Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

"Here to there" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter wrote:
Here to there wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete wrote:

But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"


Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?

If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
severe consequences.


Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
land office business in the winter when the local students
decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)

Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
they hit something. It has been a law for decades.

Dave Stadt wrote:
Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
they hit something. It has been a law for decades.


Which is one reason the car manufacturers lobbyed so hard to have SUVs
considered as truck and not cars. As a result of their classification, they
are not only exempt from the safety regulations applicable to cars, but also
from pollution emissions restrictions applicable only to cars.

Dave Stadt wrote:

Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
they hit something. It has been a law for decades.



Is that a law of physics or congress?

Sorry couldn't resist

--
Chris W

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:47:24 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote:

Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
they hit something. It has been a law for decades.

I've seen filmed demonstrations of cars flipping simply by turning.
It was an expose on Jeeps. Seems dealerships were outfitting the
CJ5's with oversize tires and sending them out into the world. People
were flipping them doing what almost amounts to normal driving,
without hitting anything or skidding.

The team doing the expose outfitted one of these Jeeps with sidebars
to prevent the vehical from completely rolling over, then did a series
of J turns in a parking lot. At the terminex of each J turn, the Jeep
dramatically lifted up and would have tipped over were it not for the
sidebars.

Yes, the Jeeps had a high center of gravity due to the oversize tires,
and a narrow track. Otherwise it would have been much more difficult
to get it to tip over. But it DID tip many times simply by turning
sharply, and at a not so fast speed.

Most normal streetcars are built too low to the ground, and have tires
that do not develop enough traction to flip simply by turning or
spinning. They require the additional assistance of hitting a curb or
boulder or dropping a tire into a small ditch while sideways.

SUV's are more vulnerable than run of the mill street cars due to
their higher center of gravity because they are "off road vehicals"
and have extra clearance for off roading, although of course they are
almost never actually used as such.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:47:24 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote:

Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
they hit something. It has been a law for decades.

I've seen filmed demonstrations of cars flipping simply by turning.
It was an expose on Jeeps. Seems dealerships were outfitting the
CJ5's with oversize tires and sending them out into the world. People
were flipping them doing what almost amounts to normal driving,
without hitting anything or skidding.

The team doing the expose outfitted one of these Jeeps with sidebars
to prevent the vehical from completely rolling over, then did a series
of J turns in a parking lot. At the terminex of each J turn, the Jeep
dramatically lifted up and would have tipped over were it not for the
sidebars.

Yes, the Jeeps had a high center of gravity due to the oversize tires,
and a narrow track. Otherwise it would have been much more difficult
to get it to tip over. But it DID tip many times simply by turning
sharply, and at a not so fast speed.

Most normal streetcars are built too low to the ground, and have tires
that do not develop enough traction to flip simply by turning or
spinning. They require the additional assistance of hitting a curb or
boulder or dropping a tire into a small ditch while sideways.

SUV's are more vulnerable than run of the mill street cars due to
their higher center of gravity because they are "off road vehicals"
and have extra clearance for off roading, although of course they are
almost never actually used as such.

Corky Scott

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

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

On 10/26/04 1:35 PM, in article ldomain,
"Here to there" wrote:

Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
land office business in the winter when the local students
decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)


Ummmm NO.

I used to teach for a few racing schools that included Skip Barber Racing
School.

Your answer is wrong, very wrong. The way you flip is to hit a curb while
traveling sideways, NOT Rapid steering wheel movement.

Nice try though, but your wrong.

Eric Fletcher

Pete wrote:
I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash.

The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some extent
in the 1980s.

And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight that
Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.

Note that similar rudder use on Boeing planes would also cause the tail to
break off.

nobody wrote:

Pete wrote:

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash.


The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some extent
in the 1980s.

And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight that
Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.

The first FBW passenger airliner, the A320, has some residual non FBW
capability to allow the aircraft to be flown (though not landed, I
think) with the FBW system inoperative, the idea being that the problem
might be fixable in the air. I have a feeling (don't quote me) that the
rudder is part of that residual ability.

This design philosophy may or may not have been continued.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


nobody wrote:

Pete wrote:

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash.


The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some
extent
in the 1980s.

And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight
that
Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.

The first FBW passenger airliner, the A320, has some residual non FBW
capability to allow the aircraft to be flown (though not landed, I think)
with the FBW system inoperative, the idea being that the problem might be
fixable in the air. I have a feeling (don't quote me) that the rudder is
part of that residual ability.

This design philosophy may or may not have been continued.

Sylvia.


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

IIRC, the pilot commanded a flight attitude in the landing config that the
software wouldn't allow and that led to the aircraft settling into the
trees.

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
PP-ASEL