Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

Here to there wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete wrote:

But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"


Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?

If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
severe consequences.

I'll
give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
Probably you'll discover all of those.

BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
event).

"Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
make everything infinitely strong.

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.

From what I've read,
it wasn't the first officer's fault, really - he did exactly
what he was trained to do. Unfortunately, his training was
wrong.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter wrote:
Here to there wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete wrote:

But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"


Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?

If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
severe consequences.


Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
land office business in the winter when the local students
decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)


I'll
give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
Probably you'll discover all of those.

BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
event).


Were the drivers turning the wheels rapidly, all the way to
the stops? According to the crash report, that seems to
be essentially what the first officer was doing with the rudder
as he attempted to recover from the turbulence.


"Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
make everything infinitely strong.

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.


Well, perhaps, if it was a fly-by-wire system....

- Rich

Here to there wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter wrote:

Here to there wrote:


On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete wrote:


But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"


Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?

If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
severe consequences.

Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
land office business in the winter when the local students
decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)

In real life, parking lots unfortunately have many things you can
impact such as curbs, potholes, posts, etc. In the absence of those
there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
about the Corvair and VW Beetle - due to an unusual rear suspension
design it was possible to flip these. There are also some vehicles
that are relatively narrow with a high center-of-gravity, but most
cars will not flip when driven on a flat surface regardless of the
control inputs.

I'll
give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
Probably you'll discover all of those.

BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
event).



Were the drivers turning the wheels rapidly, all the way to
the stops?

Yes, the wheels were turned rapidly and the cars did spin out of
control - but there was no indication that any even came close to
flipping over.

According to the crash report, that seems to
be essentially what the first officer was doing with the rudder
as he attempted to recover from the turbulence.



"Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
make everything infinitely strong.

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.

Well, perhaps, if it was a fly-by-wire system....

Yes, this accident was on the A300 without FBW - my comment was just
agreeing that this should be an advantage of the FBW systems.

My reading of the reports on the accident is that while the co-pilot's
actions may have been the proximate 'cause' of the tail's failure, the
fault was not the co-pilot's but rather with the training which failed
to indicate that such use of the rudder could cause structural failure.
Whether that's the fault of Airbus or American remains to be determined
- sounds like there's still plenty of finger-pointing going on.

"Peter" wrote

In the absence of those
there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
about the Corvair

pppplease everyone note: That was true for pre 63, only.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/23/2004

Hi!

Morgans wrote:
"Peter" wrote

In the absence of those

there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
about the Corvair


pppplease everyone note: That was true for pre 63, only.

Have you ever heard about the "Moose Test"?
MB A class failed that test and had to get electronic stability
control to pass that test.

brgds

--
Gunter Herrmann
Naples, Florida, USA

In article ,
Morgans wrote:

"Peter" wrote

In the absence of those there aren't all that many models of cars
that can be flipped on a flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's
original complaints about the Corvair

pppplease everyone note: That was true for pre 63, only.

The 63 and 64 Corvairs were the primary subject of Nader's _Unsafe At Any
Speed_. The 65 Corvairs added a stabilizer to the suspension. And the
primary complaint about the original suspension was not that it caused the
cars to flip, but that it tended to cause the outside wheel to tuck under
during sharp cornering, leading to a sudden breakaway skid with no warning
creep. It could also lead to a rollover if something as minor as a pothole
tripped that wheel as it entered such a skid, but that wasn't the primary
failure mode.

_Consumers' Reports_ once rated a small Suzuki SUV Not Acceptable because of
its tendency to tip, which they speculated could lead to rollover accidents.
It's the rarity of that phenomenon that made it newsworthy. Virtually all
real-world rollover accidents involve the wheels being tripped by a curb or
other obstruction.

--
Randy Hudson

Randy Hudson wrote:
It's the rarity of that phenomenon that made it newsworthy. Virtually all
real-world rollover accidents involve the wheels being tripped by a curb or
other obstruction.


You've obviously not watched any good documentary on the subject. Police car
chases in Los Angeles almost always involve some spectacular roll over.
British spies are almost always involved in some form of car chase which
involves some roll over. Heck, in a recent documentary about british spies,
the spy was in a fancy sports car (aston martin if I recall correctly) on
smooth ICE in iceland and the car flipped and slid for a while on its roof,
until the spy pressed the "eject passenger seat" button which causes the case
to bounce back into right side up condition, showing just how easy it is for a
car to flip.

It is possible that there might be something special about gravity in the Los
Angeles area that makes it much easier for cars to flip over. I haven't
personally witnessed any such accidents where I live (except in documentaries
at the he movie theatre or TV).

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Here to there wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter wrote:

Here to there wrote:


On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete wrote:


But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus
shares
a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"


Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?

If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
severe consequences.

Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
land office business in the winter when the local students
decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)

In real life, parking lots unfortunately have many things you can
impact such as curbs, potholes, posts, etc. In the absence of those
there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
about the Corvair and VW Beetle - due to an unusual rear suspension
design it was possible to flip these. There are also some vehicles
that are relatively narrow with a high center-of-gravity, but most
cars will not flip when driven on a flat surface regardless of the
control inputs.

I'll
give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
Probably you'll discover all of those.

BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
event).



Were the drivers turning the wheels rapidly, all the way to
the stops?

Yes, the wheels were turned rapidly and the cars did spin out of
control - but there was no indication that any even came close to
flipping over.

According to the crash report, that seems to
be essentially what the first officer was doing with the rudder
as he attempted to recover from the turbulence.



"Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
make everything infinitely strong.

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.

Well, perhaps, if it was a fly-by-wire system....

Yes, this accident was on the A300 without FBW - my comment was just
agreeing that this should be an advantage of the FBW systems.

My reading of the reports on the accident is that while the co-pilot's
actions may have been the proximate 'cause' of the tail's failure, the
fault was not the co-pilot's but rather with the training which failed
to indicate that such use of the rudder could cause structural failure.
Whether that's the fault of Airbus or American remains to be determined
- sounds like there's still plenty of finger-pointing going on.

1:The FACS should have prevented flight control inputs aggressive enough to
damage the A/C.
2: The Rudder limiter should not have allowed the rudder to go stop to stop
several times.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Peter wrote:

In real life, parking lots unfortunately have many things you can
impact such as curbs, potholes, posts, etc. In the absence of those
there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
about the Corvair and VW Beetle - due to an unusual rear suspension
design it was possible to flip these. There are also some vehicles
that are relatively narrow with a high center-of-gravity, but most
cars will not flip when driven on a flat surface regardless of the
control inputs.

That is especially true if the road surface is wet or snow covered.

Yes, the wheels were turned rapidly and the cars did spin out of
control - but there was no indication that any even came close to
flipping over.

Just because a car is spinning, doesn't mean it is out of control. Is
your plane out of control if you spin it? If so how do you stop the
spin with out hitting the ground?


--
Chris W

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

Chris W wrote:

Peter wrote:

Yes, the wheels were turned rapidly and the cars did spin out of
control - but there was no indication that any even came close to
flipping over.

Just because a car is spinning, doesn't mean it is out of control.

And I neither wrote nor implied anything to the contrary. But in
the case I was describing the cars were both spinning and out of
control.