Question about the Airbus planes

One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

More chilling information about the use and
misuse of composite materials. The risks look bad. Nick

Subject: Air France Accident: Smoking Gun Found


A Brazilian Naval unit reportedly found the complete vertical
fin/rudder assembly of the doomed aircraft floating some 30 miles
from the main debris field. The search for the flight recorders goes
on, but given the failure history of the vertical fins on
A300-series aircraft, an analysis of its structure at the point of
failure will likely yield the primary cause factor in the breakup of
the aircraft, with the flight recorder data (if found) providing
only secondary contributing phenomena.

The fin-failure-leading-to-breakup sequence is strongly suggested in
the attached (below) narrative report by George Larson, Editor
emeritus of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine.

It's regrettable that these aircraft are permitted to continue in
routine flight operations with this known structural defect. It
appears that safety finishes last within Airbus Industries, behind
national pride and economics. Hopefully, this accident will force
the issue to be addressed, requiring at a minimum restricted
operations of selected platforms, and grounding of some high-time
aircraft until a re-engineered (strengthened) vertical fin/rudder
attachment structure can be incorporated.

Les



WHAT FOLLOWS HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED

--------------------------(George Larson's Report)----------------

This is an account of a discussion I had recently with a maintenance
professional
who salvages airliner airframes for a living. He has been at it for
a while, dba BMI
Salvage at Opa Locka Airport in Florida. In the process of stripping
parts, he sees
things few others are able to see. His observations confirm prior
assessments of
Airbus structural deficiencies within our flight test and aero
structures communities
by those who have seen the closely held reports of A3XX-series
vertical fin failures.

His observations:

"I have scrapped just about every type of transport aircraft from A-310,
A-320, B-747, 727, 737, 707, DC-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, MD-80, L-188, L1011
and various Martin, Convair and KC-97 aircraft.

Over a hundred of them.

Airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far as
airframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize composite
materials.

I have one A310 vertical fin on the premises from a demonstration I just
performed. It was pathetic to see the composite structure shatter as it did,
something a Boeing product will not do.

The vertical fin along with the composite hinges on rudder and elevators is
the worst example of structural use of composites I have ever seen and I am
not surprised by the current pictures of rescue crews recovering the
complete Vertical fin and rudder assembly at some distance from the crash
site.

The Airbus line has a history of both multiple rudder losses and a vertical
fin and rudder separation from the airframe as was the case in NY with AA.

As an old non-radar equipped DC4 pilot who flew through many a thunderstorm
in Africa along the equator, I am quite familiar with their
ferocity. It is not
difficult to understand how such a storm might have stressed an aircraft
structure to failure at its weakest point, and especially so in the
presence of
instrumentation problems.

I replied with this:

"I'm watching very carefully the orchestration of the inquiry by French
officials and Airbus. I think I can smell a concerted effort to steer
discussion away from structural issues and onto sensors, etc. Now Air France, at the behest of their pilots' union, is replacing all the air data
sensors on the Airbus fleet, which creates a distraction and shifts the
media's focus away from the real problem.

It's difficult to delve into the structural issue without wading into the
Boeing vs. Airbus swamp, where any observation is instantly tainted by its
origin. Americans noting any Airbus structural issues (A380 early failure
of wing in static test; loss of vertical surfaces in Canadian fleet prior to
AA A300, e.g.) will be attacked by the other side as partisan, biased, etc. "

His follow-up:

One gets a really unique insight into structural issues when one has
first-hand experience in the dismantling process.

I am an A&P, FEJ and an ATP with 7000 flight hours and I was absolutely
stunned, flabbergasted when I realized that the majority of internal
airframe structural supports on the A 310 which appear to be aluminum are actually rolled composite material with aluminum rod ends. They shattered.

Three years ago we had a storm come through, with gusts up to 60-70 kts.,
catching several A320s tied down on the line, out in the open.

The A320 elevators and rudder hinges whose actuators had been
removed shattered and the rudder and elevators came off.

Upon closer inspection I realized that not only were the rear spars
composite but so were the hinges. While Boeing also uses composite
material in its airfoil structures, the actual attach fittings for
the elevators, rudder, vertical and horizontal stabilizers are all of machined aluminum."
-----------------(end of narrative)---------------

a wrote:
One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

More chilling information about the use and
misuse of composite materials. The risks look bad. Nick
[ Elided ]

Since the "report" is devoid of numbers, it is absolutely worthless. Yes,
composites can shatter. Metals bend, fatigue, and break. The issue isn't in
so much as how these different materials fail, but the values of the
stresses that they fail at.

The "report" relies on subjective claims of "flimsiest" and "poorly
designed" and appeals to authority as a substitute for objective stress
measurements.

a wrote:

One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

It's sensationalist garbage.

The fact that the maintenance system transmitted for four minutes says that
not only was the aircraft more or less in one piece during that time, but
that the electrical systems were still functioning. If the tail snapped
off as suggested, the aircraft wouldn't have lasted more than a few seconds
at that altitude and speed.

Indications are stronger that the failure of the vertical stabilizer was a
consequence rather than a cause of the accident.

Jim Logajan wrote:
a wrote:
One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

More chilling information about the use and
misuse of composite materials. The risks look bad. Nick
[ Elided ]

Since the "report" is devoid of numbers, it is absolutely worthless. Yes,
composites can shatter. Metals bend, fatigue, and break. The issue isn't in
so much as how these different materials fail, but the values of the
stresses that they fail at.

The "report" relies on subjective claims of "flimsiest" and "poorly
designed" and appeals to authority as a substitute for objective stress
measurements.


It's not that composites CAN shatter when overstressed - they certainly
WILL shatter. Hence design factors are increased for these materials.
Apart from that quibble, I'm with Jim on this one

Brian W

James Robinson wrote:
a wrote:

One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

It's sensationalist garbage.

The fact that the maintenance system transmitted for four minutes says that
not only was the aircraft more or less in one piece during that time, but
that the electrical systems were still functioning. If the tail snapped
off as suggested, the aircraft wouldn't have lasted more than a few seconds
at that altitude and speed.

Indications are stronger that the failure of the vertical stabilizer was a
consequence rather than a cause of the accident.

Would it be possible that four minutes is how long it took the aircraft
(or the remains of hit) to hit the water? That would be a 8750 feet per
minute vertical speed, which seems a realist figure to me. Furthermore I
am on the impression that the system is autonomous, thus could still
function once the aircraft was broken apart (if so was the case).

Tom Duhamel wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

a wrote:

One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

It's sensationalist garbage.

The fact that the maintenance system transmitted for four minutes
says that not only was the aircraft more or less in one piece during
that time, but that the electrical systems were still functioning.
If the tail snapped off as suggested, the aircraft wouldn't have
lasted more than a few seconds at that altitude and speed.

Indications are stronger that the failure of the vertical stabilizer
was a consequence rather than a cause of the accident.

Would it be possible that four minutes is how long it took the
aircraft (or the remains of hit) to hit the water? That would be a
8750 feet per minute vertical speed, which seems a realist figure to
me. Furthermore I am on the impression that the system is autonomous,
thus could still function once the aircraft was broken apart (if so
was the case).

Anything is possible, however, the communication link depends on a
relatively stable aircraft, since the satcom antennas mounted on the top
of the fuselage have to be directed at the satellites. If the aircraft
is banked more than something like 70 degrees, or pitching or rolling
wildly, the communication link would be broken. It certainly wouldn't
work if the aircraft wasn't in one piece.

Further, the messages indicate that while many things were going wrong on
the aircraft, the fact that the communication took place at all suggests
that electrical system was more or less functional for the four minute
period.

"a" wrote in message
...
One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

snip

More at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=14025

Happy landings,

Private wrote:
"a" wrote in message
...
One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

snip

More at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=14025

Happy landings,



Dear Anonymous Poster,

the level of engineering insight of this URL is typified by this
paragraph:
"We do not know if Air France Flight 447 was brought down by a
lightning storm, a failure of speed sensors, rudder problems or pilot
error. What we do know is that its plastic tail fin fell off and the
plane fell almost seven miles into the ocean killing everyone aboard."

If you don't realize the level of insight offered in this paragraph,
should you be spreading it?

Brian Whatcott
Altus OK
(Real Name at Real Place.)

In article ,
Brian Whatcott wrote:

Private wrote:
"a" wrote in message
...
One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

snip

More at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=14025

Happy landings,



Dear Anonymous Poster,

the level of engineering insight of this URL is typified by this
paragraph:
"We do not know if Air France Flight 447 was brought down by a
lightning storm, a failure of speed sensors, rudder problems or pilot
error. What we do know is that its plastic tail fin fell off and the
plane fell almost seven miles into the ocean killing everyone aboard."

If you don't realize the level of insight offered in this paragraph,
should you be spreading it?

That is indeed ridiculous.

I particularly enjoy the derisive use of the word "plastic" to describe
the vertical stabilizer. As an owner of a composite aircraft, I can tell
you that I much prefer "plastic" to metal when given the choice. Yeah,
when you exceed its strength it fails in a completely unforgiving
manner, but composites make it a *lot* harder to get to that point in
the first place.

Perhaps there really is an engineering deficiency here, but to think
that it's the fault of the material itself and that airliner engineering
should just ignore new materials technology and stick to good ol'
aluminum forever is silly. Glider makers figured out how great
composites were forty years ago, it's about time for the rest to catch
up too.

(And yes, I realize that there are certain differences between building
a 600-pound glider and a 200,000-pound airliner, and between engineering
something to be safe enough to carry a single dare-devilish pilot and
carrying hundreds of paying passengers. But four decades ought to be
enough to figure out how it works for the latter, and indeed things are
moving that way.)

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Mike Ash wrote:

That is indeed ridiculous.

Even more funny is that those Airbus bashers don't seem to realize that
a certain Boeing Dreamliner, should it ever fly, is built with a much
higher percentage of plastic parts than any Airbus.