Flt 587-Airbus vs American Airlines

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"John Bailey" wrote in message
...
SNIP:
One problem, he found, was that on the A-300, the amount
of force needed to start moving the rudder was relatively high, and
the total range of motion allowed at that speed was only a little over
an inch, making it very difficult to apply any amount of rudder less
than its full extension.
SNIP:
Is he trying to say that operational reasons limit rudder motion to a
little over an inch, or what? Doesn't sound like enough to handle one
engine out with the other one firewalled to, say, climb out of San
Juan, Costa Rico.

I'll agree with Walt's observation that the poster may wish to rethink their
contribution to the thread. Get a clue, FAA has two zeros.

Ron Parsons wrote in message ...
In article ,
"tw" wrote:

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"tw" wrote:

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

"Robey Price" wrote
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Paul F
Austin" confessed the following:

My impression from reading the AvWeek reports is that this problem
isn't
unique to A300s nor to Airbus products. The fin can be overloaded
in
most
transports if opposite rudder is commanded while a significant yaw
has
occurred. I'm not a pilot but AvWeek claimed that standard recovery
training
for transport pilots could lead to this condition.

You are correct, I fly the 757 and we've recently had some expanded
warning verbiage added to our flight manual about excessive rudder
inputs during an engine failure. Pretty soon after that AA crash we
were cautioned about excessive rudder inputs.

snip

Thanks for the information. I am somewhat amazed that the FAA doesn't
require load analysis of the fin under yaw/extreme opposite rudder but
(again according to AvWeek), it does not.



Political and un-Diplomatic pressure from the foreign states heavily
invested in the sucess of Airbus.

..and Boeing as well presumably, seeing as they potentially have the same
problem. DUH! As I believe the youngsters say.

Not exactly. Boeing has had hardover problems in the past, AA21 into
Jamaca Bay back in the late '50s for example and the various 737
incidents.

Look up the post to where the 757 pilot says
"You are correct, I fly the 757 and we've recently had some expanded
warning verbiage added to our flight manual about excessive rudder
inputs during an engine failure. Pretty soon after that AA crash we
were cautioned about excessive rudder inputs."

It is a conern for Boeing as well as Airbus - this has nothing to do with
the dodgy hydraulic actuators that have been blamed for the hardover
problem.

The Airbus has a totally different problem which only the pilots are
willing to speak about. The fleet, including the AA587 aircraft has a
history of uncommanded rudder fluctuations where the rudder slams back
and forth between the stops so rapidly that the DFR can't record it.

Cite? How come this problem isn't showing up with all Airbus users?

Airbus won't admit it might be a design flaw, AAL won't consider it
might be improper maintainance.

The NWA pilots were screaming their heads off about the wierd stuff that
the FBW baby busses were doing, but the FAA turned a deaf ear.

How come no other Airbus users are complaining?

Airbus has been consistant in finding Pilot Error, in one case in Asia
releasing their findings before the Accdent Investigation Team had even
arrived at the site.

Which one was that?


The only reason that AAL has Airbus aircraft in the fleet is that it was
a requirment in order to gain landing rights in Europe.

I find that extremely hard to believe, do you have a source?

FAA understands clearly that if they ground any of the busses, that the
EU states involved with Airbus will ground Boeings.

Again, cite?


Now don't you feel safer?

I certainly don't feel any less safe



Sorry, the real world doesn't come with cites.

Hmm.. my bull**** detector just pegged.

"Tom" wrote in message
om...
Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
snip
FAA understands clearly that if they ground any of the busses, that
the
EU states involved with Airbus will ground Boeings.

Again, cite?


Now don't you feel safer?

I certainly don't feel any less safe

Sorry, the real world doesn't come with cites.

Hmm.. my bull**** detector just pegged.

You will get over it. What Ron wrote is why there is a JAA in Europe.

Money and jobs.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Tom" wrote in message
om...
Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
snip
FAA understands clearly that if they ground any of the busses, that
the
EU states involved with Airbus will ground Boeings.

Again, cite?


Now don't you feel safer?

I certainly don't feel any less safe

Sorry, the real world doesn't come with cites.

Hmm.. my bull**** detector just pegged.

You will get over it. What Ron wrote is why there is a JAA in Europe.

What?


Money and jobs.

What ARE you on about splaps boy?

"Tom" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Tom" wrote in message
om...
Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
snip
FAA understands clearly that if they ground any of the busses,
that the
EU states involved with Airbus will ground Boeings.

Again, cite?


Now don't you feel safer?

I certainly don't feel any less safe

Sorry, the real world doesn't come with cites.

Hmm.. my bull**** detector just pegged.

You will get over it. What Ron wrote is why there is a JAA in Europe.

What?

Tit for tat is how it is. Europe had the perception that FAA was screwing
them on certification of new airplanes so they strated JAA.

What don't you get?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Tom" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Tom" wrote in message
om...
Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
snip
FAA understands clearly that if they ground any of the busses,
that the
EU states involved with Airbus will ground Boeings.

Again, cite?


Now don't you feel safer?

I certainly don't feel any less safe

Sorry, the real world doesn't come with cites.

Hmm.. my bull**** detector just pegged.

You will get over it. What Ron wrote is why there is a JAA in Europe.

What?

Tit for tat is how it is.

Absolute nonsense - what Beoings have had difficulty with
certification in Europe?

Europe had the perception that FAA was screwing
them on certification of new airplanes so they strated JAA.

Your contention is that the JAA was created soley to refuse
certification of Boeing products?!


What don't you get?

THe same hallucinatory side-effects when drinking that you do?