Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

nobody wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

I remember the incident though. An A320 full of passengers doing
something it shouldn't have at an air show, and ending up descending
into trees at the end of the runway.


Aircraft was not full of passengers. It was a demo flight with just a few guests.

The aircraft didn't "descend into the trees", it just wasn't able to climb
over the trees due to its initially low speed and low altitude.

I've done a search, but there seem inconsistency over the numbers,
though the figure of 3 deaths seems reliable, rather than the 1 I
stated. There seems general agreement that there were a lot of people on
board.

A video of the accident is available at this site:

http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/videos/9-11.htm

Sylvia.

Maybe you just need a big red "GO-FOR-BROKE" button for those cases
where flying according to the book is guaranteed to result in a
premature meeting with the ground.

In cases where extremely rapid reaction is necessary (such as waking up and
realising you are about to hit a mountain), the best thing to do is to put all
controls to their maximum and let the computer decide exacvtly how much can be
done and dyunamically change that as the plane starts to respond to those
requests for maximum change.

"Going for broke" will only yield a stall if you try to command maximum climb
when your speed just doesn't allow it. And in an emergency situation, does the
pilot actually have the time to think about just how much of a climb angle he
can achieve before stalling at current speed ?

"Peter" wrote in message
...
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!"

Why the FACS failed to limit flight control inputs & why the rudder limiter
failed to limit rudder travel in this incident are two questions that have
not been addressed.
Ralph Nesbitt Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"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

Dave Stadt wrote:

Simply not true. Automobiles will not turn over on flat pavement unless
they hit something. It has been a law for decades.



Is that a law of physics or congress?

Sorry couldn't resist

--
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

nobody wrote:

Maybe you just need a big red "GO-FOR-BROKE" button for those cases
where flying according to the book is guaranteed to result in a
premature meeting with the ground.


In cases where extremely rapid reaction is necessary (such as waking up and
realising you are about to hit a mountain), the best thing to do is to put all
controls to their maximum and let the computer decide exacvtly how much can be
done and dyunamically change that as the plane starts to respond to those
requests for maximum change.

"Going for broke" will only yield a stall if you try to command maximum climb
when your speed just doesn't allow it. And in an emergency situation, does the
pilot actually have the time to think about just how much of a climb angle he
can achieve before stalling at current speed ?

That wasn't quite the scenario I had in mind, and I'd hope that any
pilot (commercial or otherwise) would realise that just pulling the
stick back as far as it will go is not likely to achieve the desired result.

The was an incident some years back where a crew lost control of an
airliner in turbulence, and pulled forces way outside the design
envelope inorder to prevent a dive into the ground. Also lowered landing
gear above gear down speed, etc.

The aircraft suffered severe damage, but landed OK. Unfortunately, I
cannot remember the airline, aircraft type nor location, which makes it
a bit hard to find.

Sylvia.

Pete wrote:

Remember that it was an AA
DC-10 that lost an engine at ORD, and AA's maintenance practice
of removing engines with a forklift was the culprit, contrary to
McDonnell Douglas' advice.



That sounds interesting. How was it that removing them with the
forklift caused a problem, and how were they supposed to do it? Just
curious.

--
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

Jay Beckman wrote:

Some refer to the Paris Airshow, while some just refer to an airshow in
eastern France.

I believe you are referring to the following accident:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880626-0.htm

According that link the accident happened at the Mulhouse-Habsheim airport,
indeed in the east of France, on the Swiss border. The aircraft had taken
off and was supposed to land at the Mulhouse/Basel airport.

With best regards, Peter

On 10/26/04 1:35 PM, in article ldomain,
"Here to there" wrote:

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. ;-)


Ummmm NO.

I used to teach for a few racing schools that included Skip Barber Racing
School.

Your answer is wrong, very wrong. The way you flip is to hit a curb while
traveling sideways, NOT Rapid steering wheel movement.

Nice try though, but your wrong.

Eric Fletcher