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. It is a very, very rare circumstance to have what develops here, be even remotely described as an out-of-hand spool-up to name calling and disrespect. All of us here should be so fortunate or work so hard as to find ourselves/themselves an equally “fallible human.” 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.

Bubs, are you sure you're replying to the right thread? If you're sure, then JammedStab followed his original post on "Manually overriding autothrust" stating he'd misunderstood the document.

Said document is here: http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi..._SOP_SEQ02.pdf

and the relevant section is at the bottom of page 7.

If you read it in context, all it says is that a pilot should not try to override AP or A/THR by manipulating the controls without first explicitly using the disconnect button.

Note that it also says (emphasis mine):
Yup, you read it right - an official Airbus document telling pilots to handfly. Now, if people paid attention to what Airbus *actually* say rather than assuming the ol' rumour mill must be correct, then that shouldn't be much of a surprise. Unfortunately...

" 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."

yessir, very well said, AR, +1

You have, as I think I’ve said before (probably several times), both my respect and my admiration. So, thanks for your comments – and I look forward to reading what you have to say on almost anything, because I’ve long ago recognized that most of the participants here are really after the truth about whatever it is being discussed. It’s far easier to jump on the most popular bandwagon – and sometimes having done so … remain ignorant of the facts … or worse, maybe influence some reasonably inexperienced aviator out there who gloms onto something posted by a seasoned old fart and finds out that he or she has made a serious error in judgment. There is absolutely no reason to NOT learn the truth about anything discussed here – because the truth will not only set you free, it might also save your butt!!

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.

Perfectly put.

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.

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.

Really? Airbus stiffened all the tails? On just the A300's? Or the A300-600R's? Is there a difference between the two aircraft? Does it matter?

Or did Airbus stiffen every Airbus tail ever built?
When did they do this? What was the 'fix'?

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.

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?

Despite reading PPRuNe and our august posters, I am still ignorant of the exact text of FAA's Va old and new definitions:O Is it Defence secrecy? :p

@Clandestino
• Not sure you have taught new pilots. Did you ?
• We don't have the same definition of "critical [situation]" :mad:

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!

@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.

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.

Agreed HN, but that refers to the design manoeuvre speed. The FAA changes made following the NTSB AA587 recommendation related to FAR 25.1507 and 25.1583

Umm … forgive me, but I’m not sure if you’re asking a question or not … and if you are, I’m not sure what that question might be. If you are seeking to read the FAA’s current definition of Va, here is a reference for you to read: § 25.335 Design airspeeds.

While you're absolutely correct in a technical sense, if I understand it correctly the sequence of events following vertical stab separation progressed so quickly that there wouldn't have been enough time for the hydraulic fluid to drain.

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?

@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.

Owain,

Thanks, I just couldn't find the thread you referred to.

Fair enough - I was speculating on possible momentum build-up from those pendulum-like yaw movements, but admittedly I'm way out of my depth - so if you say it's unlikely then I'm with you! :}