Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

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)

I tried to find the facts via surfing but I could only find mention of
AA and Continental. However, at the time it was announced that
three airlines were fined as a result of the ORD accident. I was
working in the airline business at the time, and the three separate
fines were big news to us.


Pete

nobody wrote:

No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
shut it down.

No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
airmanship.

The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.

Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...

Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
pilot at any time.

Stefan

Al Gerharter wrote:

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)



Yes, that looks like the one.

Although I cited this as an example where the ability to fly outside the
design envelope allowed recovery of an otherwise disasterous
situation, it looks to me, on a cursory reading, as if the damaging
accelerations occurred during a period when the captain was not trying
to recover control because he couldn't tell what the aifcraft was doing
anyway.

Oh well.

I'm amazed that the crew apparently thought it reasonable to resume
normal operation after a descent like that. They should surely have
realised that an immediate landing was indicated.

Sylvia.

I think this was their first opportunity to land. The aircraft was well
outside the envelope when a recovery ensued. I don't know what would have
happened to an airbus. This thing had shoe prints on the instrument panel.
Al


"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


Al Gerharter wrote:

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)



Yes, that looks like the one.

Although I cited this as an example where the ability to fly outside the
design envelope allowed recovery of an otherwise disasterous situation, it
looks to me, on a cursory reading, as if the damaging accelerations
occurred during a period when the captain was not trying to recover
control because he couldn't tell what the aifcraft was doing anyway.

Oh well.

I'm amazed that the crew apparently thought it reasonable to resume normal
operation after a descent like that. They should surely have realised that
an immediate landing was indicated.

Sylvia.

Al Gerharter wrote:

I think this was their first opportunity to land. The aircraft was well
outside the envelope when a recovery ensued. I don't know what would have
happened to an airbus. This thing had shoe prints on the instrument panel.
Al

On the landing question, I was struck by this section, on page 5.

"At 1018:42, Flight 006 requested clearance to climb. Oakland ARTCC
initially cleared it to climb to FL 200, and, at 1019:17, Flight 006
told the ARTCC that "we can control the aircraft." Oakland ARTCC asked
the flight if it wanted to divert to San Francisco, and, at 1019:49,
Flight 006 answered "Condition normal now," and that it would continue
to Los Angeles."

In respect of the evelope issue, my memory said that the upset was
caused by turbulence. In this case, it appears to have been crew
mishandling. In the circumstances, I have to wonder whether an FBW
aircraft would have got into the position of needing an outside the
envelope recovery in the first place.

Sylvia.

Al Gerharter wrote:

I think this was their first opportunity to land. The aircraft was well
outside the envelope when a recovery ensued. I don't know what would have
happened to an airbus.

All modern airplanes, no matter from which manufactorer, are designed to
match the legal certification minimas and nothing more. Every little bit
of extra strengh is a waste of payload. An engineer who builds too
strongly will be fired like one who builds too weakly.

Stefan

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


Al Gerharter wrote:

I think this was their first opportunity to land. The aircraft was well
outside the envelope when a recovery ensued. I don't know what would have
happened to an airbus. This thing had shoe prints on the instrument
panel. Al

On the landing question, I was struck by this section, on page 5.

"At 1018:42, Flight 006 requested clearance to climb. Oakland ARTCC
initially cleared it to climb to FL 200, and, at 1019:17, Flight 006 told
the ARTCC that "we can control the aircraft." Oakland ARTCC asked the
flight if it wanted to divert to San Francisco, and, at 1019:49, Flight
006 answered "Condition normal now," and that it would continue to Los
Angeles."


Wow, I hadn't read that. They did indeed declare an emergency, and land in
SFO. At least that's where I was when I was looking at it. Yea, big place on
the water of the bay, big gold bridge in the background, yep that's it. The
guys in the tower said that each time he pitched up a little on final, they
got a big roll out of it as well.



In respect of the evelope issue, my memory said that the upset was caused
by turbulence. In this case, it appears to have been crew mishandling. In
the circumstances, I have to wonder whether an FBW aircraft would have got
into the position of needing an outside the envelope recovery in the first
place.

Sylvia.

Then there was the Air Transat from Canada to Spain, that developed a
fuel leak, and the "automatic" system sent all of the fuel
into the leaking tank trying to balance the aircraft. They flamed out, and
landed in the Azores dead stick. Al

Al Gerharter wrote:

Then there was the Air Transat from Canada to Spain, that developed a
fuel leak, and the "automatic" system sent all of the fuel
into the leaking tank trying to balance the aircraft. They flamed out, and
landed in the Azores dead stick.

Actually, it was the pilots who didn't follow the checklist but rather
cross fed the fuel to the leak manually. Legends never die. Eager top
hear your next one.

Stefan

Ummmmm...actually ... no....

In the Fredericton crash, the landing was not really
"aborted" . Although the abort inputs were probably commanded, the A/C
"landed"....

Coming out of a very low (legal) ceiling, the rny was not
directly under the a/c, and the crew tried to correct laterally and
doing so, the decent rate increased. They started the go around to
late, the AC slammed down on the rny hard, the nose gear ripping the
control functions as it rammed vertically up through the floor
above.

The throttles were stuck at high power, directional control
was lost, and everybody was along for the ride into the trees WAY off
to the right of rny 15 way past the intersection. One engine was
STILL producing substantial power as the equipment arrived.

The A/C was ON THE SURFACE, engines pushing it along for the
entire trip, impact point to the pucker brush. (the damage from the
nose gear severed the the throttle controls so the crew were unable
to retard the thrust). It DID NOT "stall into the trees"...and it
did not "travel through the forest". - It was stopped cold by the 1st
tree (a rather large and very strong tree), at the edge of the
cleared area, the tree still standing in the middle of the fwd cabin
where the (severe) injuries occurred.


Hence the "skidoo " story, - the track of the A/C was
continuous along the snow...

Add to this some really bonehead PR work by Air Canada..

Oh... thats another story... sorry...

Dave


On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:46:30 -0400, nobody wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:


That accident actually has a lot of commonality with the Air Canada flying
skidoo accident at Fredericton.

Plane put at low altutude with engines at low speed. In both cases, pilots
decide to rev up engines to regain altutude (for the airbus, pilot was just
showing off, for the skidoos, the pilot aborted landing). In both cases,
engines took some time to spin up and produce necessary thrust (nature of
turbine engines).

In the case of the flying skidoo, because of no FBW, the pilot stalled the
aircraft as he tried to climb above trees, and it fell in the snow and
traveled in the forest until it hit a tree. In the case of the 320, the
computer didn't allow the pilot to raise the nose, avoiding a deadly stall.
But the computer didn't know trees were ahead, so plane traveled into the trees.

Had the pilot increased thrust earlier, the plane might have regained
suffiencty speed to be able to start climbing without stalling and nobody
would have noticed anything.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:53:13 +0000, Dave wrote:

Hence the "skidoo " story, - the track of the A/C was
continuous along the snow...

Add to this some really bonehead PR work by Air Canada..

Oh... thats another story... sorry...

Painting their logo?

Reminded me of a crash in Brazil where they did that too.