Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

The issue with the incident in question was the complete vertical stabilizer
breaking off, not just the rudder fin.

The vert stab broke off on account of the forces created on it by the
multiple
reversals of rudder.

The link posted by Rich Ahrens
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA58...its/239998.pdf

states unequivocally that structural failure can result from such
action. See
somewhere like page 3 of the text.


Graham


As has been said many times before - why was this not more widely
realised ? I
note that the message in the link above was sent to *management*. Nuff
said ?

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Randy Hudson wrote:
It's the rarity of that phenomenon that made it newsworthy. Virtually
all
real-world rollover accidents involve the wheels being tripped by a curb
or
other obstruction.


You've obviously not watched any good documentary on the subject. Police
car
chases in Los Angeles almost always involve some spectacular roll over.
British spies are almost always involved in some form of car chase which
involves some roll over. Heck, in a recent documentary about british
spies,
the spy was in a fancy sports car (aston martin if I recall correctly) on
smooth ICE in iceland and the car flipped and slid for a while on its
roof,
until the spy pressed the "eject passenger seat" button which causes the
case
to bounce back into right side up condition, showing just how easy it is
for a
car to flip.

It is possible that there might be something special about gravity in the
Los
Angeles area that makes it much easier for cars to flip over. I haven't
personally witnessed any such accidents where I live (except in
documentaries
at the he movie theatre or TV).

No doubt you have purchased an option of some future "Ocean Front Property"
from AC to park your "Flying Donkeys".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"JL Grasso" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:00:03 -0400, nobody wrote:

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:
Seems to me if Airbus or any other manufacturer was aware AA was
training
it's pilots to fly/operate its products in a manner it was not
engineered to
be operated the manufacturer would be responsible for saying so "LOUD &
CLEAR" in a manner that could not be construed as ambiguous.


In principle, probably correct. But legally, wouldn't it be the FAA that
would
be in charge of ensuring that AA's training adheres to both its own as
well as
manufacturer's standards ?

Airbus says it sent letters of concern to AA. Perhaps it should have sent
those letters with a CC to the FAA and let the FAA ensure AA fixes the
problem. Not sure Airbus has any authority on ist customers, but FAA has
authority over US airlines.

All Airbus would have had to do was to put the statement/information in
the AFM, AOM, QRH, ops bulletins, etc for it to be mandated. Sending
letters to cheif pilots, cas mgrs, training departments, etc doesn't mean
much, although it would probably be compelling evidence to a court.

The FAA also has some authority(leverage) over manufacturers of
US-registered aircraft, and they frown on "training by memo". Generally
speaking, if it's worth writing in a letter, it needs to be in the
appropriate ops or maintenance manual. One exception would be a case where
urgency dictated the need for immediate notification, followed by a manual
revision asap.

Jerry

Well said. If it isn't in the proper/appropriate Manuel it is nothing more
than a matter of opinions. Opinions. They are like anus's, they all have
an odor of some kind.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Sorry Sylvia,

My bad, I apologise, it was not my intent... I quoted the
article pattern incorrectly.

The actual author of the words was "nobody" (as near as I can
determine). My server is missing a couple of posts in this thread, but
I do not offer that as an excuse..

Sorry...

(Dave hangs head and is shuffling feet)

Please reply so I will know you have seen this....

Dave




On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:57:21 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

Dave, please take a bit more care not to make it look as if I said
something that someone else said.

Following the normally accepted practice of bottom posting will limit the
chances of such confusion.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Pooh Bear wrote:

....
Hence they thought they were flying at 100ft when it was actually 30 ft.
....
They were indeed unaware
of the trees due to the poor briefing material.
....

Being a hard core "look out the window and fly by horizon and feel"
pilot, I have some difficulties to understand this. I'm aware that you
can't fly an airliner by merely looking out the window, but still....

Besides, the briefing material itself wasn't poor. The VAC clearly shows
the forest:

http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv....D%202.LFGB.pdf

The "problem" was that the pilot expected to do his show-off over the
runway 20, which has no trees at the far end. When he recognized that
the public was lined up along the glider strip 16, he changed his plans
accordingly and overlooked that this runway was significantly shorter
(i.e. 765 instead of 1120 ft) and there was forest at both ends of the
strip. Which, as I said, I don't understand.

Stefan

Stefan wrote:

accordingly and overlooked that this runway was significantly shorter
(i.e. 765 instead of 1120 ft) and there was forest at both ends of the

Ooops, this should be meters, of course!

Stefan

Stefan wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
...
Hence they thought they were flying at 100ft when it was actually 30 ft.
...
They were indeed unaware
of the trees due to the poor briefing material.
...

Being a hard core "look out the window and fly by horizon and feel"
pilot, I have some difficulties to understand this. I'm aware that you
can't fly an airliner by merely looking out the window, but still....


I hear what you're saying here. It was claimed by the flight crew that since they were used to
flying in and out of large airports, the visual references of a small airfield gave them a false
impression.


Besides, the briefing material itself wasn't poor. The VAC clearly shows
the forest:

http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv....D%202.LFGB.pdf

I hear that they received only a faxed ( hence black and white ) copy of the relevant map.


The "problem" was that the pilot expected to do his show-off over the
runway 20, which has no trees at the far end. When he recognized that
the public was lined up along the glider strip 16, he changed his plans
accordingly and overlooked that this runway was significantly shorter
(i.e. 765 instead of 1120 ft) and there was forest at both ends of the
strip.

That too. There is literally one factor after another that contributed to this accident.


Which, as I said, I don't understand.

Sorry, which bit don't you understand ? Overlooking the shorter runway length ?


Graham

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:19:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
wrote:

Since when did the average "Soccer Mom SUV" become an "Off Road Vehicle"?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Since they were first introduced back in the 70's. It's the loophole
that allows them to qualify as "light trucks" instead of normal
vehicals which means they do not have to conform to the exhaust
emissions regulations all normal cars are held to.

Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
states where no snow or ice normally falls.

Since they are literally (perhaps this has changed recently) built on
truck chassis, people who buy them because they think they are safer
than ordinary cars are mistaken. They, at least until recently, did
not have the crash engineering designed into them that ordinary cars
had. Also, SUV's, because of their higher than normal weight and
higher than normal height, end up being more prone to loss of control
in marginal traction conditions than ordinary automobiles. Or at
least, that is what some experts have attempted to point out for
years.

Oh yes, almost forgot, SUV's due to their "light truck" status, do not
have to conform to the fuel economy regulations regular cars must
adhere to either. As a result they are collectively known as gas
gusslers and are targeted by green activists for "tickets" against the
environment and some occasional vandalism.

The light truck loophole was created originally to give hard working
farmers a break.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:19:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
wrote:

Since when did the average "Soccer Mom SUV" become an "Off Road Vehicle"?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Since they were first introduced back in the 70's. It's the loophole
that allows them to qualify as "light trucks" instead of normal
vehicals which means they do not have to conform to the exhaust
emissions regulations all normal cars are held to.

Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
states where no snow or ice normally falls.

This is simply wrong! If you do a check the majority of "SUV" type vehicles
are not four wheel drive, although SOME of them are available as four wheel
drive.

Allen.

Pooh Bear wrote:

I hear what you're saying here. It was claimed by the flight crew that since they were used to
flying in and out of large airports, the visual references of a small airfield gave them a false
impression.

I must admit that this makes some sense.

Sorry, which bit don't you understand ? Overlooking the shorter runway length ?

No, the forest, of course. I think a pilot should be able to recognize a
forest when seeing it, even if it should happen not to be on the VAC...
Can't remember why I even mentioned runway length.

Stefan