec. 25.174(b)(1)(iv) is assumed until the pullup is initiated, at which time power reduction and the use of pilot controlled drag devices may be assumed. [(2) The minimum speed margin must be enough to provide for atmospheric variations (such as horizontal gusts, and penetration of jet streams and cold fronts) and for instrument errors and airframe production variations. These factors may be considered on a probability basis. The margin at altitude where M C is limited by compressibility effects must not be less than 0.07M unless a lower margin is determined using a rational analysis that includes the effects of any automatic systems. In any case, the margin may not be reduced to less than 0.05M.] (c) Design maneuvering speed, V A . For V A ,the following apply:
(1) V A may not be less than where--(i) n is the limit positive maneuvering load factor at V C ; and (ii) is the stalling speed with flaps retracted. (2) V A and V S must be evaluated at the design weight and altitude under consideration. (3) V A need not be more than V C or the speed at which the positive C Nmax curve intersects the positive maneuver load factor line, whichever is less. (d) Design speed for maximum gust intensity, V B . (1)
Vb ≥Vs1 [ 1 + Kg. Uref. Vc. a / 498 w ] ^ ½
where--V S1 = the 1-g stalling speed based on C NAmax with the flaps retracted at the particular weight under consideration; V C = design cruise speed (knots equivalent airspeed); U REF = the reference gust velocity (feet per second equivalent airspeed) from Sec. 25.341(a)(5)(i); w = average wing loading (pounds per square foot) at the particular weight under consideration.
Kg = .88 Mu / 5.3 + Mu
Mu = 2w / r.c.a.g
r = density of air (slugs/ft ); c = mean geometric chord of the wing (feet); g = acceleration due to gravity (ft/sec ); a = slope of the airplane normal force coefficient curve, C NA per radian; (2) At altitudes where V C is limited by Mach number--(i) V B may be chosen to provide an optimum margin between low and high speed buffet boundaries; and (ii) V B need not be greater than V C . (e) Design flap speeds, V F .. For V F ,the following apply: (1) The design flap speed for each flap position (established in accordance with Sec. 25.697(a)) must be sufficiently greater than the operating speed recommended for the corresponding stage of flight (including balked landings) to allow for probable variations in control of airspeed and for transition from one flap position to another. (2) If an automatic flap positioning or load limiting device is used, the speeds and corresponding flap positions programmed or allowed by the device may be used. (3) V F may not be less than--(i) 1.6 ,with the flaps in takeoff position at maximum takeoff weight; (ii) 1.8 ,with the flaps in approach position at maximum landing weight; and (iii) 1.8 with the flaps in landing position at maximum landing weight. (f) Design drag device speeds, V DD . The selected design speed for each drag device must be sufficiently greater than the speed recommended for the operation of the device to allow for probable variations in speed control. For drag devices intended for use in high speed descents, V DD may not be less than V D . When an automatic drag device positioning or load limiting means is used, the speeds and corresponding drag device positions programmed or allowed by the automatic means must be used for design.
Amdt. 25-91, Eff. 7/29/97
Thank you very much to all : a big step has been done . I have much to read now before continuing to try to compare two definitions of Va. Strange but useful thread starting with a not so easy question as it seems. THANKS AGAIN!
Edit : add Short extract :
Code of Federal Regulations
Sec. 25.335
Part 25 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES Subpart C--Structure Flight Maneuver and Gust Conditions
Sec. 25.335
Design airspeeds.
The selected design airspeeds are equivalent airspeeds (EAS). Estimated values of and must be conservative. (a) Design cruising speed, V C . For V C ,the following apply: (1) The minimum value of V C must be sufficiently greater than V B to provide for inadvertent speed increases likely to occur as a result of severe atmospheric turbulence. [(2) Except as provided in Sec. 25.335(d)(2), V C may not be less than V B + 1.32 U REF (with U REF as specified in Sec. 25.341(a)(5)(i)). However V C need not exceed the maximum speed in level flight at maximum continuous power for the corresponding altitude.] (3) At altitudes where V D is limited by Mach number, V C may be limited to a selected Mach number. (b) Design dive speed, V D . V D must be selected so that V C / M C is not greater than 0.8 V D / M D ,or so that the minimum speed margin between V C / M C and V D / M D is the greater of the following values: (1) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at V C / M C ,the airplane is upset,flown for 20 seconds along a flight path 7.5° below the initial path, and then pulled up at a load factor of 1.5g (0.5g acceleration increment). The speed increase occurring in this maneuver may be calculated if reliable or conservative aerodynamic data is issued. Power as specified in Sec. 25.174(b)(1)(iv) is assumed until the pullup is initiated, at which time power reduction and the use of pilot controlled drag devices may be assumed. [(2) The minimum speed margin must be enough to provide for atmospheric variations (such as horizontal gusts, and penetration of jet streams and cold fronts) and for instrument errors and airframe production variations. These factors may be considered on a probability basis. The margin at altitude where M C is limited by compressibility effects must not be less than 0.07M unless a lower margin is determined using a rational analysis that includes the effects of any automatic systems. In any case, the margin may not be reduced to less than 0.05M.] (c) Design maneuvering speed, V A . For V A ,the following apply:
(1) V A may not be less than where--(i) n is the limit positive maneuvering load factor at V C ; and (ii) is the stalling speed with flaps retracted. (2) V A and V S must be evaluated at the design weight and altitude under consideration. (3) V A need not be more than V C or the speed at which the positive C Nmax curve intersects the positive maneuver load factor line, whichever is less. (d) Design speed for maximum gust intensity, V B . (1)
Vb ≥Vs1 [ 1 + Kg. Uref. Vc. a / 498 w ] ^ ½
where--V S1 = the 1-g stalling speed based on C NAmax with the flaps retracted at the particular weight under consideration; V C = design cruise speed (knots equivalent airspeed); U REF = the reference gust velocity (feet per second equivalent airspeed) from Sec. 25.341(a)(5)(i); w = average wing loading (pounds per square foot) at the particular weight under consideration.
Kg = .88 Mu / 5.3 + Mu
Mu = 2w / r.c.a.g
r = density of air (slugs/ft ); c = mean geometric chord of the wing (feet); g = acceleration due to gravity (ft/sec ); a = slope of the airplane normal force coefficient curve, C NA per radian; (2) At altitudes where V C is limited by Mach number--(i) V B may be chosen to provide an optimum margin between low and high speed buffet boundaries; and (ii) V B need not be greater than V C . (e) Design flap speeds, V F .. For V F ,the following apply: (1) The design flap speed for each flap position (established in accordance with Sec. 25.697(a)) must be sufficiently greater than the operating speed recommended for the corresponding stage of flight (including balked landings) to allow for probable variations in control of airspeed and for transition from one flap position to another. (2) If an automatic flap positioning or load limiting device is used, the speeds and corresponding flap positions programmed or allowed by the device may be used. (3) V F may not be less than--(i) 1.6 ,with the flaps in takeoff position at maximum takeoff weight; (ii) 1.8 ,with the flaps in approach position at maximum landing weight; and (iii) 1.8 with the flaps in landing position at maximum landing weight. (f) Design drag device speeds, V DD . The selected design speed for each drag device must be sufficiently greater than the speed recommended for the operation of the device to allow for probable variations in speed control. For drag devices intended for use in high speed descents, V DD may not be less than V D . When an automatic drag device positioning or load limiting means is used, the speeds and corresponding drag device positions programmed or allowed by the automatic means must be used for design.
Amdt. 25-91, Eff. 7/29/97
Last edited by roulishollandais; 1st Oct 2013 at 23:48. Reason: add short extract