Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA A300 Crash On National Geographic Tonight.  
User currently offlineJAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13338 times:

I am not sure if this is a repeat program, but tonight at 9pm EST National Geographic Channel will have the AA A300 crash featured on their 'Seconds From Disaster' series. It will be interesting to see the different angles to causes of this disaster. I hope it will be very detailed and un-biased. I know this crash has been discussed on here before but I am sure some fellow members on here would like to see this program.

99 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2660 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13338 times:

Damn basic cable!!!!  hissyfit   hissyfit 


I have no association with Spirit Airlines
User currently offlineCiccone From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 42 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13310 times:

According to my Dish Network Programming guide, it is a new episode.


318 319 320 722 732 733 735 738 752 762 763 772 DC9 DC10 MD80 F100 CRJ
User currently offlineTsaord From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13252 times:

Thanks. I just tuned in it's on commercial. I shouldn't be watching this but, I can't help it. Information on stuff like this is interesting but at the same time I still have a fear of flying because planes crash.

User currently offlineDTW757 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13229 times:

Thanks, I was just looking for something to watch! Did the airplane actually spin end for end out of control like they just showed?


721,2,732,3,4,5,G,8,9,741,2,3,4,752,3,762,3,4,772,3,788,D93,5,M80,D10,M11,L10,100,AB6,319,20,21,332,3,388,146,CR2,7,ERJ,
User currently offlineTsaord From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13173 times:

I don't think so. From things I have read it nose dived. God Almighty

User currently offlineWilax From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13158 times:

It comes on again 3 hours later. I'm gonna tivo it then. There's also an episode coming up about the Pentagon on 9/11 Thursday at 9:00pm PDT.

User currently offlineJAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13151 times:

Commercial break. I Did not realise that they actually caught part of this flight on film from a camera on the Tri Boro Bridge. I am sure by the end of the program some of us will learn more. I notice they have more pictures of B767s, and 757s than the A300. However only a A.netter would notice that.

User currently offlineThebry From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13136 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Excellent! I'm not home, but am going to remote schedule it so TiVO will catch it for me on my way home.

User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13127 times:

Quoting Tsaord (Reply 5):
I don't think so. From things I have read it nose dived. God Almighty

No, it didn't. Read the NTSB Report.

It spun out of control and planed into the ground.

Its a relatively well made film, except for the usual business of substituting 767s, 777s, 757s for the A300B6 at various points in the film. The aircraft they show on the takeoff roll is a 767, but at least the computer generated graphics showing the actual crash depict an A300B6.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13100 times:

Quoting JAM747 (Thread starter):
I hope it will be very detailed and un-biased.



Quoting Jaysit (Reply 9):
No, it didn't. Read the NTSB Report.

It spun out of control and planed into the ground.

Yes, the aircraft did flat spin into the ground, not a nose dive. The graphics do show the airplane spinning with no engines, or vertical tail. But, I read their depiction is based on the US State department revised NTSB report. Not to open up an old discussion, but this is the version that blames the tail seperation on the co-pilot cycling the rudder.


User currently offlineTsaord From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13084 times:

Interesting. Someone once told me the chances of survival are increased if the plane doesn't crash nose first. Maybe thats just a myth. R.I.P all who died.

User currently offlineKL808 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1584 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13065 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Not to open up an old discussion, but this is the version that blames the tail seperation on the co-pilot cycling the rudder.

what is the other version?

Isn't this version the final version, ie close of investigation?

Drew



AMS-LAX-MNL
User currently offlineSocalfive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13032 times:

WOuld love to see it, however, thanks to Time-Warner cable the National Geographic Channel was moved out of my expanded basic package and moved into a higher digital channel that requires a package upgrade. I declined after having a long heated chat with those assholes as it was one of my favorite channels. So, if you have a choice between Time-Warner cable and ANY OTHER GD option, take the other option, I've never seen worse service or attitude than I have with Time Warner. Ok, rant over.

User currently offlineComorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13026 times:

Quoting KL808 (Reply 12):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Not to open up an old discussion, but this is the version that blames the tail separation on the co-pilot cycling the rudder.

Not so simple. In the TV program, some of the blame is placed with AA's pilot training program that calls for aggressive use of rudder to recover from unusual attitudes. This training was triggered during the first encounter with the wake from the JAL747 ahead. While the initial deflection took the aircraft out of the turbulence field, the oscillation from the extreme deflection led the pilots to think that they were still battling turbulence. This disorientation led to successive (5) extreme applications of rudder that eventually led to rudder separation.

They also pointed out that rudder deflection increases with speed for a given rudder input. At 297 knots, a one-inch rudder application resulted in a complete deflection, as contrasted with a four-inch application at rest.

So was this Pilot Error, Training Error, Human Factors or aircraft Design Error?


User currently offlineJAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 12992 times:

This situation kind of reminds me of someone over steering a car when it gets in a skid thus escalating the situation while trying to correct it. It is very unfortunate that this accident occured.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12883 times:

Quoting KL808 (Reply 12):
what is the other version?

Isn't this version the final version, ie close of investigation?

Drew

AA has a dispute about the final NTSB report, I believe they are going to challange it in court.

Quoting Tsaord (Reply 11):
Interesting. Someone once told me the chances of survival are increased if the plane doesn't crash nose first.

Survival factors in any airplane accident depend on the a tremendous number of factors that are unique to that individual accident. There is no one or two facts that garantee survival.

Quoting Comorin (Reply 14):
So was this Pilot Error, Training Error, Human Factors or aircraft Design Error?

The terms Pilot Error and Training Error are different, If the pilot was trained to react a certain way, and that caused the accident, it is a training error, not a pilot error.

This is the road I didn't want to go down. The "Official NTSB Report" sites both pilot error and training error as the cause of this accident, aircraft design was a contributing factor.

AA maintanes a position that accident was cause by a poor aircraft design. They actually have a case hear to argue in court, if it ever gets that far. This AA A-300-605R was not the first aircraft to ever encounter wake turbalance from a B-747-400, nor has it been the last. This type of wake turbalance happens almost every day, before and since this accident. Yet, it was only the A-300 design that was not able to survive the rudder inputs by the pilot, if that was the cause of the fin seperation. Pilots stomp on rudders all the time.


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9303 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12883 times:

It's on again now. 11pm central time. 12am. eastern time.


Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
User currently offlineSkyHarborsHome From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 273 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12725 times:

Thought it was well done. I had already seen one program on the accident but this one did a much better job. Glad that they fully explained where the fault really lies and not just with agressive rudder usage by the co-pilot.


Fly CHD!
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7058 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12698 times:

I have seen a report once here and they were interviewing AA pilots who refused to fly further on the A300 because it is a "death trap" this does not happen to be the same report ?


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 12564 times:

Quoting Columba (Reply 19):
have seen a report once here and they were interviewing AA pilots who refused to fly further on the A300 because it is a "death trap" this does not happen to be the same report ?

No, not this show. I thought it treated the accident fairly.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineZed From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 12346 times:

Quoting Comorin (Reply 14):
(In the TV program...) They also pointed out that rudder deflection increases with speed for a given rudder input. At 297 knots, a one-inch rudder application resulted in a complete deflection, as contrasted with a four-inch application at rest.

This should read "decreases with speed" - the model I am familiar with has a rudder travel limiter that allows 30 dgrees of rudder travel below 165 kts, and linearly reduces it to 3.5 degrees at 308 kts. Easy to reverse the function when typing, but would be interesting if National Geographic got it backwards in the show. I don't receive that channel. Can someone verify their reporting?


User currently offlineComorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11858 times:

[quote=Zed,reply=21]This should read "decreases with speed" - the model I am familiar with has a rudder travel limiter that allows 30 dgrees of rudder travel below 165 kts, and linearly reduces it to 3.5 degrees at 308 kts. Easy to reverse the function when typing, but would be interesting if National Geographic got it backwards in the show. I don't receive that channel. Can someone verify their reporting?


Just to be clear on what I saw/heard on the show:

They had an animation of rudder input, where they showed the pilot flooring the rudder - the travel was 4" and they said it resulted in a full deflection. They also graphically depicted how this input became more sensitive at higher speeds, where a 1'' input resulted in the same deflection. Commonsense tells me that it should be the other way around, but I'm not an expert.

Now that's what I thought I saw! Like you suggest, perhaps another viewer could verify one way or the other...


User currently offlineSv2008 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11665 times:

Shouldn't the computers limit the rudder movement automatically, or vary the movement depending on the airspeed?

Maybe I've missed the point on this, but I don't see how it could be 'excessive' if it wasn't allowed to move too much.


User currently offlineAirbusboeing From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 11574 times:

Quoting Comorin (Reply 22):
Just to be clear on what I saw/heard on the show:

They had an animation of rudder input, where they showed the pilot flooring the rudder - the travel was 4" and they said it resulted in a full deflection. They also graphically depicted how this input became more sensitive at higher speeds, where a 1'' input resulted in the same deflection. Commonsense tells me that it should be the other way around, but I'm not an expert.

Now that's what I thought I saw! Like you suggest, perhaps another viewer could verify one way or the othe

What they should have mentioned perhaps is that the effect of 1" deflection at high speeds is the same as that of 4" deflection at low speeds


25 DL777Dude : That's what I understood from watching the documentary. This was an excellent documentary in my opinion. NatGeo rocks!
26 Af773atmsp : I watched it. I missed the ending but I got up at 11:30 a.m. to see the ending. It was very interesting.
27 Post contains images Af773atmsp : Scrath a.m. Actually p.m.
28 AirFrance : Shoot it says on my TV guide that another show is on instead of the AA A300 crash. Can you tell me another channel it is on because the discovery chan
29 Post contains images Texasaggie : I feel you
30 David L : The A300 and A310 aren't Fly By Wire.
31 Phxtravelboy : I checked my programming guide for Nat'l Geo and it shows something called "Crash Science" tonight. I don't show this show at all.
32 Post contains images Jpax : I only caught a few minutes of the program, will have to catch it another time. From the small bit I saw, it seemed fairly decent. Hah, you make it so
33 Zed : True, they aren't Fly By Wire, but most transports have computer controlled rudder travel or rudder load limiters, including B757, 767, A300, A310. T
34 Post contains images David L : Ah, I tripped myself up there.
35 Sv2008 : A lesser input is going to result into a higher output at at a higher increased airspeed. Not quite sure how it could 'be the other way around' but I
36 ContinentalAUS : My parents are too cheap to get anything more than basic cable. If I had NGC, I would definitely watch it- it's my favorite show. Sucks.
37 Comorin : Sorry to confuse the issue ( I'm no expert either). I would imagine that in any control system you would want the feedback to be proportional to the
38 AAFan : I finally got a chance to watch this tonight on Tivo. Another great "Seconds From Disaster" documentary by National Geographic. In the last month I've
39 JAM747 : I thought the analyisis of the tail fin and the composite structure was pretty interesting. It makes me wonder if there has ever been any other crash
40 JustPlanes : Interesting program and well done... One comment... Why show pretty much all Boeing footage during the program... To some degree I'll buy the 737, 757
41 Zed : At low speed (below 165kts), 4" pedal travel results in full deflection of the rudder surface: 30 deg. At 250 kts, 1" pedal travel results in full de
42 Post contains images RIHNOSAUR : hi, you say you have it on tivo....I dont have the Nat Geographic channel.....or tivo...so I always miss these very interesting documentaries.... is
43 Lucky42 : That's true however it usually limits rudder with speed. At takeoff or landing most airplanes have full rudder authority.
44 Wukka : That's an excellent example to compare. The problem is that the A300-B6 apparently operates on the inverse of that. Press on the pedal 4" on the grou
45 Post contains images David L : No need to apologise - what you've said is very relevant to the topic at hand. Now I'll 'fess up. I've read those details about rudder travel in othe
46 Bennett123 : I understood that the issue was not that he used the rudder, but the repeated, (5) reversals one after another. Strangely, I had a flight on the EAC s
47 AA767400 : Did you notice how witnesses were stating that it looked like it exploded from a bomb. I just find the timing on the crash very odd. And it would be i
48 David L : Is this a wind-up? But is it the first time one has experienced full deflection rudder oscillations like that?
49 AA767400 : You don't know what happened, you were not there.
50 Post contains images Comorin : The best answer to that is:
51 AA767400 : I have my opinions people, so just take the debate to the NTSB. I have my opinion, and you have yours. None of us were there, So none of us really kn
52 777236ER : If you take any modern commercial airliner at 240kts, and stomp on the rudder pedals from stop to stop, RIGHT-LEFT-RIGHT-LEFT-RIGHT in 10 seconds, the
53 Tundra767 : Ok was I the only one bothered that they never really show an AA A300 except for the wreckage and the computer generated shots. Everything else is a 7
54 AAFan : True. None of us were there. But flight data recorders were there. And they do not lie.
55 Zed : Good points. According to the FAA's aircraft certification standards an airplane must be able to withstand full, abrupt movement of any control surfa
56 David L : Ah, the old "You Weren't There" chestnut. You're saying it didn't happen? You're saying NTSB accident reports can't be trusted? How could a bomb be p
57 AA767400 : Yes Sherlock, that is what I am suggesting. That is exactly what I am saying Sherlock. Ah, yeah it happened. 9 of my co-workers died on that day, so
58 777236ER : So Airbus, AA and the NTSB all conspired to down a commercial aircraft in a way that would lead to the loss of life and lawsuits for both companies?
59 NAV20 : Couple of points that may help understanding. The majority of jetliners have 'variable ratio' rudder controls. These limit the movement of the rudder
60 Post contains images David L : You know perfectly well I was talking about: If you'd been a bit clearer, "Sherlock" would not have been required.
61 777236ER : But the A300 was certified safe, and is still considered safe by all the regulators, despite this crash. Any lack of knowledge by the pilots is entir
62 AA767400 : No. It was a bomb and the government is covering it up.
63 777236ER : Who planted the bomb, and why haven't they claimed responsibility for it? There's no point committing acts of terrorism if no one knows it is terrori
64 AAFan : And what would be the government's motivation for covering up the bombing of an aircraft? Given the proximity of this incident to 9/11 I would think
65 Post contains images Cadet57 : Yep. And the navy shot down TW800 and the US army planned 9/11. Dude, go take off the tin foil and put the kool-aid in the fridge. If you insist... N
66 AA767400 : Maybe what you are saying is coming out of your arse. I am not trying to pass anything as fact, it is my OPINION. Stop trying to tell me that my opin
67 David L : Don't you think there were better qualified people to gather what they could from what they saw? The reasons given in the report were surprising, eve
68 777236ER : Your opinion isn't supported by any evidence, and goes against all the evidence presented to date. So yes, your opinion is wrong. It's better to have
69 Jseesue : This is typical narcissistic conspiracy theorist drivel. People like AA767400 think they use their intuition and "unique insight" to make connections
70 B741 : I get National Geo but nothing listed for that show. Must be a Canadian or British feed. I did see the TWA 800 documentary. Way better than Mayday.
71 AA767400 : That is what you think, and you are in titled to your opinion just like I am. Seems to me the only person here that has nasty comments coming out of
72 Post contains links NAV20 : That's not what the NTSB found, 777236ER - it determined that the PROBABLE cause was the pilot's action, but also identified both the rudder design a
73 777236ER : This is pure speculation on your part and has never been suggested by the NTSB. You're trying to link two different problems in a way in which the sa
74 David L : Did the NTSB report mention any evidence of such contamination on AA587? Did it even mention that they were unable to determine if it was present? Go
75 Molykote : Your opinions are wrong. However, I would be interested to know what credentials and/or evidence you have used to form your opinion.
76 LMP737 : I take it you work for AA?
77 LMP737 : Any cop will tell you how unreliable "witnesses" can be. Also what do these "witnesses" know about what a bomb exploding looks like. And this makes y
78 Post contains links NAV20 : It is safe PROVIDED that it has not been subjected to contamination by hydraulic fluid. Hence the NTSB's March 2006 Safety Recommendation for urgent
79 David L : Of course. Whoops. Where did I say that? I "insist" nothing of the sort. What about these two points from the NTSB findings... Why would the NTSB off
80 777236ER : Again, complete speculation on your part links the delaminations with AA587. No safety board has ever made the link, yet you feel you have the author
81 Zeke : To me sounds like total and utter B/S. Firstly the US government certified that aircraft type to be safe to its own design standards, certified the a
82 Bennett123 : Firstly there is no evidence that AA587 and Air Transat are linked. Secondly how many witnesses say that planes exploded or crashed in flames when the
83 NAV20 : I wish sometimes that people would read the (new) information I provide more carefully (and objectively) before they make statements like that. 777,
84 NAV20 : Thanks for a much more reasoned reply, DavidL. If you look at the NTSB's video reconstruction you'll see that the aircraft was being thrown into bank
85 777236ER : I wish some people would read the Goddamn NTSB report: and finally: Second guessing the NTSB is a bit like second guessing your surgeon. You're not r
86 NAV20 : 777236, accepting for the momnet that we won't agree about AA587, could you please tell us what you think caused Air Transat's rudder to fall off? To
87 Zeke : He did say, and you are so technically out of depth here you have no clue as to what was said. I have been very polite so far, you need to OBJECTIVEL
88 David L : So the NTSB got that wrong, too?
89 777236ER : Delamination of the rudder, causing an aerodynamic pushover and ensuing flutter. The evidence simply suggests that didn't happen with AA587: 1. The r
90 Bennett123 : NAV20 Whilst I follow what you are saying, there are two factors which distinguish AA587. Firstly, he was in turbulence, which means that following AA
91 JAM747 : Like most if not all aircraft accidents, they normally occur due to a series of factors. The general idea is that this accident was caused from the co
92 Post contains links NAV20 : Agree entirely, Bennett123. But my point is that we know now (from Air Transat) that it is ('was,' thanks to the NTSB ordering urgent inspections) po
93 Post contains images NAV20 : Ddin't start off that way, Zeke . I started off 'pro-pilot'. Trying to keep it short - a friend of mine was living in downtown NYC and was an eye-wit
94 Post contains images David L : Perhaps we should let lawyers conduct the accident investigations. They're so concerned with finding the truth. I should think not. From the little I
95 EXAAUADL : Did anyone see the plane on fire before it hit the ground??? Since 99.9% of the population has never seen a bomb explode I am always amazed when I he
96 DILF : Remember too that this was so soon after 9-11 that the first thought on everyone's mind was a terrorist act. My question is did anyone ever see the p
97 Post contains links Zeke : Link to the video http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/tollbooth_web01.wmv
98 Post contains links and images Litz : Do you mean this photo? That's a stillframe from the video shot from the Triborough Bridge tollbooth security camera, which the NTSB has available he
99 Bennett123 : NAV20 Whilst any hydraulic fluid contamination would have washed away, the damage "caused by it" would not. Besides, was'nt the tail recovered and tes
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...
British Midland 92 Crash On National Geographic posted Mon Sep 26 2005 02:14:53 by PipoA380
Crash Science On National Geographic Now! posted Fri Oct 20 2006 02:27:44 by JAM747
AV52 On National Geographic (Air Crash Invest.) posted Sun Apr 17 2005 21:15:51 by ACVitale
"Air Emergency" On National Geographic posted Wed Apr 13 2005 15:42:36 by Jpz1991
"Fatal Landing" On National Geographic Channel posted Fri Jan 28 2005 02:00:28 by KaiGywer
Anyone See BA5390 On National Geographic? posted Fri Dec 31 2004 06:26:04 by AV8AJET
"Air Emergency" On National Geographic Channel posted Fri Sep 24 2004 02:41:44 by OB1504
"Air Emergency" On National Geographic Channel posted Sun Sep 19 2004 19:34:48 by OB1504
Show On National Geographic About Air Transat posted Sun Jun 13 2004 01:24:29 by FrontierCPT
Air Force One On National Geographic Channel posted Sun Feb 29 2004 05:35:19 by BigMac