Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

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)

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.

"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

Al Gerharter wrote:
"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

Do you two just pull this stuff out of your asses or what?

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.

It wasn't the automatic system. The pilots made the conscious decision to
transfer fuel from the left tank to the right tank, despite transport canada
regulation that on etops aircraft, preserving fuel in the wing with the
functioning engine was paramount.

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

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 at 08:50:15 in message
, Sylvia Else
wrote:
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.

They didn't. Their destination was Los Angeles and they diverted to the
nearest they could which was San Francisco. The incident took place
nearly 300nm off shore when they were NW of San Francisco. Their route
would have taken them over San Francisco on the way to Los Angeles
(according to my globe anyway!)
--
David CL Francis