He stepped on the Rudder and redefined Va
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cannot say anything for commercial jet aircraft and will readily stand corrected as always, but apart from the (AFAIK rather controversial) "falling leaf", I cannot think of any manoeuvre with oscillating hard rudder inputs. And frankly, even if at speeds well below Va in the spamcans I sometimes fly (let's say at 80-90 KIAS), the idea of giving several alternating full rudder inputs just feels wrong and abusive.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 49
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBK or anyone with Bus experience....
In a bus, can a pilot at say a 200kts, aerodynamic forces be damned, step on a rudder to full stop, and the resulting action in the tail is that the rudder slammed hard over would result in a resulting bang or resonance in the fusilage because the rudder slammed over that hard on the vertical stab?
IF that is the case, that would answer something.
In a bus, can a pilot at say a 200kts, aerodynamic forces be damned, step on a rudder to full stop, and the resulting action in the tail is that the rudder slammed hard over would result in a resulting bang or resonance in the fusilage because the rudder slammed over that hard on the vertical stab?
IF that is the case, that would answer something.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Teldorserious:
May I ask that you clear up something that is bothering me? Am I reading your posts correctly by understanding that when you started flying you were trained, and trained well, but were never trained, at any point in your career, to NOT apply full rudder in either direction – and specifically were NOT trained to never move any flight control from its hard-stop in one direction to its hard-stop in the opposite direction as fast as you are able? Further, am I understanding you to say that it is because of this absence of training in this specific area, you have determined independently that it must be permissible to apply full flight control input, for any flight control, to its mechanical or aerodynamic limits, in either direction, and then to rapidly move that control in the opposite direction to the opposite mechanical or aerodynamic limits? Or are you saying that you were specifically trained, and if not trained, at least told, that moving this control to one of its directional limits and then rapidly moving that control to the opposite limit, was an acceptable behavior in whatever airplane you were currently training to fly?
I ask this specifically in light of the fact that the AA587 accident airplane FDR readouts clearly show that this is precisely what the F/O did. And in light of your answers to my questions above, we might be able to discern that you are convinced that the accident resulted from inappropriate actions by that F/O or you are convinced that the accident resulted from operating an airplane that was built and certificated in accordance with grossly inadequate standards.
Thanks in advance for your clarifications.
May I ask that you clear up something that is bothering me? Am I reading your posts correctly by understanding that when you started flying you were trained, and trained well, but were never trained, at any point in your career, to NOT apply full rudder in either direction – and specifically were NOT trained to never move any flight control from its hard-stop in one direction to its hard-stop in the opposite direction as fast as you are able? Further, am I understanding you to say that it is because of this absence of training in this specific area, you have determined independently that it must be permissible to apply full flight control input, for any flight control, to its mechanical or aerodynamic limits, in either direction, and then to rapidly move that control in the opposite direction to the opposite mechanical or aerodynamic limits? Or are you saying that you were specifically trained, and if not trained, at least told, that moving this control to one of its directional limits and then rapidly moving that control to the opposite limit, was an acceptable behavior in whatever airplane you were currently training to fly?
I ask this specifically in light of the fact that the AA587 accident airplane FDR readouts clearly show that this is precisely what the F/O did. And in light of your answers to my questions above, we might be able to discern that you are convinced that the accident resulted from inappropriate actions by that F/O or you are convinced that the accident resulted from operating an airplane that was built and certificated in accordance with grossly inadequate standards.
Thanks in advance for your clarifications.
Last edited by AirRabbit; 29th Sep 2013 at 21:59.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I to understand that you have never gone to the mechanical stop in any plane? Did someone tell you never to go to the mechanical stops or from mechanical stop to mechanical stop during your control checks?
Am I to understand that you have never landed in a crosswind which required full control to the stop in order to maintain control?
Am I to understand you were told you could not go to the mechanical stop ?
I've been saying over and over that there are certain planes that have limiters (mechanical or lock outs) and that they are well covered in POH and in FAA examinations. I've mentioned placcards till I was blue in the face.
BUT THE FREAKING A 300 didn't have that now did it? Anyplace in the A300 manual from the 1990s that said: DO NOT USE FULL CONTROL THROW OF ANY CONTROLS STOP TO STOP?
IF SOMETHING IS OBVIOUS, does it need saying...YES...and if something is not obvious it really needs saying.
In one transport jet I flew, we could not take off unless the rudder limiter light was working properly and if it failed in flight we had a MANDATORY MEMORY ITEM of which speeds to use full or less rudder.
DID THE A300 have that ? I doubt it.
Maybe the designers assumed something about the A300
and when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME
nope, don't blame the copilot...there may be dozens of men to blame, but he didn't have a placcard, or a POH limitation, or hours of lecture and examination.
But I will say this...when I first saw the A300, many years ago, the first thing I THOUGHT TO MYSELF WAS...GOSH THAT TAIL SECTION LOOKS WEAK.
But you see, that is just what I saw and didn't have a POH, placcard, or a lecture to tell me anything.
you don't have a second chance at a first impression.
Am I to understand that you have never landed in a crosswind which required full control to the stop in order to maintain control?
Am I to understand you were told you could not go to the mechanical stop ?
I've been saying over and over that there are certain planes that have limiters (mechanical or lock outs) and that they are well covered in POH and in FAA examinations. I've mentioned placcards till I was blue in the face.
BUT THE FREAKING A 300 didn't have that now did it? Anyplace in the A300 manual from the 1990s that said: DO NOT USE FULL CONTROL THROW OF ANY CONTROLS STOP TO STOP?
IF SOMETHING IS OBVIOUS, does it need saying...YES...and if something is not obvious it really needs saying.
In one transport jet I flew, we could not take off unless the rudder limiter light was working properly and if it failed in flight we had a MANDATORY MEMORY ITEM of which speeds to use full or less rudder.
DID THE A300 have that ? I doubt it.
Maybe the designers assumed something about the A300
and when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME
nope, don't blame the copilot...there may be dozens of men to blame, but he didn't have a placcard, or a POH limitation, or hours of lecture and examination.
But I will say this...when I first saw the A300, many years ago, the first thing I THOUGHT TO MYSELF WAS...GOSH THAT TAIL SECTION LOOKS WEAK.
But you see, that is just what I saw and didn't have a POH, placcard, or a lecture to tell me anything.
you don't have a second chance at a first impression.
And, of course, teaching pilots the way to control an airplane throughout the entire envelope is entirely appropriate – and had that been accomplished, this might not have happened.
However, I tend to believe that at least to the same level of satisfaction you have for the training that currently exists, I believe it is uncommon to see encounters with wing-tip vortices that are handled the way this pilot did the second time.
Also, I believe you are jumping on the Advanced Maneuver Training that the airline was using.
In ideal world choice would be easy.
That is still in use in the UK? It is expressively forbidden in Germany for the last 20 years or so.
As we learnt it from AA587 wrong practices were accepted from the community of pilots.
We know that in critical situation our brain is regressing to what we learn first.
What you have well learnt in initial formation is for ever.
It is important to give effect to accident reports like AA587 in pedagogy.
I am of the generation that had it drilled into them BY THE FAA in its approved methods that structural failure wouldn't occur below certain speeds with full control throw.
OF COURSE, who would buy an airplane that has a placcard or POH statement like: IF YOU SCREW WITH THE RUDDER THE PLANE WILL< REPEAT WILL< FALL APARt and KILL EVERYONE.
can't anyone conceive that the wake was bad enough to start a whole cycle of events that ended up showing the weakness of this plane?
I am reminded that there was a dissenting opinion from an NTSB member about the probable cause
Originally Posted by NTSB
To elevate the characteristics of the A300-600 rudder system in the hierarchy of contributing factors ignores the fact that this system had not been an issue in some 16 million hours of testing and operator experience—until the AAMP trained pilot flew it.
The lesson is that Airbus made a crappy tail that couldn't be inspected for fatigue, and it did fall apart under conditions that many of us have exceeded in other aircraft, by orders of magnitude, every day in turbulance, upset recoveries, and normal training regimens.
I see the problem...you don't understand that thousands of properly certificated FAA approved pilots did NOT KNOW THAT STOMPING ON THE RUDDER would cause the plane to fall apart.
I'm pretty sure all Boeing AFMs have that same statement.
BTW how come that chinese 747 that stalled and only recovered feet from the briney off NW america all those years ago not serve as an example to all plane makers in getting it right on the drawing board and making them Boeing tough?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 49
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a hypothetical conversation with an Airbus test pilot -
'Did you slam the rudder back and forth when testing the bus?'
'Yes, that's what test pilots do'
'Do you do it at different speeds'
'Yes, that's what test pilots do'
'How did you determine Va'
'We flew to the limits of mathematical fatigue to see if the math was right, examined the structure. Adjusted the numbers, butressed up the airframe if needed, that's what test pilots and engineers do'
'Do you think a left, right, then left application of rudder would take the tail off'
'If it did, then all the Airbus test pilots would be dead or better skydivers.'
'So what is the problem then?'
'Fatigued structure, bad engineering, a bad landing? Went through severe turbulance too many times, bad manufacuring that day, they put that tail on the day before Christmas. Temp issues with carbon fibre, the alumimum condensed moisture in there, maybe it's like the Alaska jack screw deal, mechanics signed the tail inspections off with out getting on a ladder, hydraulics too strong calibrated incorrect, slamming stops, terrorism, it did happen with an engine out...two failures at the same time...what are the odds of that?'
'so do you think the pilots screwed up?'
'Well what do you think an airline pilot could do departing on climbout, standard engine out procedure in a big whale that I couldn't do with an empty plane, both of us in parachutes over a test area trying to break the plane?'
'Did you slam the rudder back and forth when testing the bus?'
'Yes, that's what test pilots do'
'Do you do it at different speeds'
'Yes, that's what test pilots do'
'How did you determine Va'
'We flew to the limits of mathematical fatigue to see if the math was right, examined the structure. Adjusted the numbers, butressed up the airframe if needed, that's what test pilots and engineers do'
'Do you think a left, right, then left application of rudder would take the tail off'
'If it did, then all the Airbus test pilots would be dead or better skydivers.'
'So what is the problem then?'
'Fatigued structure, bad engineering, a bad landing? Went through severe turbulance too many times, bad manufacuring that day, they put that tail on the day before Christmas. Temp issues with carbon fibre, the alumimum condensed moisture in there, maybe it's like the Alaska jack screw deal, mechanics signed the tail inspections off with out getting on a ladder, hydraulics too strong calibrated incorrect, slamming stops, terrorism, it did happen with an engine out...two failures at the same time...what are the odds of that?'
'so do you think the pilots screwed up?'
'Well what do you think an airline pilot could do departing on climbout, standard engine out procedure in a big whale that I couldn't do with an empty plane, both of us in parachutes over a test area trying to break the plane?'
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey clandistino
you quoted the ntsb and the 16 million flight hours stuff
tell me, how many flight hours did the boeing 737 have before the rudder hardover that caused the crash near pittsburgh, pa?
I never respected people who quote other people in their replies...
the substance of pprune is pilot experience...i'd much rather hear a narrative of what you have observed in flying instead of pasting quotes and commenting upon them
hey teldorserious...isn't it funny how all the people defending the bus might not have been old enough to hold an atp when the accident happened?
you quoted the ntsb and the 16 million flight hours stuff
tell me, how many flight hours did the boeing 737 have before the rudder hardover that caused the crash near pittsburgh, pa?
I never respected people who quote other people in their replies...
the substance of pprune is pilot experience...i'd much rather hear a narrative of what you have observed in flying instead of pasting quotes and commenting upon them
hey teldorserious...isn't it funny how all the people defending the bus might not have been old enough to hold an atp when the accident happened?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of talk about Va but in reality....who knows what their Va is on the airliner they fly. On the one I fly, it is a continuously changing number and it has been the same on the last several that I have flown. Vb is memorized of course in knots and mach and it is less than Va for my type.
I'm sure someone will pipe up and scold me for not having all the Va speeds memorized but I suspect that there is a high percentage of competent pilots in airliners that are the same.
Try asking your other flight crewmember at a particular altitude what their present Va is and see if they know, In fact, I will ask right now to all, what is your Va at 5,000 feet ASL at max landing weight.
I'm sure someone will pipe up and scold me for not having all the Va speeds memorized but I suspect that there is a high percentage of competent pilots in airliners that are the same.
Try asking your other flight crewmember at a particular altitude what their present Va is and see if they know, In fact, I will ask right now to all, what is your Va at 5,000 feet ASL at max landing weight.
SSG 3.7
Give it up, the Airbus experimental test crews did not such "slamming" of the flight controls because they are professionals, not frustrated "free lancers" with a CE-500 rating, th certification criteria requires not such "slamming" because to do so is very hazardous. Not FAR 25 certified plane cn stand rapid, full throw control reversals. Neither can many military planes. The C-5 tail was subject to very elevated fatigue levels due to air refueling training missions; a BUFF lost its rudder in mountain wave; a KC-135 was nearly torn apart after a wake encounter during Desert Storm. If you fly like you write, I don't want to be near you. Please submit NOTAM prior to flight.
GF
Give it up, the Airbus experimental test crews did not such "slamming" of the flight controls because they are professionals, not frustrated "free lancers" with a CE-500 rating, th certification criteria requires not such "slamming" because to do so is very hazardous. Not FAR 25 certified plane cn stand rapid, full throw control reversals. Neither can many military planes. The C-5 tail was subject to very elevated fatigue levels due to air refueling training missions; a BUFF lost its rudder in mountain wave; a KC-135 was nearly torn apart after a wake encounter during Desert Storm. If you fly like you write, I don't want to be near you. Please submit NOTAM prior to flight.
GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 30th Sep 2013 at 00:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 49
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flare - Probably more suprising is how many have been flying airliners since the Wright Bros and just believe everything they were told.
But to your point, I got into it years ago with a guy at a CFII renewal. He's telling me he's a pilot at United...telling me that they got an 'illegal' IFR clearance and such, that's why they blew an altitude or flew through some restricted area or some nonsense.
Ofcourse I ask why they accepted the clearance and flew it, ect...and he got flustered...argumentative...
Well later on, a guy pulled me off to the side and said 'yeah, don't worry about that guy...he got 'in' with United by writing manuals for them, as a way to get a pilot job, he's got 800 hours...now.'
Now this is before the internet, so there is just no way to know who we are talking to here and what their experience level is. I just know if I you and I were ferrying a BUS, hit turbulance, flew under Va...what are we supposed to do, leave our feet on the floor? What if we had an upset, stall recovery, windsheer....sorry no rudders for you...
Galaxy - Picture yourself in that 747 at Bagram, the plane rolls one way and all you got is rudder, then it rolls the other...oops...can't push the rudder the other way to save the flight...because Airbus says you can't? Do you realize with your logic, you would be dead in that scenario? I guarantee after all your blather under that scenario your rudder would look like a humming bird outside my window unless you truly were a robot kool aid drinker more interested in saving the tail then saving the plane. Well who knows if you get into a stall you will have time to pull out your sops manual or call dispatch for advice. Maybe we can put a time machine in your plane, to create some temporal distortion bubble around your plane, so you can sit there, pushing the rudder one way...nope that didn't work...hit stop, count to ten, yep...ok, NOW I can hit the other rudder, see if that works....because you know...Airbus told us not to wiggle the rudder too much.
But to your point, I got into it years ago with a guy at a CFII renewal. He's telling me he's a pilot at United...telling me that they got an 'illegal' IFR clearance and such, that's why they blew an altitude or flew through some restricted area or some nonsense.
Ofcourse I ask why they accepted the clearance and flew it, ect...and he got flustered...argumentative...
Well later on, a guy pulled me off to the side and said 'yeah, don't worry about that guy...he got 'in' with United by writing manuals for them, as a way to get a pilot job, he's got 800 hours...now.'
Now this is before the internet, so there is just no way to know who we are talking to here and what their experience level is. I just know if I you and I were ferrying a BUS, hit turbulance, flew under Va...what are we supposed to do, leave our feet on the floor? What if we had an upset, stall recovery, windsheer....sorry no rudders for you...
Galaxy - Picture yourself in that 747 at Bagram, the plane rolls one way and all you got is rudder, then it rolls the other...oops...can't push the rudder the other way to save the flight...because Airbus says you can't? Do you realize with your logic, you would be dead in that scenario? I guarantee after all your blather under that scenario your rudder would look like a humming bird outside my window unless you truly were a robot kool aid drinker more interested in saving the tail then saving the plane. Well who knows if you get into a stall you will have time to pull out your sops manual or call dispatch for advice. Maybe we can put a time machine in your plane, to create some temporal distortion bubble around your plane, so you can sit there, pushing the rudder one way...nope that didn't work...hit stop, count to ten, yep...ok, NOW I can hit the other rudder, see if that works....because you know...Airbus told us not to wiggle the rudder too much.
Last edited by Teldorserious; 30th Sep 2013 at 00:58.
I hope you don't use the rudders in turbulence, at least, in a jet. Sideslip is a no-no in swept wings. Read your D.P. Davies Handling the Big Jets.
GF
GF
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow! So much for civility, eh? Geeze … and we’ve never been introduced, either. OK.
Just for clarification … “going to the mechanical stop” is not the problem … going from one mechanical stop to the opposite mechanical stop during pre-flight control checks is not the problem … it’s during flight, after having reached a mechanical stop in one direction, THEN rapidly going to the opposite mechanical stop, and then reversing that to the original mechanical stop, over and over and over … that is what presents not only a problem, but a significant problem.
No, please do not understand that … and while I’m not sure what brought you to ask … but you should know that if I ever attempted to land in a crosswind that would require full control to the stop and then full control to the opposite stop and then full control to the opposite stop … and continue … I’d never again drink that much before I went to sleep … those kinds of nightmares are not worth it.
Am I going out on a limb here by thinking that you’re describing going to the mechanical stop while airborne – with the presumption that you believe that certainly no one would ever expect their student’s to read and understand the regulations under which the airplane they’ll be flying was certificated? Well, on every airplane I’ve ever flown operationally, someone, someplace, made sure that I understood that there would be minimal times when full control application would EVER be required – in any axis – and it doesn’t take the proverbial “rocket scientist” to understand the regulations under which airplanes are certificated. I even included in an earlier post, the specific language contained in the US regulation (§ 25.351 Yaw maneuver conditions, for your reference) - where it clearly describes returning the control application to NEUTRAL after application to the control stop limit. Am I to understand you’ve never read the rules used to certify the airplanes you’ve flown? And, before you ask, yes, I’ve flown a lot of different airplane types (more than I care to list here – no brag – just a lot of work) and the A300-600 is NOT one of them … in fact, my experience on Airbus equipment is limited to the A320 and A330 – and then only a few trips around the pattern and some “up and away” flight control tests in each. But, by that time, I really don’t recall if I was specifically reminded as to how to handle the control application – as it wasn’t really necessary.
Oh, by the way … does everyone require a note someplace or a placard installed for all of the actions that we are NOT to undertake? Are there “Do not eat the contents” statements on Laundry Detergent, or automotive oil, or gasoline?
As long as we’re swapping questions … are you saying that you’ve never read or if you read you don’t understand the regulations under which the airplane you’re flying today was constructed and certificated?
Also, are there are any placards on the airplane you currently fly that tell you what the maximum aileron control limits are … or the elevator limits. What about maximum gear lowering speed? … or maximum flap extension speed? … or anything like that? No? Would you feel comfortable in kicking the rudder on your airplane from stop to stop to stop to stop … Or, perhaps you could enlighten us as to the kind of questions asked of you by the FAA for the airplane you’re currently flying that ensures them that you understand what, if any, limits there are for your airplane? And by the “all CAPS” comment, I would guess that all of the airplanes you’ve flown had placards or notes in the Flight Manual telling you what NOT to do? How about flying the airplane upside down? Is that in your manual? No? How often to you do that?
Really? What speed were you supposed to hold if you wanted to use less than full rudder?
Well, IF the A300 designers assumed something about the A300, they failed in their attempt when they were thinking of my involvement – so … please feel free to speak for yourself on that topic.
Is that right? Really? Perhaps you could consider going to work for one of the major airplane manufacturers … in that they wouldn’t have to go through all their research, testing, and any re-design issues … they could simply ask you.
Again … really? What about a first chance at a second impression … or is that overly deep?
Originally Posted by flarepilot
Am I to understand that you have never gone to the mechanical stop in any plane? Did someone tell you never to go to the mechanical stops or from mechanical stop to mechanical stop during your control checks?
Originally Posted by flarepilot
Am I to understand that you have never landed in a crosswind which required full control to the stop in order to maintain control?
Originally Posted by flarepilot
Am I to understand you were told you could not go to the mechanical stop ?
Oh, by the way … does everyone require a note someplace or a placard installed for all of the actions that we are NOT to undertake? Are there “Do not eat the contents” statements on Laundry Detergent, or automotive oil, or gasoline?
Originally Posted by flarepilot
I've been saying over and over that there are certain planes that have limiters (mechanical or lock outs) and that they are well covered in POH and in FAA examinations. I've mentioned placcards till I was blue in the face.
BUT THE FREAKING A 300 didn't have that now did it? Anyplace in the A300 manual from the 1990s that said: DO NOT USE FULL CONTROL THROW OF ANY CONTROLS STOP TO STOP?
IF SOMETHING IS OBVIOUS, does it need saying...YES...and if something is not obvious it really needs saying.
BUT THE FREAKING A 300 didn't have that now did it? Anyplace in the A300 manual from the 1990s that said: DO NOT USE FULL CONTROL THROW OF ANY CONTROLS STOP TO STOP?
IF SOMETHING IS OBVIOUS, does it need saying...YES...and if something is not obvious it really needs saying.
Also, are there are any placards on the airplane you currently fly that tell you what the maximum aileron control limits are … or the elevator limits. What about maximum gear lowering speed? … or maximum flap extension speed? … or anything like that? No? Would you feel comfortable in kicking the rudder on your airplane from stop to stop to stop to stop … Or, perhaps you could enlighten us as to the kind of questions asked of you by the FAA for the airplane you’re currently flying that ensures them that you understand what, if any, limits there are for your airplane? And by the “all CAPS” comment, I would guess that all of the airplanes you’ve flown had placards or notes in the Flight Manual telling you what NOT to do? How about flying the airplane upside down? Is that in your manual? No? How often to you do that?
Originally Posted by flarepilot
In one transport jet I flew, we could not take off unless the rudder limiter light was working properly and if it failed in flight we had a MANDATORY MEMORY ITEM of which speeds to use full or less rudder.
DID THE A300 have that ? I doubt it.
DID THE A300 have that ? I doubt it.
Originally Posted by flarepilot
Maybe the designers assumed something about the A300
and when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
and when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
Originally Posted by flarepilot
But I will say this...when I first saw the A300, many years ago, the first thing I THOUGHT TO MYSELF WAS...GOSH THAT TAIL SECTION LOOKS WEAK.
But you see, that is just what I saw and didn't have a POH, placcard, or a lecture to tell me anything.
But you see, that is just what I saw and didn't have a POH, placcard, or a lecture to tell me anything.
Originally Posted by flarepilot
you don't have a second chance at a first impression.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just fly like you were taught over 30 years ago. In the last dozen years button pushing seems to be the new way. AF447 is an example of how well that works. As far as rudder usage in wake turbulence it is a roll problem, not yaw so the AA FO probably used very little rudder no matter what that captain said. The NTSB doesn't always tell the truth.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Teldoreserious
How about a hypothetical conversation with an Airbus test pilot
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bubbers44
Just fly like you were taught over 30 years ago. In the last dozen years button pushing seems to be the new way. AF447 is an example of how well that works. As far as rudder usage in wake turbulence it is a roll problem, not yaw so the AA FO probably used very little rudder no matter what that captain said. The NTSB doesn't always tell the truth.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bubbers44
Yes, I know the rudder deflections on FDR but as I said recently my friend had uncomanded out of control deflections and they were not touching the rudders in their A300.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 49
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds of Bonanza V tails coming off at Vne...but the speeds were so high as to create a flutter, oscilation. Ofcourse that was a mechanical problem, blamed on pilots going to to fast, but ofcourse everyone has the tail mod now, surprise surprise. So ofcourse, Beech wasn't to blame, but you haven't had a V tail come off since. Surprise surprise.
I think it was the Meridian that had the tail come off in turbulence, everyone said the A/P did a pitch over, exceeded Vne causing the tail to come off. They have an A/P check, reduced Va for turbulance and forced the pilots to go to school to fly this tricky plane and how to handle it. They did a tail mod too...surprise surprise.
So the Airbus tail comes off...did they buttress and mod the tail or didn't they? Why fix something that aint broken?
Rabbit by your own post you mentioned that your NTSB guys show you the real deal but offical findings are different, for reasons you can't fathom. It's called politics and economics.
I think it was the Meridian that had the tail come off in turbulence, everyone said the A/P did a pitch over, exceeded Vne causing the tail to come off. They have an A/P check, reduced Va for turbulance and forced the pilots to go to school to fly this tricky plane and how to handle it. They did a tail mod too...surprise surprise.
So the Airbus tail comes off...did they buttress and mod the tail or didn't they? Why fix something that aint broken?
Rabbit by your own post you mentioned that your NTSB guys show you the real deal but offical findings are different, for reasons you can't fathom. It's called politics and economics.