Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's New About The AA587 Flight?  
User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4212 times:

Watching the AA191 docu on the History channel, they said that the crash of 191 was the worst single aircraft crash in the history of the United States, but what about AA's 587, is it the second?

But anyways, I saw how McDonnell Douglas and AA fought, blaming each other for the cause. Reminded me of AA587 were AA is on a major battle against Airbus, and leads us to believe that AA wouldn't buy any Airbus Product since that issue. But we forget that AA and MD had a same ordeal.

Are there any cover ups like AA191 in AA587?

What the investigations of the NTSB say about this crash?

Im sorry If Im a bit disconnected, but till now I haven't heard anything about the cause of this accident.


"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4081 times:

587 is the second worst single plane crash in the US I think. Airbus is trying to say the pilot and AA's training is at fault and AA is saying it is the design of the A300. I taped a good documentary a long time ago and watched it. It was good. One of the reason I don't care for Airbus

User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1012 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3967 times:

Airbus has not yet explained how their engines came off the aircraft, not just the tail. Is that also the pilots fault? I won't fly on A300's anymore and I'm not a hysteric.

User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3959 times:

One good thing to note here. I believe that this was the first crash of an A300 because of "the faulty tail".

The A300 has been flying since the 70's, and I have searched and the A300 has no other crash involving its tail.

I think that AA has the blame, for the wrong use of the Rudder.



"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3943 times:

It's really hard to determine which four-engined aviation accident was the worst, since there have been so many of those...flight 800 I would have to say was one of the worst in that arena.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3943 times:

I can remember about AA in 3 years ago and it was crash over at near JFK and I can see about those 2 engines was fell off with their A300 aircraft.

User currently offlineQqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2276 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3903 times:

My guess is that whatever the NTSB determines, I'm sure blame will be placed on both sides. There will be a lot of information that comes out of this crash, as is the case with most accidents, especially concerning the tail, it's assembly and composites in general. I am still curious about whether or not the tail damage suffered on that aircraft at Toulouse before it was delivered has anything to do with it. Remeber, that particular A300 had some sort of tail damage prior to delivery at Toulouse.


The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3847 times:

Navion - After the tail snapped off, the aircraft entered a side slip. The lateral stresses on the engines generated by the airflow as the aircraft slipped sideways would have been enough to snap them off. It would happen on pretty much any aircraft with podded engines that lost its vertical stabiliser.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineTekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3815 times:

I have searched and the A300 has no other crash involving its tail.

Crashes? No.
Incidents? Yes.


User currently offlineRT514 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

One of the reason I don't care for Airbus

As some did not care for McDonnell Douglas after AA191 either.

Accidents are usually attributable to many factors and a long chain of events. I'm interested in what will be learned about AA587. Granted, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think that citing this event as a rationale to avoid Airbus (or American Airlines for that matter) is not rooted in a great deal of logic.

Until a final report is released, this is what we have...
I have not been able to find other crashes where an A300 tail came off. There are cases, however, where AA flight crew errors were concluded to be primary causes of a crash (AA1420 on 06/01/99 as an example).

Logically and statistically, AA crews are more likely to have been the cause. In reality, however, I revert back to my previous statement about several causes and a long chain of events. Would I fly on an A300? Absolutely. Would I fly on AA? Without hesitation.





[Edited 2004-05-29 09:17:39]

User currently offlineHardkor From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3682 times:

Wasn't that tail said to have been faulty upon manufacture? Perhaps the pilots' training can be a bit to blame, but this was simply a flukey, isolated case (587)
Hardkor


User currently offlineStefanDotDe From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 4 days ago) and read 3614 times:

There are 2 sites: an airline with (maybe) bad maintenance and manifacturer.
What happened to some DC 10's in the mid-70's: their engines under wings fell down.
No mistake from Mc Donnell's but from airlines who don't maintenance carefully. So don't blame A, also check what the airlines are doing. Otherwise ... what happened to the Egyptian charter 737 that wanted to fly to Paris?


User currently offlineCOAB767 From Guam, joined Nov 2003, 1377 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3582 times:

I watched this special on TLC about the crash of flight 587. It said that after a JL 744 had taken off, AA587 had taken off, directly into the wake vorticies of the JL744. The narrator of that program said that the co-pilot was trying to get out of the wake vorticies that he had put so much pressure on the rudder controls that they in turn caused the rudder to break off. So in my personal opinion I believe the co-pilot is at fault for the crash. I also believe AA needs to better train their pilots.


Continental Micronesia: "Fly With The Warmth Of Paradise"
User currently offlineLtbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13078 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

There has been a number of threads on this crash here in the past. There are a number of issues. The rudder assembly is of composite construction, not fully of aluminum and one of the earlierst large aircraft to have such construction. This is something that is very difficult to do analyis/inspection of with the equipment used with aluminum/metal assemblies and how to read the information. There could have been here slight flaws combined with operational errors that caused the crash. These factors and the political issues (A v B) is complicating and delaying the investigation.
From what was posted perviously here and elsewhere, after the crash, all such assemblies on A300's had to be ultrasound and visually inspected (at least in the US) and AA flight deck crew had to get training to reduce the risks in such circumstances. As far as I know, AA has retained all of their A300's and depending on the finances, will be keeping them for several more years for use on certain routes and airports. Due to their combination of passanger and freight capacity, they are a very good aircraft on the routes used on. For example, AA operates A300 on flights between the NYC area and some Carribbean islands, such as the Dominican Republic as many traveling there bring lots of luggage bringing clothing and other items to relatives there and AA makes money with additional baggage fees. By the way, God bless the people suffering from the devestating floods there and in Haiti, with maybe over 1000 lives lost this past week.


User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3335 times:

The cause of this crash just so happened to be a series of bad things that slowly came together.

1. This exact aircraft had entered SEVERE turbulence in the past and survived, but unbeknownst to AA, Some of the Fibers in tail had come apart, so this tail was not as strong as other A300 tails at that time.

2. The failure of AA to properly inspect the tail INTERNALLY to make sure it was still operable.

3. The failure of Airbus to put in their manuals how to fly the plane in turbulence.

4. The failure of American Airlines to properly train Sten Molin, and the other pilots

5. The failure of Airbus Industrie to notify AA and other airlines that the tail could come apart in HIGH STRESS

6. The fact that Sten Molin practically bent the rudder until it snapped. (Kind of like Bending a frequently used Credit Card until it snaps in half)

It was a G**damn Greek Tragedy, and it made me very sad to hear about this as it was not Sten Molin's fault. He was doing just what he'd been trained to do. But so many people have grilled Sten Molin that I'd bet he would be WELL DONE!!!!.

 Sad

May God rest the souls of those who died November 12, 2001 on American Airlines flight AA5-8-7


User currently offlineSeptember11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3305 times:

It was my pleasure flying on AB3s in late 80s and early 90s. Strange looking aircraft. Nice cockpit space.

Every time an aircraft crashes, that particular aircraft is questioned and get negative summaries.

I was surprised when FAA ordered inspections of M80s shortly after the unfortunate crash of AS M80.

The tail problem of AA587 is not the first one. The AS M80 tail problem came first.



Airliners.net of the Future
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3244 times:

4. The failure of American Airlines to properly train Sten Molin, and the other pilots
****

I think one of the main reasons that AA is balking at the above comment is that the rules for every major commercial jet in regards to rudder tolerance is the same except for the A300. AA finds it rather convenient that Airbus only commented that the training was wrong after the fact, and never mentioned any special procedures with the rudder use during the sales period, demonstration period, years of use, or in any of the training they gave AA, or in any of the flight manuals they provided to AA.

[Edited 2004-05-30 08:24:25]

User currently offlineFLFlyGuy From United States of America, joined May 2004, 244 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days ago) and read 3169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

After reading the forums on Airliners.net for some time, this one prompted me to join!

I am a flight attendant (for AA) and also a licensed pilot. This post is not intended to specifically bash Airbus - I fly the A300 a lot and it is a unique and useful aircraft in our fleet.

The disturbing thing about the 587 accident is that it suddenly "changed the rules". As a pilot will tell you, the "design maneuvering speed" of the aircraft is the speed BELOW which, simply put, you cannot break the airplane by control inputs. This speed varies with the weight and loading of the aircraft.

Since 587 was BELOW the design maneuvering speed at the time of the accident, in theory nothing Sten Molin did at the controls should have caused the airplane to have a structural failure. Whether he reacted correctly or in the best way is not the subject here...the point is that the vertical stabilizer should not have separated from the aircraft.

Airbus now says that repeated, opposite rudder inputs can cause failure...even below design maneuvering speed. That, in turn, has prompted a review of FAA certification requirements and has changed the way that AA trains its A300 cockpit crews.

At the time, however, it seems that AA (and therefore Sten) did not know of this limitation on the A300. Airbus advised AA only after the accident.

And THAT is why AA and Airbus are disagreeing. I would point out that I know of no other aircraft where this is an issue. As for it being a political issue, trust me AA would take the same position if this accident had occurred in a Boeing aircraft.

It will be interesting to see what the NTSB finally rules as the probable cause of this accident, and what recommendations it makes.



The views expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer.
User currently offlineQqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2276 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3152 times:

There is NEW info regarding 587. From http://www.amrcorp.com:

FOR RELEASE: Friday, May 28, 2004

"Statement by American Airlines in response to the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendation to the FAA that the Rudder Travel Limiter on the Airbus A300-600 undergo a design modification:

"American Airlines developed specialized training for all of its Airbus pilots as a result of rudder control system design uniqueness identified as part of the ongoing investigation of the Flight 587 accident. This training addresses specific characteristics of the rudder travel limiter system in the Airbus A300-600 rudder control system that this NTSB recommendation involves. These limitations, along with others related to the sensitivity of the system, are precisely the concerns American addressed in its final submission and recommendations to the NSTB regarding the Flight 587 accident."

It appears, at least at this point, the NTSB has found some fault with the design of the limiter on the rudder system. As many have speculated, this was what allowed the rudder to become over stressed and snap-off. This finding is a slap in the face to Airbus as it shows AA, and probably all other airlines that operate the A300, have had improper and/or incomplete information in order to properly train its pilots.



The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

After watching the documentary I learned a very interesting fact, after this crash another A300 that had had an incident with the pilot using hard rudder the same way Flight 587 did. The tail of this plane had damage to the composite design in the tail.

User currently offlineAirtahitinui From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2001, 79 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

FLFlyGuy -

With all due respect, I am a private pilot as well and the design maneuvering speed definition you gave is inaccurate. Yes that is what they teach us in ground school (the below that speed any full/abrupt inputs will stall, not break, the airplane) but this is misleading. The only abrupt inputs that rule covers are elevator and I think aileron inputs - not rudder. Depending on aircraft speed and loading the rudder may suffer catastrophic stresses below maneuvering speed.

Excellent article on this in June '04 AOPA magazine.



send a real message - DON'T VOTE!
User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1893 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

I was in doubt about the wake turbulance issue from day one because of the climb rate of a 747 and the A300. I thought that even if the A300 had followed the path of the 747, it would have done so at a higher climb gradient. I also base my conclusion on the belief that wake turbulance travels downward only.

And I would like to ask, what is the difference between wake turbulance training and wind shear training. How varied can they be?



Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3471 posts, RR: 47
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

With all due respect, I am a private pilot as well and the design maneuvering speed definition you gave is inaccurate. Yes that is what they teach us in ground school (the below that speed any full/abrupt inputs will stall, not break, the airplane) but this is misleading. The only abrupt inputs that rule covers are elevator and I think aileron inputs - not rudder.

I'm not a private pilot so I don't know what is taught in PPL ground schools. However, for airliners the design maneuver speed stresses includes the rudder. Unfortunately, the stress being placed on the flight controls is full control deflection followed by release.... not control reversal(s). The FO who was flying AA597 is believed to have input multiple full-deflection control reversals. I say "believed" because there is no FDR information concerning actual rudder pedal forces... it is a logical conclusion. This information on flight control design stresses has never previously been part of AA's pilot training program (it is now) nor any other airline queried by NTSB prior to this mishap.

AA's argument that the A300's rudder limiting system is faulty is based upon a design where actual rudder movement is more sensitive to the same pedal movement at higher speeds... exactly opposite all other designs. AA claims this peculiarity was not well documented in Airbus' A300-600R publications and Airbus claims that it was.

Airbus' argument that AA pilot training caused the mishap is based upon their conclusion the FO manually input multiple full-deflection control reversals to the rudder [highly probable without factual proof --FDR did not record that parameter] is simply FALSE! AA pilot training has never suggested or recommended flight control reversals of any kind at any time! AA's "AAMP program" [Advanced Aircraft Maneuvers Program] was an industry first and was copied by virtually all the major airlines in some form or another. I still have the very first AAMP pamphlet that suggests "...aggressive use of rudder in one direction only..." might be necessary at speeds where the rudder has a more effective rolling moment than the ailerons & spoilers combined. That said, the unanswered question remains: why did the FO input full-deflection rudder control reversals [the most likely probability] in contradiction to his AA training?

For those who watch these so-called "documentaries" I caution you to watch/listen with a very keen eye/ear to what is being projected as "truth." The media have no professional aviation investigative reporters and much [if not all in some instances] of what is published as "truth" and "fact" is actually a bunch of theory, conjecture and [in their words] "creative license to enhance the viewer's understanding." I watched bits and pieces of the recent "documentary" but quickly changed channels as no more than 5 minutes went by without a blatantly false statement or conclusion being broadcast as "fact."

AAR90
8+ years USN ASO [aviation mishap investigator]



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What's New About The New Alitalia Livery?! posted Mon Oct 30 2006 18:59:21 by Gh123
What's New About The AF358 Accident? posted Sat Sep 10 2005 19:22:24 by TaromA380
What's 'Ansett' About The New Ansett? posted Thu Jan 10 2002 04:58:37 by Air Taiwan
What Are All The #001 Flight Routes? posted Thu Nov 3 2005 19:23:01 by Mirrodie
Line Chat About The 787 Flight Deck Thursday 6pm PDT posted Tue Aug 30 2005 19:20:53 by Planegirl
What City Has The Most Flight Number 1s? posted Fri Aug 5 2005 09:29:20 by Atmx2000
What's New With The TU-224/234? posted Wed Oct 15 2003 00:18:16 by BA
What Airline Has The Prettiest Flight Attendants? posted Mon Sep 15 2003 17:35:08 by EZYAirbus
What's Boeing About The 717? posted Tue Aug 3 1999 21:20:41 by 24291
What The New A350 Says About The A320NG? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 06:23:44 by WingedMigrator