Brian, I actually think that he's a recently banned poster called sevenstrokeroll. He has the same habit of single sentence paragraphs and starting each one without a capital letter, mostly. Oh, he used to get all shouty about his experience too.

SSR, 31 years ago I wasn't a professional pilot. I am now. I guess that answered your question.

Thing is chap, the rudder doodah isn't a characteristic limited to just an A300 it's relative to ALL transport category aircraft and is, therefore, NOT unusual.

Something to do with drumming but he used to go on about the same thing as you. And flew the DC9, like you.
http://i1347.photobucket.com/albums/...ps75e5d546.jpg

Did you really need a placard to tell you that?

Can't you just admit that the pilot actions were incorrect and were the cause of the rudder separation?

Oh, and why do you think that I'm a novice?!

Well, I was always under the impression that a “7 stroke roll” was a roll completed by a pilot with 7 passengers aboard, where all 7 suffered an incapacitating stroke when they thought they were going to die. The only thing I can’t remember is how many of the 7 actually died from the experience ... or was that a story told by old heads to younger wet-behind-ears novices?

Oh … a quick supplement … I find it curious that anyone would think that a placard, about anything, mounted anywhere on the airplane, would prevent someone from doing anything after that person panicked and responded out of that mentally debilitating state.

Does any transport aircraft?

I'm not questioning your credentials just highlighting who you are and the fact that you are like a dog with a bone. I think it's only fair that people know who they're arguing with.

You only answered one of three questions in my previous post.

Does thirty and a half years count as novice SSR?

No, no, no, no, no! The limitation is to not repeatedly reverse control deflection. Not the amount control movement versus airspeed as you put it.

Which other transport aircraft have that limitation? It's an easy question that even a novice can answer.

Not to keep going back to the same A300 crash but does anybody know exactly where rudder inputs are measured? Mechanically at the rudders or before the rudder actuator which apparently was the cause of the MIA uncommanded rudder inputs. This has been reported to be a hydraulic valve malfunction to the actuator. Was the rudder pedal input measured before or after the faulty valve?

Bubbers, the same :mad: place that you've been told before.

SSR,
You know that despite NOT seeing a placard. So how do you know?

The A300 didn't have what limitation published?

Could you also explain how CRM is in any way relevant.

RUDDER TRAVEL LIMITING The rudder travel limiting system modifies control inputs to the servo controls, to vary rudder travel in relation to airspeed (Vc). Limitation is such that the maximum deflection which can be achieved by the rudder remains lower than the deflection which would induce limit loads on the structure, throughout the flight envelope.

The system is composed of: • A variable stop unit consisting of an articulated lever operated by an electro-mechanica]. actuator, end a transducer unit detecting lever position. These items are all mounted on a frame assembly located downstream of the differential between the AP and yaw damper actuators. • Two control and monitoring computers designated FLC (Feel and Limitation Computer). • One RUD TRAVEL control panel, one PITCH FEEL & RUD TRAVEL maintenance panel and five electrical power supply circuit breakers.

The variable stop lever is operated by an electric actuator which consists basically of • Two AC motors, supplied with 26 V ,400 Hz • A single reducting gear actuated by both motors, which are rigidly connected. • A nut/screw system, driven by means of a torque limiter • Mechanical end of travel stops • A torque limiter provided to protect the reduction system from any abrupt jamming of the output shaft, particularly when it reaches the mechanical stop.

The actuator is servo controlled and is monitored through a transducer unit driven by variable stop lever movement. The transducer unit, comprising two inductive transducers is identical to the one used in the spoiler control system.

In the event of a rupture or disconnection of an actuator attachment a retention rod limits actuator movement to prevent it from jamming the variable stop lever. A spring returns the lever to the ‘low speed' position where full control deflection (÷ 30°) is possible.

Feel and limitation computer contains the circuitry required for two functions : Rudder travel limiting and pitch feel.

The FLC is a digital computer comprising two different computation channels: • Rudder travel limiting/pitch feel control channel • Rudder travel limiting/pitch feel monitor channel.

Safety of the systems is ensured by control and monitor channel programs which are intentionally different

Monitoring of digital computations which are performed by control and monitor channels with the same input data, achieved by comparison between the results of both channels, by mean of analog comparators.

Lam, no the exact rudder pedal FDR reading, I assume, comes from a mechanical sensor at the pedals but it would be cheaper to do it at the actuator. I know there is rudder pedal and actual rudder movement sensing. Thought some maintenance guy could verify that. Loosen up.

LSM, I know I did one letter wrong. I forgot the e. Asking a question because I have no way of finding it from someone who know isn't lame, it is just the only way I know to get an answer. Where is the rudder pedal sensor for FDR source located on an A300.

CRM for me was quite simple. I just said fly any way you want and don't bend any rules, fly safely, keep the passengers comfortable and please don't show me something I have never seen before.

bubbers,

See my post #151. The report talks of rudder control cable stretch. That implies that the rudder pedal sensor is located near the pedals.

The sensor for the rudder pedal position is located under the cockpit floor, it is directly attached to a bellcrank aft of the FO's rudder pedals.

The rudder position is measured with a sensor attached to the lower corner of the actual rudder, directly measuring the movement of the rudder relative to the vertical fin.

Look, I understand that for reasons known only to yourself, you're searching for ways to blame this on the airplane and not the pilots. I have to ask, do you imagine that the NTSB, upon finding that there were multiple rapid rudder reversals which caused the vertical stabilizer failure just said: "Hey, let's blame it on the pilots and not investigate any other possible sources of the reversals. That way we can wrap this up and go home early" ?

That seems to be the common thread of all your posts, that the NTSB didn't investigate any other possible causes of the rudder reversals. That the reversals were caused by something else and that the NTSB just blamed it on the pilots because that was what was easy. I'd recommend that you go read the NTSB report, yourself. You'll find that they spent a lot of time on investigating everything that might have caused the ruder reversals. This included inspection of the system components recovered from the crash, analysis of the rudder control system together with the yaw damper and autopilot system, the rudder servo system, and extensive testing of all of the above on identical aircraft. A great deal of that testing was focused the question: "Is it possible that the rudder position and rudder pedal position data which indicates pilot input could have bee caused by something *other* than pilot input" It's not that nobody ever thought to ask the question. They did. And the answer was: "probably not"

As as far as your references to the MIA incident, that was due to an autopilot yaw actuator clutching mechanism which failed to disconnect when the autopilot was selected off. This has already been discussed in this thread previously. That also was investigated by the NTSB in their investigation of AA587. The airplane was being hand flown, the autopilot had not been engaged so a disengagement failure was improbable, the controls had been checked on the ground and there was no interference as was present in the MIA incident, and the Yaw control autopilot servomotor was disassembled and examined and the autopilot yaw input was found to be disengaged.

So, yes, the NTSB *did* consider that this might be related to the MIA incident. Yes, they *did* investigate this possibility, and no, there was nothing which indicated this was the same cause.

Quote from bubbers44:
Not to keep going back to the same A300 crash but...

Quite: as any casual passerby might conclude, this thread is mainly an argument about CRM between two forumites whom no one wants to share a cockpit with, and the handling qualities and placards on Sabreliners - no longer simply a serious discussion of whether rapid, alternating, full-travel rudder applications are warranted, and need(ed) to be considered in the design and certification of large jet transports.

Tubby, HN39 and A Squared,
Thanks for bringing us back to reality; not that facts and logic are likely to silence the peanut gallery...

Not often my patience runs out.

Several folks have been sidelined. Perhaps, now, we can get back to the discussions at hand ...

If you had better CRM skills you would have been able to sort that out without banning people :E

Guess I'm just an old has been failure, then ?

Just in case it wasn't obvious, that was completely tongue in cheek.

Quote from A Squared:
If you had better CRM skills...

Hang on a minute! In my experience, it's often those who lack them the most who try and play the CRM card. Must say I didn't think you were in that category.

Quote from A Squared:
Just in case it wasn't obvious, that was completely tongue in cheek.

Oh, really? Having read the last 4 posts one-by-one. this old fart was convinced you were serious...

OK, well it was supposed to be a joke. Take a look at my post. See the :E thingy? To me that means "I'm being a smart-ass pot stirrer, and the fact that it's smiling means that it isn't particularly serious.

What does that emoticon mean to you? Apparently it means something different to you that it does to me.

Quote from A Squared:
OK, well it was supposed to be a joke. Take a look at my post. See the http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ilies/evil.gif thingy?

I get it now. Never did properly understand these new-fangled emoticons. Okay, in view of my advancing presbyopia, I'll turn up the browser magnification in future!

But it's not little me that you need to mend fences with...

If you're referring to John Tullamarine, I'm hoping any misunderstanding has been clarified ... . John?

I won't post on this thread any more. I have made my statement and thanks for the info on mechanical rudder info. That is all I WANTED.

In case anyone is concerned that my delicate and fragile little ego may have been forever destroyed ....

I though it pretty obvious that A Squared's comment was a good natured jibe and responded in kind ....

We Ozzies tend to have thick skins and a laid back view of life ...

Of course, I could be wrong … but I always thought that having one, obviated the necessity for having the other. Presuming that’s correct (although, I probably should acknowledge that I have been known to have embraced more than one incorrect presumption in my life) do we apply some kind of variation of the “two-wrongs-don’t-make-a-right” or “a double negative equals a positive” kind of literary reference - meaning that you are vulnerable to all kinds of insults and slanders - or do we take it at face value, implying that you’re “insulated-times-two”? Just wondering… :)

Quite insulated .. with a shape like mine, what else could I be ?

:ok::D:)John, we all love you.
You are the best moderator, friendly, gentleman, professional, respectuous of expression freedom.:D:ok::)

..enough, already, lest I get a swelled head without any justification ... now, back to the thread ...

So … it would seem that those here who suspicioned that airplanes should never be “over” controlled – in any axis – or were not sure, but have now seen the results of doing so, are now similarly opinionated … AND … at the same time, it would seem that those who never knew that something like this could ever happen, are still convinced that it was the turbulence from the preceding heavy airplane that caused this tragedy and no herculean effort mounted by any pilot, including any of the first Mercury Astronauts, would have made any difference.

I wonder if any of this second group is interested in proposing a new set of regulations about “following behind” a suspiciously heavy airplane. Perhaps we all could have something like the WWII silhouette books – where each airplane type would be issued a specific silhouette book outlining a suggested following distance behind which we should fly our airplane. Of course each airplane type would be required to carry such a book, and each such book would have all OTHER airplane types, identified by silhouette, and contain the safe following distance to be maintained behind each of the so-identified silhouetted airplanes. The only 3 questions I can think of at this time are: 1) should such books contain a “required” or a “suggested” following distance; 2) would this distance apply regardless of the existing weather conditions; and 3) would each airplane’s radar have to be modified to pick up the ATC identifications to indicate what airplane type is being referenced? Of course, weather conditions could easily be cause for a seemingly endless number of revisions due to maneuvering capability of the following airplane, the capability of the radar, and the alternative weather paths that must be available prior to penetrating said weather conditions. :8

These rules already exist and are used by ATC. Today these "books" are computer files..
ATC had that information in their files over the Queens and was separating the two airliners. It was not the weather but the turning path which put the A300/600 in the wake turbulence of'the B747. It was not the wake turbulence which destroyed the VS but the rudder pedaling. and what if following the same type?flying IFR in FIR without ATC? Or would it be a add to the TCAS? In controlled flight it would be an illogical repartition of work, between ATC and pilots, IMHO. ATC must improve the actual separation distance, included at landing (we started that discussion re Asiana).

I suggest an addendum to the traditional flight enveloppe, of the quantified limitations/enveloppe about position&time, speed-rate or rotation, and accelerations describing the plane dynamic considering the transient parts of piloting (phase planes). Math and computer Science of aerodynamic was not enough developped when they imagined the flight enveloppe.

Oh dear !
 

Do any of you actually have a professionial pilot licence ?

Or a ppl?

Or lapsed ppl?

Or, of course, skill at playing games ?

Oh dear.

Sorry guys l didn`t mean to cause offence, wrong place for me.

Take care.

roulishollandais –

I guess I was presuming too much … again. Please understand that I am fully aware that ATC had/has all that information, and that they were most surely observing the separation of those two aircraft. I also completely understand that it was NOT the wing-tip vortices that caused the A-300 tail to snap off. What I was attempting to say – however so badly ironic as it appeared – is that it seems that those here who do know, understand and accept the cause, and others here who don’t know, still refuse to believe that a pilot could ever make such a basic mistake, and therefore continue to attempt to present their own experiences that no one here believes for a second, to try to affirm the airplane construction as the true culprit. Every aviator on this site knows that NO pilot is going to go around “kicking the rudders back and forth” … whether they say they do or not. These poor examples of intelligent beings are simply stuck in their belief that it was the airplane that simply fell apart – and I was attempting to show how idiotic it would be to accept that conclusion and then ironically offer possible solutions to what they want us to believe was the accident’s cause. Sorry, if I was a bit too ironic. I’ll try to watch that in the future – but, I make no promises.


10watt -

I think, if you decided to hang around a while longer, you’d find that most of the participants here do indeed have professional credentials … and it just may be that it is probable that you have read the offerings from those few to whom your questions are quite apropos. Unfortunately, that’s the risk one takes for regular participation on an anonymous forum such as this one … however, it wouldn’t take long before you would be able to pick up on those commenters in whom you might be able to find some degree of logic and experience … and correctly identify those who could spend their time more advantageously by blowing their hot air into party balloons.

... and correctly identify those who could spend their time more advantageously by blowing their hot air into party balloons.

I like it, good sir. .. indeed, quite pertinent on occasion.

@AirRabbit
Thank you for your development.Effectively I did not understand that you were extending humour and irony so long in tech log forum... In France we say "the shortest [jokes] are the best". I thought it concerned only the use of the book. My bad! Continue as you are used to.
This thread seems to be very creative in any sense!

roulishollandais :

Thank you for the very kind response … but, I should be the one pleading “my bad,” and not you. You, sir, very obviously read, write, and understand the English language, and do so quite nicely, when, very likely (at least apparently … due to your stated location) English is probably not your “native language.” I’ve traveled a good deal around our world and I am very conscious of the reputation my countrymen have as “Ugly Americans” – and it makes me realize that all of us “Americans” have a responsibility to offer a more accurate sense of American behavior that is demonstratively different from that all-to-often-used (and sometimes, quite regrettable and quite accurate) description. Americans like me (with me very likely being at the front of the line) should be more aware and considerate of all of our neighbors, all over the globe, who participate on this forum. All of this is to say … I was serious about attempting to watch, and curb when appropriate, my easily surfaced ironic statements … but, unfortunately, I was also serious about not being able to make any promises. That said, you can be sure that any irony I may project is not meant to criticize or belittle – only to demonstrate the underlying conviction I have about the subject being discussed. See you "around the pattern."

I don't belong to the folks who point "ugly Americans". I never thank enough Americans and other Allies Troops who went in my Country to offer us Freedom again at the price of their young lifes.

We all have the responsibility where we are to build a safer aeronautical world and try to communicate. English is one of the inter-national tools we have to use in Aviation. Some of you are writing very well : the Jetblast poems thread tells us wonderfully about our planes, I have much pleasure to read them. Thanks to all who allow me to share here.

AirRabbit,
l hang my head in shame. John, thankyou for your patience, sorely

tried. An early New Year resolution will be to be actively constructive or

shut the "****" up.

John, thanks for leaving me a voice.