On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:15:09 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote:

G Farris wrote:

Though it may not be fair to the NTSB, it is sometimes hard not to conclude
that placing the blame on a pilot, who is no longer here to defend himself, is
far less "costly" than implicating an airline or major airfarme manufacturer.

The NTSB has no interest in what is "costly" or not. It frequently makes
recommendations that the FAA and the airlines decide not to heed for "cost"
reasons.

Obviously we haven't seen the print of the "fimal" report, but I suspect
that the results will be improper control input by the pilot flying with
some blame on the training by the manufacturer or airline on how to deal
with wake turbulance encounters.

I recall some question concerning a weakness in the design of the
rudder itself, in that the supports to the composite structure were
too few. Not too long after the accident, I saw it was explained on
TV that the manufacturer should have distributed the load over more
points for the sake of the composite material. The known and
understood weakness of composites, compared to metals, is their lesser
ability to handle bearing stress. So Airbus should've known better,
presumably.

I think I heard this on CNN, and their expert (probably Boeing, but I
don't recall) seemed to know what he was talking about; even supplying
drawings of the rudder. From current discussion, I assume this is not
considered valid anymore, and so I may not be valid in bringing it up.
But I thought the problem close to being solved way back when.

If the control inputs are controlled, as I believe Airbus is, then the
pilot cannot be blamed for over-controlling; unless the manufacturer
pointedly states not to do that. So I'm thinking Airbus is really
getting a free one from the NTSB on this. Or the report we are
reading is premature.

Typical structure failure is from stabilizer abuse, not the rudder, I
thought. But now do I need to be concerned with what I do with my
feet?

--Mike