Boring airliners?

Speaking of safety -- I wonder if the A380 has a composite rudder?

Certainly. And I guess you can crash the A380 like any other plane if you
really want to and act accordingly.

I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article G67ce.31010$NU4.15176@attbi_s22, Jay Honeck wrote:
Certainly. And I guess you can crash the A380 like any other plane if you
really want to and act accordingly.

I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?

In the A380? Only at most 4 people in the world have actually
manipulated the controls in-flight. Since they are testing the plane, if
the rudder pedal boost is too sensitive - well, that's the point of test
flights to work out these sorts of bugs.

All technologies have their problems - we've had one A300 go down due to
a lost tail, but we've also had two B737s go down due to unexplained
rudder hard-overs. Overall, both Boeing's and Airbus's records are
outstanding.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

In article G67ce.31010$NU4.15176@attbi_s22, Jay Honeck wrote:
Certainly. And I guess you can crash the A380 like any other plane if you
really want to and act accordingly.

I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?

In the A380? Only at most 4 people in the world have actually
manipulated the controls in-flight. Since they are testing the plane, if
the rudder pedal boost is too sensitive - well, that's the point of test
flights to work out these sorts of bugs.

All technologies have their problems - we've had one A300 go down due to
a lost tail, but we've also had two B737s go down due to unexplained
rudder hard-overs. Overall, both Boeing's and Airbus's records are
outstanding.

And AA1 into Jamaica Bay in 1958.

Jay Honeck wrote:

I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?

It was necessary because the rudder must have enough authority to keep
the plane straight if flown on only two engines on the same side. The
investigation of the accident (to which you apparently refer) clearly
states that most other airliners (747 comes to mind) would also have
lost its rudder. But I would think they have enhanced the software to
limit rudder usage, although I don't know. I don't know, either, whether
the involved airline has enhanced their pilot training. Do you really
want to restart this discussion?

Stefan

Losing the rudder is one thing, losing the vertical stab is another thing
entirely...

Boeing addressed the 737 problem by redesigning the yaw damper system and
retrofitting it in the field, so bringing this up to defend the flaw in the
A300 is a non-sequiter argument. The fact remains, the A300 has a design
flaw of some kind that needs to be fixed. If Airbus wants to try to sweep
it under the rug, they are just going to wind of killing more people. They
need to proactively investigate the design and determine what is wrong, the
come up with a real fix. Tapping on the tail doesn't cut it...

Dean

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:

I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was
apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?

It was necessary because the rudder must have enough authority to keep
the plane straight if flown on only two engines on the same side. The
investigation of the accident (to which you apparently refer) clearly
states that most other airliners (747 comes to mind) would also have
lost its rudder. But I would think they have enhanced the software to
limit rudder usage, although I don't know. I don't know, either, whether
the involved airline has enhanced their pilot training. Do you really
want to restart this discussion?

Stefan

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 at 14:16:28 in message
, Dean Wilkinson
wrote:

Boeing addressed the 737 problem by redesigning the yaw damper system and
retrofitting it in the field, so bringing this up to defend the flaw in the
A300 is a non-sequiter argument. The fact remains, the A300 has a design
flaw of some kind that needs to be fixed. If Airbus wants to try to sweep
it under the rug, they are just going to wind of killing more people. They
need to proactively investigate the design and determine what is wrong, the
come up with a real fix. Tapping on the tail doesn't cut it...

Can you give a reference that shows where the 'flaw' in the A300 design
is?

There are three principle factors in an in-flight structural failure.

1. The design requirements. These are laid down by aviation
authorities, not designers. If these are wrong or insufficient
then they need revising for all aircraft of that class.

2. The designers who must meet those requirements and convince the
aviation authority that design and testing shows that these
requirements are met.

3. Those who fly and operate the aircraft and must see that all
maintenance training and operation are within the design limits.

If there is a flaw in which category is it? Over the years there have
been crashes in which all of the above have been in error. You cannot
design, build and operate an aircraft which is proof against _all_
errors or mistakes whether accidental or deliberate.

--
David CL Francis

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?
--

I am sure Jay that the people at Airbus are locked onto these newsgroups
just to be sure they have caught everything that needs catching from the
resident experts at aircraft design and engineering.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:G67ce.31010$NU4.15176@attbi_s22...
Speaking of safety -- I wonder if the A380 has a composite rudder?

Certainly. And I guess you can crash the A380 like any other plane if
you
really want to and act accordingly.

I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?
--

I believe that the rudder on the 380 is all fly by wire. All it would take
is a software write.
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck wrote:
I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was apparently
much more sensitive than necessary?

That was a pilot training issue, not a design error. Remember?

I wonder if they've addressed the rudder pedal boost, which was
apparently much more sensitive than necessary?

That was a pilot training issue, not a design error. Remember?

While technically true, it's unfair to single out the actual pilot of the
doomed aircraft. Almost all of us believed that what he did would NOT have
resulted in the total destruction of the airplane.

I still believe that they should use software to limit rudder input
sensitivity, as (if I'm recalling properly) the flight data recorder showed
that the pilot's rudder pedal input was absurdly small -- like 5 pounds of
pressure (?) -- to get the rudder to swing from lock-to-lock.

Hell, that's way less than what is required in my Pathfinder. Airbus needs
to address that problem. (I would be surprised if they haven't already done
so.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"