Baec777 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1231 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1347 times:
I want to know if all Airbus planes have same problems as the AB6(Airbus300-600R) had since AA587 accident in New York after take off from JFK to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic(12 November, 2001).
I wants to have some travel plans on some carrier that has Airbus from DFW and ending it final in middle east with an Airbus jet as well. Here we have Lufthansa, our only A340 carrier @ DFW. Recently we had Sabena A330, Air France A340, both gone.
Air France will return shortly to DFW mid of next year(I could be wrong on AF).
Please tell me what going on righ now with the details of AA587 and other planes with the problems caused the accident.
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1063 times:
At the moment it seems like the accident was caused by the pilot overstressing the tailfin as he reacted to the turbulences only with the rudder. Romours are that this is a standard operation procedure at AA, while any airline has a different sop because Airbus has told them that this could overstress the tail. So maybe you could be afraid flying with an AA Airbus or even flying AA (who knows their sops for other planes), but i doubt that you should be afraid flying Airbus or other planes with composite.
NWA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 1200 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 969 times:
this is insanity. why is it if the pilot is dead, the crash is his fault? It was a piece of crap airbus plane, and NOT the pilots falut. That tail should never fall off unless a manuver like a straight down dive was to occur, and I doubt that a pilot would push the yoke fully foward in turbulance.
23 victor, turn right heading 210, maintain 3000 till established, cleared ILS runwy 24.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21407 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 918 times:
NWA: this is insanity. why is it if the pilot is dead, the crash is his fault?
The pilots (may they rest in peace) may have made a mistake based on their training. The operative word here is still "may".
Both Airbus and Boeing before the accident have been concerned enough with AA´s pilot training for upset recovery that they issued a warning against possible tailfin damage due to excessive rudder deflection (please note that Boeing joined in this).
NWA: It was a piece of crap airbus plane, and NOT the pilots falut.
Please tell the NTSB and the FAA. They´re still investigating and seem to be oblivious of your insight.
Seriously, though: As far as I know, the plane had been in severe turbulence before where normal operating limits had been exceeded; As far as I know, Airbus recommends extended (among them ultrasonic) checks in such a case. Did AA perform those? Not as far as I´ve heard.
Even if a manufacturing defect should have been the cause of the accident, AA would probably be wise to reconsider a few issues...
NWA: That tail should never fall off unless a manuver like a straight down dive was to occur, and I doubt that a pilot would push the yoke fully foward in turbulance.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what does a dive have to do with the tailfin coming off?? It´s lateral forces the tailfin is most vulnerable to.