"Oelewapper" wrote

"tadaa" wrote in
But newness is as newness does. It seems to me that the tail is less
likely to fall off a Boeing jet, and surely that is more important
than the pilot's comfort in transitioning from a small jet to a large
one.

Has there been info about why did the tail come off that Airbus taking
off
in NY?
The one that happened in earlier (in Italy?) was because they used
counterfit parts to save costs (old parts made to look new with
counterfit
papers).

Utter bull**** !! From here it's only one step to say that the european
countries are handing out billions of euros to AI, because otherwise they
would have to staple the tail on the plane with a Bostich B8 staple
machine... which would be bad for the economy because Bostich is an
American
brand... Gimme a break.

Last that I heard is that Airbus and AA are facing each other in court,
and
it doesn't look too good for AA and its instructors. Apparently American
pilots dunno how and when to use the rudder: the guy kept pumping the
goddamn thing until his tail blew off !!! I mean, eversince 9/11 no
single
pilot had gone to such great lengths to make sure that his plane would
fall
to pieces.

Talking about the thrust reversers and the prematurely appearing cracks on
the B767 though... any news if Boeing fixed that problem already, or is
that
maybe the reason why nobody wants to buy these planes anymore ???

Unwind your undergarments.

As I read the reports, there were no structural deficiencies in the A300
design or in the tail that came off. Airbus, like all airframers analysed
their aircraft to FAA standards that did not include the stresses from
opposite rudder with a significant yaw.

Apparently transport pilots were being trained (on many different
transports) to apply large rudder inputs which (absent the analysis
mentioned above) could overstress the fin, which is what took the tail off
the A300. Fixing it will require a combination of training and modification
of aircraft (mainly in control laws and software).