Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

The issue with the incident in question was the complete vertical stabilizer
breaking off, not just the rudder fin.

The vert stab broke off on account of the forces created on it by the
multiple
reversals of rudder.

The link posted by Rich Ahrens
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA58...its/239998.pdf

states unequivocally that structural failure can result from such
action. See
somewhere like page 3 of the text.


Graham


As has been said many times before - why was this not more widely
realised ? I
note that the message in the link above was sent to *management*. Nuff
said ?

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

The issue with the incident in question was the complete vertical
stabilizer breaking off, not just the rudder fin.

The vert stab broke off on account of the forces created on it by the
multiple
reversals of rudder.

The link posted by Rich Ahrens
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA58...its/239998.pdf

states unequivocally that structural failure can result from such
action. See
somewhere like page 3 of the text.


Graham


As has been said many times before - why was this not more widely
realised ?

Go fjuk yourself planespotter


Bertie

RVerDon wrote:
It seems to me that any airplane that will lose it's tail simply by using
the rudder pedals is unsafe and shouldn't be allowed to fly.

The only way to do this is to put computer interpretation/authority over pilot
commands so that the computer will move the rudder at safe speeds for current airspeed.

Problem is that pilots outside AA had always been trained to refrain from
using rudder for normal flying. They were never instructed to use the rudder
in flight as a teenager uses a nintendo game paddle. So this was never an
issue before.


So the big question is wether trhe A380 and 7E7 (planes that were launched
after that AA accident) will have computer controlled rudders.

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



Pooh Bear wrote:

John Mazor wrote:


"OtisWinslow" wrote in message
...

I thought the Captain was in charge of making sure the
aircraft was operated safely. Why the hell didn't he intervene
and stop the excessive movement? He just sat there
and watched knowing that it was the wrong action to
take? Sure points the finger at Airbus and AA's training program.

Perhaps, but it also reflects the prevailing but erroneous impression
among airline pilots that you can't break the airplane with control
inputs below maneuvering speed. This was not limited to Airbus
products.


Which then begs the question why were airline pilots erroneously
under that impression ?

It was a bizarre notion anyway. Fly your airliner below maneuvering
speed. Apply full right aileron, and wait.

I guarantee you'll have a broken plane.


Wot a ******.


Bertie

Pilots have been taught for years that maneuvering speed means that you can put
in full control and not overstress the airplane. Never have I read that there
were exceptions or qualifications to that definition, that is until now.
Funny thing about this, apparantly Airbus recommended that in a procedure to
lower the landing gear using the backup system they suggested yawing the
airplane back and forth to help latch the gear down. Unless there is a way to
do this without pushing the rudder back and forth doesn't this seem to invite a
Va problem? Where were the Va experts when this procedure was written?

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



John Mazor wrote:

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...

Pooh Bear wrote:


John Mazor wrote:


"OtisWinslow" wrote in message
om...


I thought the Captain was in charge of making sure the
aircraft was operated safely. Why the hell didn't he intervene
and stop the excessive movement? He just sat there
and watched knowing that it was the wrong action to
take? Sure points the finger at Airbus and AA's training program.

Perhaps, but it also reflects the prevailing but erroneous
impression

among

airline pilots that you can't break the airplane with control
inputs

below

maneuvering speed. This was not limited to Airbus products.

Which then begs the question why were airline pilots erroneously
under

that

impression ?

It was a bizarre notion anyway. Fly your airliner below maneuvering
speed. Apply full right aileron, and wait.

I guarantee you'll have a broken plane.


Cute - ditto for full forward yoke 100' AGL - but irrelevant.

Forget the liability dogfight, the most troublesome aspect of this
accident is how long-standing engineers' knowledge that a rudder
wig-wag could break the tail on an airplane never got disseminated
down to the people who actually fly the damn things.


It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
truth.

So, of all the things that the engineers consider obvious, how are
they to enumerate those that won't be obvious to non-engineers?

Babbage was reputedly asked whether his calculating engine would give
the correct answers even if given the wrong input. He's quoted as
expressing bemusement at the kind of thinking that could lead to such
a question.

Forums like this one may help -

Good christ, you really are a fjuking half wit


Bertie

"AbsolutelyCertain" wrote in
:


"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...
AbsolutelyCertain wrote:

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


Those who sit at the pointy end of the
aircraft may like to ponder where their self interest lies before
indulging themselves in this respect.


Oh my.

Pretty entertaining, isn't she?

In the same way that a roach, just sprayed with Raid and wriggling on the
floor, is entertaining .........

Yeah, but they die far too quickly.


Bertie

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



Rich Ahrens wrote:

AbsolutelyCertain wrote:

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...


Those who sit at the pointy end of the
aircraft may like to ponder where their self interest lies before
indulging themselves in this respect.



Oh my.


Pretty entertaining, isn't she?

I try to be of service.


obviously.

Bertie

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



I wrote:

It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
truth.

Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight
control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason.

Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if
you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing
alone, and land.


What a fjukwit


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



I wrote:


It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
truth.

Alaska Airlines Flight 261 might be an example. You have a flight
control system element that's jammed for no apparent reason.

Therefore you have no idea what it might do if you mess with it, so if
you can land with it in its current state, then leave the damned thing
alone, and land.



What a fjukwit


Please note that Berties disagrees here. He wants the right to meddle.
Perhaps he wants to join those ace Alaska Airlines pilots, wherever they
are now.

Sylvia.