Air Bus 300 crash in NY now blamed on co-pilot's improper use of rudder

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
[...]
If the control inputs are controlled, as I believe Airbus is, then the
pilot cannot be blamed for over-controlling; unless the manufacturer
pointedly states not to do that.

The manual for my airplane (and most, I believe) says nothing about not
pulling too hard on the yoke when recovering from a dive in which the
airspeed exceeds Vne. Does that mean that the manufacturer would be to
blame if I caused the wings to fail by doing so?

I don't think so. I'm curious why it appears that you would.

This vertical stabilizer failure is a more esoteric issue, granted...but
it's essentially the same. All aircraft have their limits, and pilots
should be aware of them.

Typical structure failure is from stabilizer abuse, not the rudder, I
thought. But now do I need to be concerned with what I do with my
feet?

You needed to be before. Though, to be fair, unless you're flying transport
category aircraft, your concerns are defined by different certification
rules than those at issue here.

As far as how structure failure happens, I don't know what you mean by "from
stabilizer abuse, not the rudder". The rudder is the primary way to stress
the vertical stabilizer, it being attached to it and all, as well as using
the vertical stabilizer to transmit forces generated by the control surface
to the airframe.

Pete

I don't think this version was FBW Airbus

Peter Duniho wrote:

Each method has positive and negative
aspects, and it's up to the pilot to make a decision regarding how to
apply their training.

This is only possible where the pilot knows that both possibilities exist.
If the training is as described, the pilot was given one way to deal with
the turbulance. There was nothing - of which he knew - with which to
compare it.


As far as this particular accident goes, are you saying it's the case that
the pilot training specifically *instructed* the pilot to make large back
and forth rudder inputs? I haven't seen any documentation of that claim.

It certainly sounds like he was instructed to use the rudder to try to
control aircraft in that case, at least from the article in question.
Whether he was ever taught to stop trying this method at a certain point,
I'm in no position to say.

What I have seen are statements that the training neglected to mention
that multiple full deflection rudder inputs were bad; that's an entirely
different claim. After all, flying the airplane into a mountainside is
also bad, but I would be surprised if pilot training spends much time
covering that topic.

That's not a fair comparison. One could make a reasonable guess as to the
result of flying into a mountainside. I don't think it reasonable to
believe that futzing with the rudder, even to an extreme, is going to cause
the tail to fall off. If someone told me that, I'd probably assume they
were kidding (at least at first). Who'd build a plane like that??


One could argue that pilots ought to be familiar with the certification
rules and understand that the rules only grant the pilot a single full
deflection of the rudder in one direction, after which the rudder can be
returned only to the neutral position. Regardless of training.

Now, that's a debate for another time,

True, but it is a good point. It's why I was "happy" to read that article
to which I referred earlier: it reminded me that the definition of Va has
certain "limits".

[...]
Beyond all that, it is still factually true that the pilot's control
inputs
are what *caused* the accident. My original point is that the NTSB will
state a fact like this, and the media will misinterpret to mean that the
NTSB is assigning blame or fault to the pilot. That's simply not the
case. The pilot can still be the cause of an accident without being to
blame,
either partially or wholely. My use of the word "blame" obviously
distracted from what I was really trying to say.

Agreed, esp. about the media mangling meaning.

- Andrew

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
[...]
If the control inputs are controlled, as I believe Airbus is, then the
pilot cannot be blamed for over-controlling; unless the manufacturer
pointedly states not to do that.

The manual for my airplane (and most, I believe) says nothing about not
pulling too hard on the yoke when recovering from a dive in which the
airspeed exceeds Vne. Does that mean that the manufacturer would be to
blame if I caused the wings to fail by doing so?

I don't think so. I'm curious why it appears that you would.

The manual does likely say something about the definition of Vne, however.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
The manual does likely say something about the definition of Vne, however.

My manual states the value for Vne. It says nothing about how that value
was derived. Again, I believe most aircraft manuals are similar.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:11:41 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
If the control inputs are controlled, as I believe Airbus is, then the
pilot cannot be blamed for over-controlling; unless the manufacturer
pointedly states not to do that.

The manual for my airplane (and most, I believe) says nothing about not
pulling too hard on the yoke when recovering from a dive in which the
airspeed exceeds Vne. Does that mean that the manufacturer would be to
blame if I caused the wings to fail by doing so?

I don't think so. I'm curious why it appears that you would.

I'm guessing you're not really curious, for the general nature of you
reply was not one intended to encourage discussion. As for the
paragraph above I'm very surprised you think that makes any point at
all, other than my own. Because it is rhetorical...

--Mike

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
I'm guessing you're not really curious, for the general nature of you
reply was not one intended to encourage discussion.

If you have a legitimate justification for your opinion, of course I am
eager to hear it. If you are just blaming Airbus for the sake of blaming
them, then that's stupid and I've got no interest in wasting my time reading
someone trying to justify such a hollow opinion.

So, am I truly curious? Only you can say for sure. For now, it sounds like
you've got bupkis for claiming that the blame rests with Airbus just because
they neglected to mention in the aircraft manual that control inputs outside
the certification standards for the aircraft might damage the aircraft (and
that's assuming that they actually didn't mention that in the manual...I
don't have a copy, do you?)

Pete

As a multiengine instructor who has witnessed students applying full rudder in
the wrong direction after a simulated engine failure then quickly apply full
opposite rudder in the correct direction am I to understand that I was in
mortal danger from the tail breaking off? Seems that is a little late in
telling pilots how these things are designed....What next, we can't reverse
ailerons when landing in gusty conditions without breaking something there as
well?
Also, maybe someone can explain why the rudder limiter on this Airbus didn't
protect the structure when its sole purpose in life is to prevent damage to the
structure by limiting rudder movement at higher speeds.

"PS2727" wrote in message
...
As a multiengine instructor who has witnessed students applying full
rudder in
the wrong direction after a simulated engine failure then quickly apply
full
opposite rudder in the correct direction am I to understand that I was in
mortal danger from the tail breaking off? Seems that is a little late in
telling pilots how these things are designed....What next, we can't
reverse
ailerons when landing in gusty conditions without breaking something there
as
well?
..

No, the limitation applies to transport catagory aircraft.

Also, maybe someone can explain why the rudder limiter on this Airbus
didn't
protect the structure when its sole purpose in life is to prevent damage
to the
structure by limiting rudder movement at higher speeds

Good question. It was probably never anticipated that airline pilots would
fly the airplane like your multi students.

Mike
MU-2

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 at 20:52:36 in message
, Mike Rhodes
wrote:
I recall some question concerning a weakness in the design of the
rudder itself, in that the supports to the composite structure were
too few. Not too long after the accident, I saw it was explained on
TV that the manufacturer should have distributed the load over more
points for the sake of the composite material. The known and
understood weakness of composites, compared to metals, is their lesser
ability to handle bearing stress. So Airbus should've known better,
presumably.

The original pictures seemed to show clearly that the root attachments
failed at the attachment to the fuselage.

How easy in turbulence is it to develop a pilot induced yaw oscillation?
The fin might well withstand a full deflection but not a few reversals
that built up the maximum yaw oscillation. Fins and rudders are as big
as they are to deal with the engine out case at relatively low speed I
understand. Isn't one of the functions of a yaw damper to restrict and
damp a yaw oscillation?

Do the reports give any indication of the amount of yaw excursion that
took place?

--
David CL Francis