Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

Rich Ahrens wrote in message m...
nobody wrote:
Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

Seems to me if Airbus or any other manufacturer was aware AA was training
it's pilots to fly/operate its products in a manner it was not engineered to
be operated the manufacturer would be responsible for saying so "LOUD &
CLEAR" in a manner that could not be construed as ambiguous.

In principle, probably correct. But legally, wouldn't it be the FAA that would
be in charge of ensuring that AA's training adheres to both its own as well as
manufacturer's standards ?

Airbus says it sent letters of concern to AA. Perhaps it should have sent
those letters with a CC to the FAA and let the FAA ensure AA fixes the
problem. Not sure Airbus has any authority on ist customers, but FAA has
authority over US airlines.

In the time-honored tradition of Usenet, you two are essentially jerking
each other off speculating about this when you could very simply go read
the primary sources. The letter from Airbus and Boeing to American
Airlines, together with AA's chief pilot's rather arrogant response, are
both in the public record of the investigation and can be read right he

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA58...its/239998.pdf

Among other things, you'll see that the letter was signed not only by
representatives of both airlines but by an FAA employee, who also was
addressed in AA's reply. Clearly the FAA was aware of the training issues.

spoilsport.

Oh wait, I was thinking that this might slow them down.

Carry on.

Bertie

Newps opined

Scott M. Kozel wrote:


That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.


SUV's go a lot farther back than that. The Chevy Apache was the
precursor to the Suburban and may have been made in the 50's. The 60's
for sure. I owned a 77 IH Scout when I was in college and IH had been
making them for a while.

Don't forget Dodge Power Wagons and Jeeps. Both go back a long way.

Actually you won't go far wrong if you think of SUVs as replacements for the
full sized station wagon of the 70s. The ones that CAFE made illegal.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

"running with scissors" wrote in
message om...
"John Mazor" wrote in message
...
"running with scissors" wrote
in
message om...
Dave wrote in message
. ..
Yeh...

Painting "OVER" their logo, and the big red letters "Air
Canada" stretching along the length of the fuse...

Like with a roller & house paint! (!)

yep aircraft are ofen painted by roller.

Unfortunately, they also have the paint scraped with sharp-edged
implements
despite cautions not to use them. There was a story this week about how
minute score lines are propagating into cracks, with potentially
disastrous results.

oh yes. there are AD's pertaining to.

Then the problem seems to be that the word doesn't get down to the chippers
(where have we heard that before?), who either prefer the efficiency of
sharp-edged implements or aren't provided proper tools and supervision by
their cheapskate overlords.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
om...
"John Mazor" wrote in message
...
"Bertie the Bunyip" XZXZ@XZXZ.,XZXZX wrote in message
. 74.13...
Well Fjukwit?

Godot will arrive with your pizza order before that happens.

Ah, but I know Godot well. bought him a pinta just last week.

You paid? Look, some people already are questioning whether you're a real
airline pilot.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 at 04:07:47 in message
, Pooh Bear
wrote:
Nope - they were using the analogue readout barometric altimeter not the more
accurate digital readout radalt ( for reasons of being easier to read whilst
rapidly changing in this instance ).

During the take off phase the radalt and baro altimeter somehow got
'misaligned' by 70 odd feet.

Hence they thought they were flying at 100ft when it was actually 30 ft.

The report I quoted from clearly states:

"A fluctuation in the radio altimeter height was evident during this
manoeuvre, corresponding to the aircraft passing over a clump of trees
on the approach path. Before and after this fluctuation there was
perfect agreement between the readings of the radio altimeter and the
barometric altimeter."

They then suddenly
realised there were trees ahead at the same height or higher than the
aircraft. They then called for TO power but it was too late. Speed had
reduced to 122k and the engines now at flight idle responded as they
should. There was then nothing anyone or the aircraft could do. 4.5
seconds after power started increasing it began hitting the trees.

Actually, increased power was called for as planned. They were indeed unaware
of the trees due to the poor briefing material.

Here is an extract from the report I used as a basis. I think it answers
both of your points. The trees were not the same hazard on rny 02.

CAPT: There's the airfield! It's there ... you've got it, have you?
COPILOT [Selecting 125.25 on VHF and calling Habsheim Tower]: Habsheim,
hello - we're coming into view of the airfield for the flyover.

(HABSHEIM) TWR: Yes - I can see you. You're cleared - sky is clear.
CAPT: Gear down!
COPILOT [to Habsheim Tower as the captain reduces power to flight idle
and the Airbus continues its descent at about 600fpm]: OK - we're going
in for the low altitude flyover.
TWR: Roger.
CAPT: Flaps 2!
TWR: QNH Habsheim 1012. QFE 984.
CAPT: 984 - put in 984.
COPILOT: 984 - QFE selected!
CAPT: Flaps 3! - That's the airfield, you confirm?
COPILOT: Affirmative!
(With the airfield now clearly in view and the aircraft at a height of
only 450 feet, the captain saw from the alignment of the airshow crowd
that the axis of the flying display was not along Runway 02 as he had
expected, but along a grass airstrip aligned northwest. As the aircraft
neared the airfield therefore, he gently banked it to the right to
re-align its ground track accordingly.)
COPILOT: OK, you're at 100 feet - watch it!
At this stage, the crew deactivated the Alpha Floor function, to prevent
the computerised control system from automatically applying power as the
angle of attack increased.
COPILOT [18 seconds later with the aircraft now only 40 feet above the
grass airstrip and still sinking slowly]: Watch out for the pylons ahead
- see them?(')
CAPT [finally levelling off at about 30 feet above the strip]: Yes -
don't worry.
(But as the aircraft continued over the strip at this height in its
steep noseup attitude, the pilots suddenly realised that the trees in a
forested area beyond the northwestern boundary of the airfield were at
least as high as, if not higher than, the aircraft itself.)
COPILOT [with alarm]: TOGA power! Go around track!
(The crew rapidly applied power, but as the engines began to spool up in
response, and the aircraft passed beyond the airstrip, the hundreds of
spectators watching the extremely low fly past were horrified to see the
underside of the aircraft's tail begin striking the treetops. Slowly the
Air-bus sank from sight into the trees. Moments later, an orange
fireball, engulfed in a column of black oily smoke mushroomed swiftly
above the trees as the aircraft, unseen, exploded in flames.)"

Exactly how and why the engines responded as they did has been a matter of
considerable debate.

Debate yes, no doubt, but the analysis showed that the engines spooled
up as they should.

That version of the CFM 56 ? was subsequently altered and units in service
'upgraded' following a compressor stall incident on another early A320 at
Geneva ? IIRC.

I have no information about that - I accept what you say.
--
David CL Francis

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.

The earliest one I know of is the Willys Overland wagon. Came out in 1946.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:19:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
wrote:

Since when did the average "Soccer Mom SUV" become an "Off Road Vehicle"?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Since they were first introduced back in the 70's. It's the loophole
that allows them to qualify as "light trucks" instead of normal
vehicals which means they do not have to conform to the exhaust
emissions regulations all normal cars are held to.

Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
states where no snow or ice normally falls.

A good percentage of SUV's do not have 4WD. You can verify this in many
parts of the country where 2WD is the norm on Explorers, Jeeps,
Trailblazers, and the like. There is no requirement of 4WD to qualify as a
truck.

Since they are literally (perhaps this has changed recently) built on
truck chassis, people who buy them because they think they are safer
than ordinary cars are mistaken. They, at least until recently, did
not have the crash engineering designed into them that ordinary cars
had. Also, SUV's, because of their higher than normal weight and
higher than normal height, end up being more prone to loss of control
in marginal traction conditions than ordinary automobiles. Or at
least, that is what some experts have attempted to point out for
years.

As usual, inaccurate. Yes, SOME SUV's have a higher than car center of
gravity, but certainly lot all, or even a majority of them.

Oh yes, almost forgot, SUV's due to their "light truck" status, do not
have to conform to the fuel economy regulations regular cars must
adhere to either. As a result they are collectively known as gas
gusslers and are targeted by green activists for "tickets" against the
environment and some occasional vandalism.

Trucks have different CAFE standards ("Corporate Averge Fuel Economy").
Some are gas guzzlers, and some are more economical. There are many SUV's
out there that have gas mileage equal to many cars (in the 20MPG range, for
overall average driving).

Some people have a need for a bigger vehicle for whatever reason. That is
there prerogative.

The light truck loophole was created originally to give hard working
farmers a break.

Corky Scott

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.

The earliest one I know of is the Willys Overland wagon. Came out in 1946.

Hardly a *Sports* Utility Vehicle though ?


Graham

"Corky Scott" wrote in message


Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
truck status,

No, they do not have to have 4WD. You can get Suburbans, Tahoes,
Expeditions, Excursions, Durangoes etc, in 2WD.

Pooh Bear wrote in message ...
Stefan wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

I hear what you're saying here. It was claimed by the flight crew that since they were used to
flying in and out of large airports, the visual references of a small airfield gave them a false
impression.

I must admit that this makes some sense.

Sorry, which bit don't you understand ? Overlooking the shorter runway length ?

No, the forest, of course. I think a pilot should be able to recognize a
forest when seeing it, even if it should happen not to be on the VAC...
Can't remember why I even mentioned runway length.

Pre-occupation with the current task might be the reason ? Think about the Tristar that descended into
the Everglades 'cos the flight crew were trying to see if they had a broken indicator lamp for
example.

what's it to you, wannabe netkkoping ****?

Bertie