Boring airliners?

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