Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5615139/

Topic: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: MountainFlyer
Posted 2012-11-19 12:35:23 and read 4236 times.

In light of AA Flight 587, the FAA has decided to require Airbus to install a rudder warning system on A300s and A310s.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel.../2012/11/19/airbus-rudder/1707421/

I find it interesting that they are just now doing this, over 11 years since AA 587, especially considering there are going to be relatively few aircraft affected (and even fewer by the deadline) due to the retirement of these aircraft.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: phishphan70
Posted 2012-11-19 12:40:07 and read 4246 times.

Big blow for FX having to pay for these mods. Are FX and DHL the only airlines in the US still using A300/310s?

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: MountainFlyer
Posted 2012-11-19 12:50:37 and read 4245 times.

Quoting phishphan70 (Reply 1):
Are FX and DHL the only airlines in the US still using A300/310s?

FX and 5X. AFAIK, DHL does not have any.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: starrion
Posted 2012-11-19 12:58:09 and read 4244 times.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
I find it interesting that they are just now doing this, over 11 years since AA 587, especially considering there are going to be relatively few aircraft affected (and even fewer by the deadline) due to the retirement of these aircraft.

Yeah, the horse left the stable, ran for miles, had a long and happy life with a band of wild horses, had a couple of foals and passed of old age.

Barn door? Rusted and fell off the hinges.

We'll nail that door back up again though.....

Since the incident hasn't happened since, is this even worth pursuing?

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: LV
Posted 2012-11-19 13:00:32 and read 4243 times.

I get the feeling FX will speed up the retirement of the Airbus fleet with this.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: thegoldenargosy
Posted 2012-11-19 13:01:52 and read 4243 times.

Seems kinda crazy that it took 11yrs for this if it really is that important.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-11-19 13:14:03 and read 4246 times.

I found the following sections of interest:

Quote:

Now, the FAA has worked with the counterparts at the European Aviation Safety Agency and Airbus to install a flashing light and sound in the cockpit to warn against excessive rudder movement on A300 and A310 planes.

The FAA estimates the update will cost $72,720 to $107,720 per plane.

So it wasn't a US-only thing, and for easy math if you presume $100k and 215 planes, $21M will be spend doing this upgrade.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-11-19 15:03:06 and read 4243 times.

Well it does kinda seem strange doing this 11 years later, and usually I'd criticize the government for being so inefficient, but the FAA has done a great job protecting the skies over the past couple decades. If this is the worst decision they make (and it may actually save a plane for all we know) I'm pretty happy

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: prebennorholm
Posted 2012-11-19 17:03:18 and read 4243 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
I found the following sections of interest:

Quote:

Now, the FAA has worked with the counterparts at the European Aviation Safety Agency and Airbus to install a flashing light and sound in the cockpit to warn against excessive rudder movement on A300 and A310 planes.

The FAA estimates the update will cost $72,720 to $107,720 per plane.


So it wasn't a US-only thing

If AESA didn't issue an AD, then it is a US-only thing. But of course the FAA worked with manufacturer and certifying authority about it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
...and for easy math if you presume $100k and 215 planes, $21M will be spend doing this upgrade.

I find it hard to believe that the FAA AD can cost that much to implement. After all it seems to be no more than a lateral G force sensor in the tail which rings a bell and flashes a light in the cockpit when the plane is piloted beyond any sanity, but still well before structural limits are reached.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: yellowtail
Posted 2012-11-19 17:42:21 and read 4242 times.

Are there any foreign carriers flying into the US that maybe affected by this....Maybe Air Transat or soem cargo carriers at MIA?

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2012-11-19 17:55:37 and read 4241 times.

Quoting thegoldenargosy (Reply 5):


Seems kinda crazy that it took 11yrs for this if it really is that important.

I believe that it took them a while to discover that the current rudder travel limiter can allow excessive rudder movement at times. Its cheaper to put in a warning than to redo the mechanical limiter which works in almost all cases.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: FI642
Posted 2012-11-19 18:32:04 and read 4241 times.

This could really accelerate the retirement of the A310's from the FX fleet.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-19 18:57:09 and read 4239 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 8):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
...and for easy math if you presume $100k and 215 planes, $21M will be spend doing this upgrade.

I find it hard to believe that the FAA AD can cost that much to implement. After all it seems to be no more than a lateral G force sensor in the tail which rings a bell and flashes a light in the cockpit when the plane is piloted beyond any sanity, but still well before structural limits are reached.

$100K is a deal for that work package. The sensor/bundle/bell/light parts kit should run at least $50,000, then include mechanic time to install it and run the functional check...

Tom.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-11-19 20:29:37 and read 4239 times.

AIrlines spend $100K on many things per flight I dont see how this small 1 time cost will cause them to cancel out all of the benefits of the A300.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-11-19 23:57:10 and read 4240 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
The sensor/bundle/bell/light parts kit should run at least $50,000,

Really? Naively, I would have expected the accelerometer to cost around $100, and the bell and light about $10 each...

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: m1m2
Posted 2012-11-20 00:06:17 and read 4240 times.

The A310 is still being used by the Canadian government although I don't know how many they are operating.

As for the price of the parts, I agree with UALWN, but in aviation it's all about certification and availability.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-20 00:17:07 and read 4242 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):
Really?

Sadly, yes. The cost of parts in this business is staggering. I've seen individual bolts with price tags close to $600. As for the cost of this AD; any time you add controls or indication in the flight deck, it's a very expensive mod.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: GLA MD11
Posted 2012-11-20 02:43:17 and read 4239 times.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 2):
FX and 5X. AFAIK, DHL does not have any.

I find it interesting you make that statement, considering a picture of an A300 in DHL colors stands on the site's frontpage today... Wikipedia states that DHL, through subsidiaries, operates 28 A300.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-11-20 03:29:41 and read 4237 times.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
I find it interesting that they are just now doing this, over 11 years since AA 587, especially considering there are going to be relatively few aircraft affected (and even fewer by the deadline) due to the retirement of these aircraft.

The FAA is tasked with the functionality and viability of the industry, the NTSB is more concerned about safety, not economics.
If this had been done 11 years ago consider the consequences, families of the AA crash victims would have additional items for their lawsuits, AA would be making additional noises to Airbus, Airbus would be making additional noises to AA and the FAA, European agencies and governments would be on the case, etc. etc. etc, other operators of the a/c type would have been interested in the proceedings, it would have gotten real complicated real quick. Search the archives for threads at the time that even had a hint of pilot error or equipment design / failure, and that is just on A.Net.

Now 11 years later, the only victims are the US companies who still fly the a/c in any quantity, who else really cares and is affected? It may even be an economic stimulus package if the parts company tasked with providing the parts needed is struggling and needs an economic boost.
Whether the US companies will retire their a/c earlier in favour of an Airbus replacement may be of greater interest, but if they go Boeing it matters little as their is already the WTO fiasco's to be used by either party to claim unfair trade, so at the end of the day, other than cargo companies footing the bill, is this really an issue?

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: HAWK21M
Posted 2012-11-20 03:35:54 and read 4239 times.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 13):

AIrlines spend $100K on many things per flight I dont see how this small 1 time cost will cause them to cancel out all of the benefits of the A300.

If the Costs of Man-hrs & Installation is affordable...why not....

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-11-20 04:17:14 and read 4236 times.

Quoting phishphan70 (Reply 1):
Big blow for FX having to pay for these mods

I don't think it's such a big deal for them.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 11):
This could really accelerate the retirement of the A310's from the FX fleet.

They do have four years to comply. I don't know what their A300/A310 retirement schedule is, but the issue isn't very time critical.

From the linked article:

Quote:
Two of the plane's bigger customers, delivery companies FedEx and UPS, each plan to comply with the rule by installing warning lights, but they disagreed about the need for the rule.

"FedEx continues to believe that proper rudder control in response to wake turbulence is most effectively addressed through pilot education and training," says Maury Donahue, a spokeswoman for the company with 106 of the targeted planes.

UPS, which has 53 of the planes, initially expressed concern about the cost of installing pedal equipment. But the company says installing a flashing light and its software could be done within the four years that the FAA allows.

"UPS Airlines places the utmost value on safety and takes regulatory compliance very seriously," says spokesman Mike Mangeot.

So for FX, worst case might be $10m spread over four years (assuming no retirements from fleet during that time).

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-20 05:41:07 and read 4236 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):
Really? Naively, I would have expected the accelerometer to cost around $100, and the bell and light about $10 each...

You're talking about manufacturing cost only. That's only a tiny fraction of the cost of aviation parts. You need to include amortized engineering & certification, plus the fact that parts have an *extremely* high markup. This problem gets much worse when it's a small fleet because you're amortizing an essentially fixed engineering/certification/setup bill over a small number of parts. Typically, you want to add a "0" to the manufacturing cost to get something approximately equal to the spare part price.

Expensive LRU's typically run into the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, simple LRU's are typically in the tens of thousands. Something like a custom wire bundle running from tail to flight deck is going to be thousands all by itself.

Tom.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: MountainFlyer
Posted 2012-11-20 06:53:19 and read 4236 times.

Quoting GLA MD11 (Reply 17):
I find it interesting you make that statement, considering a picture of an A300 in DHL colors stands on the site's frontpage today... Wikipedia states that DHL, through subsidiaries, operates 28 A300.

That photo is a DHL contractor, not DHL themselves. Perhaps they are a subsidiary, I don't know. My reference was coming from Planespotters.net, which does not list any of the DHL named companies as currently operating any A300/310s, and not in the United States, where this ruling is the most important for the moment. As far as US owned and operated A300/310s, I could be wrong, but AFAIK FX and 5X are the only ones.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: soon7x7
Posted 2012-11-20 08:24:02 and read 4236 times.

Why don't they just redesign the rudder assembly...ever see inside one?...nothing in there!...nothing like a Boeing structure.
While not a very popular aircraft these days, many still fly and as long as they are certificated an airworthy ship...then ensure it is by redesigning the rudder structure to maintain integrity through all flight regimes. A pilot should not have to be concerned over the possibility that his input may destroy a control surface...that is nonsense...

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-11-20 09:08:30 and read 4234 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21):
You need to include amortized engineering & certification, plus the fact that parts have an *extremely* high markup. This problem gets much worse when it's a small fleet because you're amortizing an essentially fixed engineering/certification/setup bill over a small number of parts.

I'm used to mark-ups of factors of 3 to 5 in the satellite business. Not to mark ups of factors of 10 or more.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-20 09:13:59 and read 4527 times.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 23):
Why don't they just redesign the rudder assembly...ever see inside one?...nothing in there!...nothing like a Boeing structure.

If you redesign the rudder you need to re-certify the lateral control. No way that business case will work out.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 24):
I'm used to mark-ups of factors of 3 to 5 in the satellite business. Not to mark ups of factors of 10 or more.

Markup of 10x over production cost isn't unusual in commercial aviation. It happens because most of the cost of the widget isn't the manufacturing of the widget, it's the engineering & certification.

Tom.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: Aesma
Posted 2012-11-20 09:26:11 and read 4527 times.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 23):
Why don't they just redesign the rudder assembly...ever see inside one?...nothing in there!...nothing like a Boeing structure.

Well, then obviously it's designed differently. Do you think a Boeing would have fared better under the same stress as AA 587 ?

Should an airliner be able to withstand aerobatic maneuvers, or should airline pilots refrain from performing them ?

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: UALWN
Posted 2012-11-20 09:31:11 and read 4585 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 25):
It happens because most of the cost of the widget isn't the manufacturing of the widget, it's the engineering & certification.

Sure, but this is also true in the satellite business. Anyway, thanks for the information.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: A320ajm
Posted 2012-11-20 11:28:12 and read 4540 times.

Monarch still use A310s. Being a UK airline do they have to do this?

A320ajm

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-20 11:34:21 and read 4579 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
Do you think a Boeing would have fared better under the same stress as AA 587 ?

The AA587 fin went well above ultimate load...the vertical fin on a Boeing would have come off just as easily under the same maneuver.

Tom.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-11-20 11:44:03 and read 4547 times.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
I find it interesting that they are just now doing this, over 11 years since AA 587,

Ditto. Why bother?

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 8):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
...and for easy math if you presume $100k and 215 planes, $21M will be spend doing this upgrade.

I find it hard to believe that the FAA AD can cost that much to implement.

$100k would be cheap. Your forgetting the down time to pull the wire. Check flights to very the system was installed properly, etc.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):
Naively, I would have expected the accelerometer to cost around $100, and the bell and light about $10 each...

   Parts certified for the appropriate fire, durability, and certified for fault rating? It will cost $500k for the vendor to laboratory certify this kit and a similar if not 2X amount to verify it is ok for flight. You do not get pedigreed parts for $10...

Aircraft coffee makers a long time ago cost over $3,000 (in 1984, probably about double that now, maybe a wee bit more):
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...&sjid=k1IEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3394,3559866

No one builds anything certified to the 9G crash load for cheap. No one can verify every part is made per print for cheap.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
I've seen individual bolts with price tags close to $600.

I've seen bolts costing 4X that amount and had a customer happy that a further 3X was levied for the expediting charge.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 25):
Markup of 10x over production cost isn't unusual in commercial aviation. It happens because most of the cost of the widget isn't the manufacturing of the widget, it's the engineering & certification.

   and the cost of engineering to verify manufacturing is making the parts to print.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: uALWN
Posted 2012-11-20 11:50:49 and read 4525 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 30):
t will cost $500k for the vendor to laboratory certify this kit and a similar if not 2X amount to verify it is ok for flight. You do not get pedigreed parts for $10...

As mentioned above, I have experience in the (unmanned) satellite business. And the costs of space-qualifying any part is high, but not this exorbitantly high.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-20 12:21:38 and read 4517 times.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 23):
A pilot should not have to be concerned over the possibility that his input may destroy a control surface...that is nonsense...

The irony. Most of the time Airbus gets chastised for having hard limits.

This is no different from how a driver of a car can make it flip by providing wrong input.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-11-20 17:29:01 and read 4432 times.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
In light of AA Flight 587, the FAA has decided to require Airbus to install a rudder warning system on A300s and A310s.

It will not be Airbus installing this, it will be the owner/operator. Airbus does the design and certification of the change, produce the documentation, updates manuals, gets suppliers to bid, stocks parts, distributes and supports them etc etc.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
I find it interesting that they are just now doing this, over 11 years since AA 587, especially considering there are going to be relatively few aircraft affected (and even fewer by the deadline) due to the retirement of these aircraft.

The full narrative of the AD suggests that a number of events have occurred since AA587, and most if not all of them were not on A310/A300s. This AD maybe widened to include additional types. The issue is not unique to the A310/A300 like some people would like you to believe.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 8):

I find it hard to believe that the FAA AD can cost that much to implement. After all it seems to be no more than a lateral G force sensor in the tail which rings a bell and flashes a light in the cockpit when the plane is piloted beyond any sanity, but still well before structural limits are reached.

There are two way to achieve compliance with this AD at the moment, one is to install a new limiter, that is around 200k or the other way is to install this new warning system for about half the cost.

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 9):
Are there any foreign carriers flying into the US that maybe affected by this....Maybe Air Transat or soem cargo carriers at MIA?

Flying into the US will not trigger compliance with the AD, it will be based upon how the certificate of airworthiness for the aircraft is issued, for aircraft that have their certificate of airworthiness issued on the basis of the FAA TCDS, they will need to comply.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 25):

If you redesign the rudder you need to re-certify the lateral control. No way that business case will work out.

They have a new travel limiter as an option to comply with this AD, the cost is around 200k.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
Well, then obviously it's designed differently. Do you think a Boeing would have fared better under the same stress as AA 587 ?

It is entirely possible that Boeing maybe caught up in this AD as well. The narrative mentions a number of events on Boeings that have occurred since AA587 which may prompt the NTSB to ask the FAA to expand the AD to cover additional types. The NTSB is concerned over preventing what they view as being an unsafe condition, which is not the same as what the FAA considers as an unsafe condition. The A300/A310 for example is a certified aircraft, by definition the FAA would consider the design as being safe.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-20 17:52:17 and read 4395 times.

Quoting uALWN (Reply 31):
As mentioned above, I have experience in the (unmanned) satellite business. And the costs of space-qualifying any part is high, but not this exorbitantly high.

Qualification is a whole other ball of wax...aviation parts are also qualified. But, as far as I know, satellites aren't certified. That's a whole other cost burden on top of qualification.

Tom.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: prebennorholm
Posted 2012-11-20 18:37:23 and read 4326 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
It is entirely possible that Boeing maybe caught up in this AD as well. The narrative mentions a number of events on Boeings that have occurred since AA587 which may prompt the NTSB to ask the FAA to expand the AD to cover additional types.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not sure that Boeing operators need to worry about this AD to be replicated on non-FBW Boeing planes.

I have been told that there is one significant difference between Boeing and Airbus planes. While the physical leg force for a full rudder deflection on an Airbus is at a comfortable level - some 20 lbs pressure - then it is much higher on Boeing planes - more like 100 lbs.

The reason should be historic. While a majority of 50'es and 60'es US airline pilots had many hours on big WWII transport and bomber planes without powered rudder, then this was not the case in Europe. Consequently Sud Aviation, DeHavilland, Wickers, BAC, BAe etc. stuck to a more Spitfire like "pedal-comfort" on their powered rudders. And that carried on to Airbus.

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
They have a new travel limiter as an option to comply with this AD, the cost is around 200k.

Yes, I read that. And I understand that price much better than the 100k for warning bell and light only. That has got to be a very special travel limiter.

The 300/310 already has a travel limiter. Available rudder travel is reduced with increased IAS. What is asked for is a travel rate limiter. In addition to the existing travel limiter.

The full rudder deflection is needed, for instance for engine shut down at low speed. What is asked for is an accelerometer which reduces the rudder travel rate to avoid overstress of tail structures when pedals are slammed repeatedly from one side to another.

And that brings us back to Boeing: That is one pilot error which is harder to do when the physical input is in the 100 lbs region.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-11-20 19:06:54 and read 4292 times.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 35):
While the physical leg force for a full rudder deflection on an Airbus is at a comfortable level - some 20 lbs pressure - then it is much higher on Boeing planes - more like 100 lbs.

You will need to show me where you got those numbers from.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 35):
What is asked for is an accelerometer which reduces the rudder travel rate to avoid overstress of tail structures when pedals are slammed repeatedly from one side to another.

That must be some new technique....."pedals are slammed repeatedly from one side to another".

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 35):
And that brings us back to Boeing: That is one pilot error which is harder to do when the physical input is in the 100 lbs region.

And yet Boeing aircraft have had the same issue since AF587, which is why the NTSB is looking at it.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: Deltal1011man
Posted 2012-11-20 21:03:19 and read 4170 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):
Really? Naively, I would have expected the accelerometer to cost around $100, and the bell and light about $10 each...

Anytime you add aircraft in front of a part the price goes up 10X.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
Sadly, yes. The cost of parts in this business is staggering. I've seen individual bolts with price tags close to $600. As for the cost of this AD; any time you add controls or indication in the flight deck, it's a very expensive mod.

and wouldn't this mean a STC for the mod and TSOs for the part?

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-20 21:20:33 and read 4141 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 37):
and wouldn't this mean a STC for the mod and TSOs for the part?

STC and/or TSO are only required when someone other than the type certificate holder is providing the engineering definition for the change, or qualifying the parts. In the case of this AD, I would expect the engineering to come via Service Bulletin from Airbus and the parts to be covered by their certifications as the OEM.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: StuckInCA
Posted 2012-11-20 21:41:12 and read 4121 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):
Really? Naively, I would have expected the accelerometer to cost around $100, and the bell and light about $10 each...

Yep. When I worked in aerospace, I distinctly remember the day I learned of the insane costs. I had to get a new 6-32 x .50" pan head machine screw. You could buy them for about $0.63 each even today (this was 15 years ago), but to buy them (in an approved, certified state) made them cost over $70 each. Over 100x the price.

One of many reasons I prefer to avoid aerospace and defense related jobs!

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-11-20 21:49:45 and read 4104 times.

Quoting CM (Reply 38):

STC and/or TSO are only required when someone other than the type certificate holder is providing the engineering definition for the change, or qualifying the parts.

Not always, the TCDS holder may use a STC process to prevent owners/operators from doing a form 337 upgrade that would otherwise appear on the TCDS.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: pilotanthony
Posted 2012-11-20 23:57:56 and read 4007 times.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 28):

Monarch do not have any A310's they have A300's which they are in the process of retiring

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: RubberJungle
Posted 2012-11-21 00:51:52 and read 3956 times.

This firms up the story which Flight International ran back in July:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...udder-warning-modification-373554/

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: yellowtail
Posted 2012-11-21 07:03:08 and read 3755 times.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 39):
Yep. When I worked in aerospace, I distinctly remember the day I learned of the insane costs. I had to get a new 6-32 x .50" pan head machine screw. You could buy them for about $0.63 each even today (this was 15 years ago), but to buy them (in an approved, certified state) made them cost over $70 each. Over 100x the price.

Part of the cost is also the liability issues with aircraft parts.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-21 07:33:59 and read 3732 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 35):
And that brings us back to Boeing: That is one pilot error which is harder to do when the physical input is in the 100 lbs region.

And yet Boeing aircraft have had the same issue since AF587, which is why the NTSB is looking at it.

Boeing has not had a vertical fin come off due to pilot-induced overload. That's what prebennorholm is talking about.

The NTSB is looking at the fact that you can execute an maneuver that will exceed ultimate load on the fin; that maneuver is physically harder to execute on a Boeing than an Airbus (apparently, I don't know what the rudder pedal force on an Airbus is) but can be done on either plane and, currently, isn't required to be certified.

Tom.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-11-21 11:07:34 and read 3573 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 44):
The NTSB is looking at the fact that you can execute an maneuver that will exceed ultimate load on the fin; that maneuver is physically harder to execute on a Boeing than an Airbus (apparently, I don't know what the rudder pedal force on an Airbus is) but can be done on either plane and, currently, isn't required to be certified.

Yes, the issue here is that the force required by the pilot is considerably less on this model of Airbus than on other A or B aircraft - not that the VS can be over stressed.

If you read the NTSB reports on it - you can see the measured forces required on various a/c. Those rudder pedal forces are discussed (going by recollection here - but I'm pretty sure it was in the NTSB reports I read it.)

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: prebennorholm
Posted 2012-11-21 19:27:42 and read 3314 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
That must be some new technique....."pedals are slammed repeatedly from one side to another".

11 years and 9 days old. According to the AA587 report.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-11-21 19:54:26 and read 3295 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 44):

if the failure occours or not is irrelevant, what the AD is addressing is "This AD was prompted by events of excessive alternating rudder pedal inputs and consequent loads on the vertical stabilizer that exceed ultimate design loads. Such events could lead to failure of the vertical stabilizer and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane."

Excessive loads leading to an unsafe condition occurs due to the technique, not the amount if deflection. One can slowly go from stop to stop on the rudder with maximum deflection and not encounter an unsafe condition, or one can go to less than full deflection rapidly and get into an unsafe condition. This is on ANY aircraft, regardless of the pedal force. Pilots have on Boeing aircraft had the aircraft in an unsafe condition due to the technique.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 45):

No that is not the issue, it is incorrect technique full stop. Rudder force alone does not parent an unsafe condition, that is why Airbus used the waring light and voice as an alternative means of compliance. It addresses the incorrect technique.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 46):

That technique is just as incorrect today as it was back then, changing pedal force does not prevent the incorrect technique.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: soon7x7
Posted 2012-11-21 22:42:47 and read 3165 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
Well, then obviously it's designed differently. Do you think a Boeing would have fared better under the same stress as AA 587 ?


Yes I do. Several Boeing models have experienced "hard over rudders" in flight. KC-135 and several 737's. No rudder or fin loss however a couple of these events resulted in fatal crashes. My point is the Vertical fin nor the rudders separated from the pressure vessel nor did they come apart. I have chopped up Boeing Rudders and A300 Rudders. Huge structural differences.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: Airportugal310
Posted 2012-11-21 23:01:14 and read 3125 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
Do you think a Boeing would have fared better under the same stress as AA 587 ?
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
The AA587 fin went well above ultimate load...the vertical fin on a Boeing would have come off just as easily under the same maneuver.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 48):
Yes I do. Several Boeing models have experienced "hard over rudders" in flight. KC-135 and several 737's. No rudder or fin loss however a couple of these events resulted in fatal crashes. My point is the Vertical fin nor the rudders separated from the pressure vessel nor did they come apart. I have chopped up Boeing Rudders and A300 Rudders. Huge structural differences.

So who do we believe???

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: soon7x7
Posted 2012-11-21 23:10:28 and read 3117 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
This is no different from how a driver of a car can make it flip by providing wrong input.



A climb out through the wake of a previously departing aircraft at a busy airport I would imagine would be a major design consideration of any aircraft manufacturer as the possibilities of this are extremely high. In addition an A300 while in its initial climb (2500 ft AGL) is hardly considered to be in maximum dynamic pressures by design. As a pilot I find it hard to believe that flying through the wake of even a departing 747 during this phase of the flight enough to cause such a disastrous result. The A300 is no slouch...It is a beefy large airframe in its own rite. I do believe this particular airframe had other issues that were aggravated by the event and possibly the crews reaction but by design...this accident should not have taken place. If the structure is that flimsy a design then it has no business flying passengers. The most turbulent flight I have been on as a passenger happened to be on an AA A300 to St. Thomas from JFK. We edged the western side of a hurricane for 1.5 hours. We got beat up pretty good and the yaw dampers were working overtime. I was amazed we never came apart so in comparison, I would have to believe the rudder on my hellish flight was subject to higher long term sustained loads than the brief encounter that AA587 experienced. The type has had other encounters w/ rudder disintegration. Other than the Concorde, I don't know of any other type that can say the same.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: CM
Posted 2012-11-21 23:21:09 and read 3103 times.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 48):
Several Boeing models have experienced "hard over rudders" in flight.

This accident was caused by a control reversal, which is not the same thing as a "hard over".

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: soon7x7
Posted 2012-11-21 23:23:19 and read 3103 times.

Quoting Airportugal310 (Reply 49):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
The AA587 fin went well above ultimate load...the vertical fin on a Boeing would have come off just as easily under the same maneuver.


The arrival departure schedule at JFK as at most airports is fairly routine barring weather issues. In the Fall when the North westerlies start to barrel through the area...31 left is the selected runway, same as the day 587 went down. The take off sequence during morning departures is fairly regular. Do you really think this is the only event of an A300 climbing through the wake of a departing 747?. On the flip side...don't you agree that many Boeing products would then naturally encounter this same scenario?

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-22 15:52:32 and read 2867 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 47):
Excessive loads leading to an unsafe condition occurs due to the technique, not the amount if deflection.

If you control the deflection, no amount of poor technique can overload the fin. If you control the technique, no amount of deflection can overload the fin. It works both ways.

Quoting zeke (Reply 47):
Pilots have on Boeing aircraft had the aircraft in an unsafe condition due to the technique.

How are you defining "unsafe condition" in this case? If pilots have had Boeing vertical fins above ultimate load, why didn't the fin come off? If they haven't gotten it over ultimate load, what's the basis for calling it an unsafe condition?

Quoting zeke (Reply 47):
That technique is just as incorrect today as it was back then, changing pedal force does not prevent the incorrect technique.

No, but it makes it more difficult to execute the incorrect technique to the degree that it causes overload.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 48):
Yes I do. Several Boeing models have experienced "hard over rudders" in flight. KC-135 and several 737's. No rudder or fin loss however a couple of these events resulted in fatal crashes.

That's not what got AA587. Full pedal at speed is a certification condition. Due to ratio limiters, full pedal generally will not result in full deflection at speed. Full deflection at speed is not generally controllable (as several 737's discovered) but doesn't take the fin over ultimate load.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 50):
A climb out through the wake of a previously departing aircraft at a busy airport I would imagine would be a major design consideration of any aircraft manufacturer as the possibilities of this are extremely high.

It's not a major design consideration because it's not a limiting load case on the fin. The only roll that wake turbulence played in AA587 was to initiate the PF's incorrect rudder technique. Going full pedal in one direction was fine...the airplane was certified to do that.

The problem was going full pedal in one direction then, just as the plane reached maximum beta, going full deflection in the other direction. That put a load on the fin far higher than any design case or certification test required, took it above ultimate load, and snapped it off. If you did that same maneuver to any other equivalent-era aircraft, you'd snap the fin off it too.

tom.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-11-22 16:42:54 and read 2821 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):

If you control the deflection, no amount of poor technique can overload the fin. If you control the technique, no amount of deflection can overload the fin. It works both ways.

Not so, the deflection is required to be available to effect normal control.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):

How are you defining "unsafe condition" in this case?

They are not my words, they are used by the NTSB/FAA, I would assume it to mean anything outside normal limits.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):
If pilots have had Boeing vertical fins above ultimate load, why didn't the fin come off?

Who said they have ? the NTSB may consider the limit load as being the certified limit, and any exceedance beyond that unsafe. Ultimate as you know is the buffer on limit, OEMs normally do not flight test to that limit, they make sure they have enough flight test data to validate structural loads analysis. This analysis, combined with ground structural load testing, ensures that the structure meets limit load requirements.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):
If they haven't gotten it over ultimate load, what's the basis for calling it an unsafe condition?

Exceeding a design limit ? The control deflection control limits are single axis limits, they do not take into account multiple axis, and they do not mean that excessive structural loads may have been generated in other areas of the aircraft such as engine pylons.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):

No, but it makes it more difficult to execute the incorrect technique to the degree that it causes overload.

The force required or the amount or travel does not prevent poor technique, that is like saying a heavy elevator will prevent a stall. Boeing does not have a consistent amount of force between models, nor does it have a consistent amount of rudder travel between models. Pilots therefore cannot be trained to know what force or rudder pedal movement is known as safe, they does not prevent control input reversal or oscillatory inputs.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-11-22 17:58:16 and read 2762 times.

Quoting Airportugal310 (Reply 49):
So who do we believe???

Hmm. That's a tough one.

Do you go with Zeke (An experienced Airbus Pilot) and Tom (Boeing's Chief Tea Boy  ).... or Soon7x7 - the Boeing fan-boy with an anti-Airbus rhetoric....


PS Tom - I mean absolutely no disrespect, I know you have something to do with Boeing - just not what  

[Edited 2012-11-22 18:00:27]

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-22 18:09:25 and read 2739 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 54):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):

If you control the deflection, no amount of poor technique can overload the fin. If you control the technique, no amount of deflection can overload the fin. It works both ways.

Not so, the deflection is required to be available to effect normal control.

It's called fin load alleviation (sometimes "gust load alleviation"). I know Boeing has it on the 787, I assume Airbus has something similar. You dynamically control available deflection in realtime based on current fin load.

Quoting zeke (Reply 54):
The force required or the amount or travel does not prevent poor technique, that is like saying a heavy elevator will prevent a stall.

I agree. That's why I never said it would prevent poor technique. It would, however, make it more difficult to do a full oscillatory deflection.

Quoting zeke (Reply 54):
Boeing does not have a consistent amount of force between models, nor does it have a consistent amount of rudder travel between models.

Consistency isn't really the name of the game...we're talking about 5x differences in force here. That's way beyond model-to-model variation within one OEM.

Quoting zeke (Reply 54):
Pilots therefore cannot be trained to know what force or rudder pedal movement is known as safe, they does not prevent control input reversal or oscillatory inputs.

Yes, they can. Full pedal deflection in one is safe (certification requirement). Oscillatory full deflection is not. It's not a very difficult rule to train, independant of the pedal throw or force.

Tom.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-11-22 22:38:59 and read 2595 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 56):

It's called fin load alleviation (sometimes "gust load alleviation"). I know Boeing has it on the 787, I assume Airbus has something similar. You dynamically control available deflection in realtime based on current fin load.

The aircraft would be certified with it inop, and yes Airbus does have LAF.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 56):
we're talking about 5x differences in force here.

No we are not, the force required on the 737 is only 18 lbs higher, with slightly less rudder travel. The A300-600 at 250 kts (speed at the time of occurrence) requires 32 lb of force, with 1.2" of deflection, 737 50 lbs and 1".

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 56):
That's way beyond model-to-model variation within one OEM.

No you are mistaken. The variation on Boeings at 250 kts range from 50 lb (737) to 100 lb (707), the pedal movement ranges between 1" (737) to 4" (747/757). 737, DC-9, MD-80, A300, 707, 727, DC-8, 717, MD-90, and DC-10 all require less than 2" or less of movement for full deflection at 250 kts. Most pilots would have enough strength and range of moment in their ankles to make the full deflection without needing the larger leg muscles (i.e. we can stand on the ball of our feet).

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 56):
Full pedal deflection in one is safe (certification requirement).

In isolation of other control inputs.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 56):
It's not a very difficult rule to train, independant of the pedal throw or force.

Fedex and UPS submitted their training programs in response to the NPRM stating had trained this out, the FAA would not accept that.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-11-23 04:34:31 and read 2464 times.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 48):
Yes I do.

Then your opinion is contrary to that of most experts.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 48):
No rudder or fin loss however a couple of these events resulted in fatal crashes.

Well that's fine then - folks still died but at least the tail didn't separate.   

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 48):
I have chopped up Boeing Rudders and A300 Rudders. Huge structural differences.

And yet they're both certified to exactly the same standards. Odd.

The simple fact is AA 587 was not brought down by wake turbulence or structural failure.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-23 07:37:36 and read 2336 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 57):
The aircraft would be certified with it inop, and yes Airbus does have LAF.

There's no requirement to certify with it inop. You only need to show that if you want the system to be on MMEL. If you don't do that, you need to show that you can adequately detect that it's inop, notify the flight crew, and maintain continued safe flight and landing (potentially with flight envelope limits).

Tom.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-11-23 08:47:22 and read 2224 times.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 50):
As a pilot I find it hard to believe that flying through the wake of even a departing 747 during this phase of the flight enough to cause such a disastrous result.

It should not have. The reaction of the PF in response to that turbulence was the primary problem. The argument here is whether or not the design of the A300 rudder control system was contributory to that effect.

The NTSB says yes. From page 160 of the reporrt - section 3.2, Probable Cause
(Link to full report http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2004/AAR0404.pdf)

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of
this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads
beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive
rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the
Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced
Aircraft Maneuvering Program."

Notice the statment "Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design..."

Clearly - the NTSB considers this a 'contributing factor', not the cause - but it is a contributing factor.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 55):
Hmm. That's a tough one.

Not really.

Read the report and make your own evaluation. It is pretty clear to me which of the poster's are presenting the most balanced response.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 58):
The simple fact is AA 587 was not brought down by wake turbulence or structural failure

It was brought down by structural failure - but that failure was caused by pilot inputs and contributed to by system design and AA training. That the structure failed above the design limit does not mean it did not fail. Had the structure managed to take the (over design limit) stress - the a/c would not have crashed.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: Daysleeper
Posted 2012-11-23 08:58:28 and read 2183 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 60):
Not really.

Whats your point? The question posed was if a Boeing would be able to endure the same forces the A300 had too due to PILOT ERROR.

The answer is no.


Simple as that.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-23 11:11:10 and read 2056 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 59):
Quoting zeke (Reply 57):
The aircraft would be certified with it inop, and yes Airbus does have LAF.

There's no requirement to certify with it inop.

I need to amend that a bit...you do need to certify for continued safe flight and landing with the system inop (regardless of MMEL status) since you can't have a single failure jeopardize that. However, that doesn't mean you need to withstand ultimate load with the system inop (the threshold is lower for inop systems).

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 61):
The question posed was if a Boeing would be able to endure the same forces the A300 had too due to PILOT ERROR.

The answer is no.

Exactly. Boeing and Airbus aren't in the business of designing structures that are too heavy. Since they both use (basically) the same engines, configuration, and certification requirements, their vertical fin ultimate loads are about the same. Since they also use the same safety factors, the actual fin strengths are about the same. If you got a Boeing into a yaw doubled like this A300 experienced, the fin would come right off (or maybe bend over, which is is just as bad and possibly worse).

Tom.

Topic: RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-11-23 15:04:56 and read 1909 times.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 61):
Whats your point? The question posed was if a Boeing would be able to endure the same forces the A300 had too due to PILOT ERROR.

I read the question differently - as in who of the 3 people quoted do you believe. And the point was simply to encourage people to actually go read the report and derive the answer for themselves.

But - in fact, if we take your question
" ...Boeing would be able to endure the same forces the A300 had too..."
Answering the question 'who do we believe' is also "not tough". Again - the load that caused the A300 vertical stab. to fail was well beyond design and certification loads and, if Boeing is designing well, it would fare no better. (If Boeing were over designing that much, the a/c would be non-competitive. Not a tough answer.

Nobody is claiming that Boeing's can, in general, stand structural overload better than Airbus's - or any other brand - at least nobody credible.

The issue addressed is whether a particular characteristic of _this particular Airbus model_ (not every Airbus) contributed to the crash. NTSB says yes. Again - not the cause - contributory. Just as AA's training which encouraged aggressive rudder action was contributory.

This is not an A vs. B issue, it is a plane "1" verses plane "2" issue. I'm sure, without looking too hard, we can find places where particular Boeing's have had designs that contributed to a crash. Can you say rudder reversal in a 737? Some claim the MD-83 horizontal tail trim screw system is another example. A single redundancy system.
Or handling characteristics of an ATR - 72 in ice. Or.... an so on.

The question - and the requirement - is about mitigating that design.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/