LoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3766 posts, RR: 36 Posted (10 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5485 times:
Tonight on the Learning Channel:
August 21, 2003 On Air Aug 21 2003 10:00 PM (ET) Aug 22 2003 01:00 AM (ET)
Flight 587: Anatomy of a Disaster
For a few nervous hours on November 11, 2001 it looked as if America's enemies were attacking New York again. American Airlines Flight 587 crashed into the residential neighborhood of Belle Harbor. Watch as investigators uncover the mysterious crash.
Bobs89irocz From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 632 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5211 times:
I guess im gonna have to leave the motocycle in the garage tonight and watch this show. Thanks for the insite and posting the times.
GOOSE, yes this is the same accident that your thinking of
I herd it was a defect from AIRBUS but when the accident happend and it was time to put blame on someone AIRBUS denied any flaws and said it was the lack of experience from the AA pilots or something? I guess you can tell the press anything and the public will believe it. makes u wonder what the truth really is about everything that is reported???
Goose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 16 Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5176 times:
I recall hearing of an incident a few years before Flt 587, where another A300 experienced a downdraft effect, and the flight crew pushed hard on the controls in order to regain control of the aircraft..... eventually they did, but upon landing found that the tail had suffered critical stress fractures and only by luck had it not fallen off in flight.
Airbus failed to report this problem to the authorities, and failed to issue a warning to future pilots or go about constructing a remedy to strengthen the tail structure.
I'll try and find the appropriate link somewhere..... it wasn't too long ago that I read about it.
Tekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4836 times:
Oh cmon people, although I tend to dislike Airbus, you can't say they make cheap planes. Airbus AND Boeing released safety recommendations to not use rudder reversals.
I do agree that Airbus could have done something sooner if they would have actually paid attention to the incident in Moscow. I guess they only like to improve the safety of their aircraft AFTER one crashes instead of BEFORE.
Okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4802 times:
I watched the program and learned a lot. I had always assumed that the output of the rudder pedals effectiveness was proportional to the speed of the aircraft. In otherwords at 150 kias 7in of rudder pedal might move the rudder say 15 degs maybe at 230 kias 7in of rudder pedal might move the rudder say 7 degs and say 300 kias 7in of rudder pedal might move the rudder 3 degs. Being from and industrial engr enviroment that would be a normal type control program. From the information that I got from the program it suggests that the rudder pedal movement was just limited the stroke of the rudder pedal and they mentioned only 1.250 inches. I would think that during an upset it would be a normal reaction to smash or push the rudder pedal to the full stroke.
It looks like to me that there should have been a little more engineering put into that rudder system.
TLHFLA From United States of America, joined May 2003, 586 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4698 times:
I would imagine that due to battle between American and Airbus that American probably will not add any additional Airbus models to their fleet. I wonder if the battle between USAir and Boeing over the Pittsburgh crash was a major factor in USAir's decision to go with Airbus for their fleet modernization.
Goboeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 15 Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4653 times:
I'm not sure about who's to blame here. But there's one thing this show mentioned that I couldn't agree more with, and that's human factors changing the result of an upset.
In a simulator, you can only feel so much. Even a full motion sim. I haven't been in one, but it certainly doesn't go upside down, or simulate 3Gs pulling out of a dive.
Any pilots, including commercial, would benefit in my opinion from a few hours of "Unusual Attitude Recovery." I have flown aerobatics including that myself with a CFI and not only did I learn a lot, but it's fun! There's nothing like yanking the stick back at 140kts and looking sideways to see the ground perpendicular to the wing and then kick the rudder to the side and reverse sides immediately. The more you practice these "unusual" attitudes, the more routine they become and the less prone to panicking you become as well.
I agree with firsthand experience that you are more likely to over-control the airplane while suddenly under 5Gs and heading for the ground. If you don't react within 2 seconds or so in the Cap-10, you'd be past Vne and you could, well, rip the tail or wings off.
Okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4635 times:
I have read quite a few of the accident / incident report on the UK's website and I have to say they seem to be a little more down to earth and a little more explanatory than NTSB. I can say this when an Airbus is involved it seems that Airbus's explanation always seems to try to point toward pilot or operator error.
From watching the program it Airbus tries to put the blame elsewhere, most likely this is for legal reasons.
I get the impression that rather than trying to improve the safety of the aircraft and making the plane fit the normal reaction of the pilot, they are trying to imply that the pilot needs to be trained to fit the limitation of the airplane.
Dc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1554 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4623 times:
The Moscow incident was on an Interflug A310. I know I've seen amateur video footage taken showing the A310 in a near vertical dive before recovering. It was from a three part series on aircraft accidents that was shown on TV several years ago. However, I recall that the commentator stated that the aircraft in the footage was a Romanian A310.
25 Flyingbronco05: Airbus AND Boeing released safety recommendations to not use rudder reversals. Yeah but airbus did it to cover their butt.
26 JBLUA320: Great show..... nice to see both sides of the argument...... tho it was chilling at the same time... JBLU
27 Flyingbronco05: Anybody know why the captain never took over? The FO said he didn't need help but sometimes you just have to take over. I wonder if this could have be
28 AA777MIA: I did not know the Captain, but I had flown with the First Officer weeks prior.. He was a good guy, and a great pilot.. I would fly with him again tod
29 Accidentally: Bronco, I don't think he took over because Molin's actions were not known to be improper at that time.
30 Red Panda: "...And Boeing didn't have rudder problems w/ the 737? The battle between AA and Airbus parallels US and Boeing." A very good parellel by 727LOVER r p
31 Artsyman: The sad part is that the war between AA and Airbus has more to do with avoiding legal liability than finding a solution to the problem. With every cra
32 Bobs89irocz: FO or Captain, when your in the Airlines and flying a wide body the FO should/could handle the plane on his own. After watching the show im gonna say,
33 JMChladek: The Moscow incident as I recall was a pilot vs. flight control computer conflict on an A320 series aircraft. I am trying to recall this from memory of
34 CPH-R: Congratulations, B752fanatic. You post in reply #9 has just warranted my first ever use of the Suggest Deletion for A vs B comments. I have never seen
35 VC-10: I always wondered why with FBW that rudder deflection in flight was not limited to deflections that would not compromise the aircraft. A300 Rudders ar
36 Backfire: The Moscow incident was on an Interflug A310. I know I've seen amateur video footage taken showing the A310 in a near vertical dive before recovering.
37 727LOVER: Actually, I think a lot of blame should go on the JFK tower. Why did they separate the A300 behind a 747-400 by only 2 minutes?
38 United_Fan: Wasn't A^A's A300 involved in some sort of a tail srtike during a storm before it was deliverd ?
39 BigPhilNYC: They are all like that. That is what the FAA regulates as the waiting time in between departing aircraft. I think. I've seen ATC at all airports send
40 Contrails: I think they did a good job in explaining what happened. I can only imagine what the crew and passengers went throught prior to impact. I have a few q
41 Delta777-XXX: I'm not really sure what to think about it all. The program was pretty scary. I would feel confident to fly on the A300... but probably not as much so
42 Capt.Fantastic: The amateur film footage that some of you are eluding to was a TAROM A310 at Paris Orly - This was not the Moscow incident referred to in the program.
43 CcrlR: I saw it too and it was good. Especially when they showed AA and Airbus' demos. I didn't know it was on until beofre I went to sleep but I stayted up
44 VC-10: the show didn't mention the connecting bolts and mounting brackets for the tail assembly. Were they cleared as contributing factors to the crash? The
45 Okie: Thanks for the info VC-10 I also noticed the AA simulator pilot was making very abrupt movements with the controls be it drama for TV or whatever comp
46 Laddb: I don't know what the rudder fin was made of, but in my experience, composites have higher stregth than aluminum. However, composites tend to be britt
47 Northwesta319: Sorry if this is an ovbious question- but I thought A300's were old- is that right or wrong?
48 B752fanatic: CPH-R, No problem with me, if they deleted my message, It was my opinion, I think Airbus does not make the same quality as Boeing. And if it would had
49 Flyingbronco05: Actually, I think a lot of blame should go on the JFK tower. Why did they separate the A300 behind a 747-400 by only 2 minutes? The captain or FO coul
50 VC-10: And if it would had been a Boeing, I dont think it would had happened, for making a cheap tail, more than 250 people lost their lives. You are showing