Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Orders Change To A300/310  
User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 474 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4168 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.


SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinephishphan70 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4178 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?

User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4177 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.



SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
User currently offlinestarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4176 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?



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineLV From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 1976 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4175 times:

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

User currently offlinethegoldenargosy From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 354 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4175 times:

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

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12267 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4178 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.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4175 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


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6374 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4175 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.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

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


When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4173 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.


User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

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


737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4171 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.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1825 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4171 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2730 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4172 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...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinem1m2 From Canada, joined Dec 2011, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4172 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.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4174 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.


User currently offlineGLA MD11 From France, joined Mar 2000, 277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4171 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.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6967 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4169 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?


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31660 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4171 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....



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12276 posts, RR: 47
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4168 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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).



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4168 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.


User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4168 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.



SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4168 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...


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2730 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4166 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.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
25 tdscanuck : If you redesign the rudder you need to re-certify the lateral control. No way that business case will work out. Markup of 10x over production cost is
26 Aesma : 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
27 UALWN : Sure, but this is also true in the satellite business. Anyway, thanks for the information.
28 A320ajm : Monarch still use A310s. Being a UK airline do they have to do this? A320ajm
29 tdscanuck : 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.
30 Post contains links and images lightsaber : Ditto. Why bother? $100k would be cheap. Your forgetting the down time to pull the wire. Check flights to very the system was installed properly, etc
31 uALWN : As mentioned above, I have experience in the (unmanned) satellite business. And the costs of space-qualifying any part is high, but not this exorbita
32 cmf : 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 providi
33 zeke : It will not be Airbus installing this, it will be the owner/operator. Airbus does the design and certification of the change, produce the documentati
34 tdscanuck : 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 ot
35 prebennorholm : 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 the
36 zeke : You will need to show me where you got those numbers from. That must be some new technique....."pedals are slammed repeatedly from one side to anothe
37 Deltal1011man : Anytime you add aircraft in front of a part the price goes up 10X. and wouldn't this mean a STC for the mod and TSOs for the part?
38 CM : STC and/or TSO are only required when someone other than the type certificate holder is providing the engineering definition for the change, or quali
39 StuckInCA : 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.
40 zeke : 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.
41 pilotanthony : Monarch do not have any A310's they have A300's which they are in the process of retiring
42 Post contains links RubberJungle : This firms up the story which Flight International ran back in July: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...udder-warning-modification-373554/
43 yellowtail : Part of the cost is also the liability issues with aircraft parts.
44 tdscanuck : 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
45 rcair1 : 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
46 prebennorholm : 11 years and 9 days old. According to the AA587 report.
47 zeke : 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 input
48 soon7x7 : 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 t
49 Airportugal310 : So who do we believe???
50 soon7x7 : 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 aircra
51 CM : This accident was caused by a control reversal, which is not the same thing as a "hard over".
52 soon7x7 : 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 ba
53 tdscanuck : 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 t
54 zeke : Not so, the deflection is required to be available to effect normal control. They are not my words, they are used by the NTSB/FAA, I would assume it
55 Post contains images Daysleeper : 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
56 tdscanuck : 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 dyn
57 zeke : The aircraft would be certified with it inop, and yes Airbus does have LAF. No we are not, the force required on the 737 is only 18 lbs higher, with
58 Post contains images scbriml : Then your opinion is contrary to that of most experts. Well that's fine then - folks still died but at least the tail didn't separate. And yet they'r
59 tdscanuck : 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 sh
60 Post contains links rcair1 : 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
61 Daysleeper : 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. S
62 tdscanuck : 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
63 rcair1 : 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 t
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...
FAA Orders Boeing To Replace Insulation On 800 A/c posted Fri Apr 1 2005 18:55:02 by Aa777jr
FAA - Additional Inspection To A300 posted Tue Mar 12 2002 08:03:14 by Katekebo
A Tribute To The Airbus A300/310 posted Sun Jul 15 2007 20:33:19 by Dsa
Airbus - What To Do With A300/310 Line posted Tue Nov 21 2006 21:41:28 by A342
A300/310 Line To Close Down Next Year? posted Tue Mar 7 2006 12:54:40 by NA
Kuwait Airways To Replace A300/310's posted Sat May 26 2001 14:15:13 by Airmale
UPS Pilots Suing FAA. Don't Want To Fly Tired. posted Fri Dec 23 2011 04:21:35 by murchmo
CIT Orders Up To 45 737s posted Tue Jan 4 2011 05:44:23 by n1786b
FAA Overhaul: Pilots To Get More Rest. posted Fri Sep 10 2010 06:15:33 by fxramper
Smisek:No Change To New United Livery posted Thu Jul 22 2010 08:19:07 by Rising