Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing
the engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that
the pylon wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.

AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
doing that.

AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
practice, which Continental later adopted.


Pete

Hi!

Morgans wrote:
"Peter" wrote

In the absence of those

there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
about the Corvair


pppplease everyone note: That was true for pre 63, only.

Have you ever heard about the "Moose Test"?
MB A class failed that test and had to get electronic stability
control to pass that test.

brgds

--
Gunter Herrmann
Naples, Florida, USA

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:08:56 +0200, Stefan wrote:

Jay Beckman wrote:

Is that due to the crash at the Paris Airshow several years back?

The A300 is FBW, an Airbus crash in Paris... so much for the educated
infos in this group.

The crash you mention occured at an airshow in Habsheim, near Mulhouse,
which is more than 200 nm from Paris.


Why oh why did you have to tell them?

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:59:57 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:



devil wrote:

You may remember an incident (accident actually). But if you remember it
was in Paris, you are remembering wrong.

Have I said it was in Paris? I think all I've done is recognise a
particular occurence with an A320 that another poster thought occurred
in Paris, and discussed the issues of the occurence rather than
uninteresting details of geography.

No, the article you quoted did.

I think I was in Paris, though.

No it was not. Only crash at an airshow in Paris was the infamous T144
one.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:57:07 -0400, Aardvark wrote:


Link to video of the A300 into trees
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/movi...intoTREES.mpeg


A300? I don't think so.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:56:43 +0000, Pete wrote:


But to start another flame war, maybe AA has a culture problem
of ignoring manufacturers' advice. Remember that it was an AA
DC-10 that lost an engine at ORD, and AA's maintenance practice
of removing engines with a forklift was the culprit, contrary to
McDonnell Douglas' advice.


Correct. Still was a poor design though.

The was an incident some years back where a crew lost control of an
airliner in turbulence, and pulled forces way outside the design envelope
inorder to prevent a dive into the ground. Also lowered landing gear above
gear down speed, etc.

The aircraft suffered severe damage, but landed OK. Unfortunately, I
cannot remember the airline, aircraft type nor location, which makes it a
bit hard to find.





I believe it was a China Airlines 747, at SFO. I saw the aircraft the next
day. Hard to believe it came back.
The horizontal stabilizers and elevators were clipped off at about half
span. The gear doors came by after the gear was extended. The left aileron
had a two foot hole in it where a part came off of the leading edge, and
went through the obviously very extended aileron. There were wrinkles
everywhere. A commercial pilot in the cabin estimated 6 g's.


See: February 19, 1985, China Airlines Flight 006,
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...r/AAR8603.html)

"Pete" wrote in message
news
They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing
the engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that
the pylon wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.

AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
doing that.

AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
practice, which Continental later adopted.
\
Braniff never flew DC10's, and their 747 maintenance was largely contracted
out (up til about 1980, they only had 1)


Pete

Jeff Hacker wrote:
"Pete" wrote in message
news
They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing
the engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that
the pylon wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.

AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
doing that.

AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
practice, which Continental later adopted.

\
Braniff never flew DC10's, and their 747 maintenance was largely contracted
out (up til about 1980, they only had 1)

It was AA, Continental, and United. I believe United used an overhead
crane rather than a forklift which lessened the chance that the pylon could
rotate.

devil wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:59:57 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:



devil wrote:


You may remember an incident (accident actually). But if you remember it
was in Paris, you are remembering wrong.

Have I said it was in Paris? I think all I've done is recognise a
particular occurence with an A320 that another poster thought occurred
in Paris, and discussed the issues of the occurence rather than
uninteresting details of geography.


No, the article you quoted did.

I think I was in Paris, though.


No it was not. Only crash at an airshow in Paris was the infamous T144
one.

Now here this: _I_ was in paris.

Sylvia.