Flt 587-Airbus vs American Airlines

"Nemo l'ancien" wrote in message
...

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



The same for Boeing 737 tail problem... resolved for the entire fleet
only in ....2012....

The Boeing tail problem is the same one the A-300 has; the 737 rudder PCU AD
is basicly political bull****. Loss of ATC seperation led to a control
surface stall and the pilot beat the rudder pedals through the floor. The
difference is that the A-300 in question was equiped with a DFDR and we can
know exactly what happened. We know the pilot's inputs to the airplane, the
direction of deflection of the rudder and the aircraft's response to those
control surface deflections. Flight AA587 was classic rudder reversal due
to flow seperation. (stall)

Referernce: Blakey's statement to the USAir 737 and AA A-300.

"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.
....

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.

Nonsense. The lack of analysis of that condition is long standing and
applied to Lockheed, Boeing and McAir before Airbus was born.

In case you have trouble keeping up, the failure mode that augered in AA587
probably applies to most jet transports. Because the analysis hasn't been
done, you can't prove that_any_certified for passenger service will survive
a rudder slam while in a sideslip at low altitude.

You can fix the problem if 1. you know the envelope that's survivable and 2.
you prevent excursions outside the envelope. You prevent the excursion (in
increasing order of preferability) by training, by modifications to control
"feel", by changes to control laws and by structural enhancements. The last
may not be possible within acceptable weight and moment constraints.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"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.
...

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.

Nonsense. The lack of analysis of that condition is long standing and
applied to Lockheed, Boeing and McAir before Airbus was born.

In case you have trouble keeping up, the failure mode that augered in
AA587
probably applies to most jet transports. Because the analysis hasn't been
done, you can't prove that_any_certified for passenger service will
survive
a rudder slam while in a sideslip at low altitude.

You can fix the problem if 1. you know the envelope that's survivable and
2.
you prevent excursions outside the envelope. You prevent the excursion (in
increasing order of preferability) by training, by modifications to
control
"feel", by changes to control laws and by structural enhancements. The
last
may not be possible within acceptable weight and moment constraints.

Twin engine out takeoff requirements have driven regulation for these big
rudders, until now. It is a fairly simple matter for AI to reduce the
pilot's command authority by adjusting the control LAWs.

"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.


--
Ron

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Now don't you feel safer?

--
Ron

"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

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

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.

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.


This sounds extremely dubious, the DFR can record events that take less
than a millisecond, the rudder is much to massive to move in that time.


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.


The A-300 isnt a FBW aircraft it uses conventional control systems.

Keith

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
Parsons confessed the following:

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.

Got anything specific WRT this claim? Not saying weird stuff doesn't
happen, but the pilot grapevine never reflected anything resembling
NWA pilots "screaming their heads off" and the FAA ignoring them.

I'll be the first to admit that lots of stupid pilot/airplane tricks
never make it thru to the rank and file, but I've not seen any sign of
your claim on the ALPA site or the NWA forums.

Many of us call the A-320, "Fifi" (IOW a french dog or the Poodle in
deference to United guys and O'Hare's ground controllers calling the
737 a Guppy) ergo the A319 is a "minature poodle." This is no more
mean spirited than F-15 guys calling the F-16 the Lawn Dart, Viper
guys calling Eagle guys, "Ego drivers."

Juvat

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
Parsons confessed the following:

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.

Got anything specific WRT this claim? Not saying weird stuff doesn't
happen, but the pilot grapevine never reflected anything resembling
NWA pilots "screaming their heads off" and the FAA ignoring them.

The only think I ever heard was that hose early A-320s were noisey and that
is true. They had a little bandwidth starvation problem in the flight
control computer, but it is corrected.

I'll be the first to admit that lots of stupid pilot/airplane tricks
never make it thru to the rank and file, but I've not seen any sign of
your claim on the ALPA site or the NWA forums.

Many of us call the A-320, "Fifi" (IOW a french dog or the Poodle in
deference to United guys and O'Hare's ground controllers calling the
737 a Guppy) ergo the A319 is a "minature poodle." This is no more
mean spirited than F-15 guys calling the F-16 the Lawn Dart, Viper
guys calling Eagle guys, "Ego drivers."

A little friendly chatter is a good thing.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Tarver
Engineering" confessed the following:

The only think I ever heard was that hose early A-320s were noisey and that
is true.

In a different vein...I've heard of the "airbus whine," which was used
by a Denver Center controller last month. In a strictly anecdotal
observation, A320/319 crews were complaining about the quality of
their "ride" more often than 737/757 folks, and airbus guys were
requesting frequent altitude changes.

Not to mention the airbus insults you upon touchdown, "Retard...
retard...retard..."

A little friendly chatter is a good thing.

True.

Juvat