NightFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:44 am

American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:17 am

According to the NTSB final report they have concluded that the probable cause of the break up of AA 587 was the in flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond the ultimate design that were created by the fist officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program. (Source NTSB Reporter)
Airplanes are only as good as the people who fly&fix them.
 
ILSApproach
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:59 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:38 am

Case closed indeed. Pretty much what was conclusion all along.

 
IanatSTN
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:27 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:54 am

Agreed, this was the suspected cause from the very beginning....

Cheers,
Ian.
Ian@STN ::
 
USAir734
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 6:12 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:15 am

Then why did the engines fall off?
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:17 am

Read the report.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Newark777
Posts: 8284
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:23 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:17 am

USAir734-
I think you are thinking of a different accident.  Confused

Harry
Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
 
ANNOYEDFA
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:16 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:30 am

Actually he is not thinking of a different report. The engine separated from the wing and landed in a gas station. I have been to the site many times and the plane missed my sisters friends house by maybe two. I think it comes down to the F/O is dead and can't defend himself SO the blame is on him. I believe from reading all the NTSB reports it is a design flaw in the rudder but we all know it takes Multiple crashes for anything to change. AA has before had problems with the rudder on the A-300 just like boeing had on the older model 737's. Then again nothing we say counts because the case is now closed.
"TWA... One Mission, Yours."
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:10 am

Well the engines are the only thing that bugs me about the NTSB report on AA587. The report does not go into why they came off, which seems strange to me. I suspect though that it was because the aircraft got sideways to the airflow and the shear took them off.
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
Catatonic
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:58 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:39 am

I believe from reading all the NTSB reports it is a design flaw in the rudder but we all know it takes Multiple crashes for anything to change.

It wasn't a design flaw, it could happen to any aircraft that exceeds the limits of its design. Wasn't there an issue of wake turbulence aswell? Anyway, this is one accident, the A300 has been around for many years and has not experienced this problem before.

[Edited 2004-12-23 23:50:14]
Equally Cursed and Blessed.
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:49 am

Catatonic- this was an accident, not an incident. Big difference.


The engine sheered off due to huge side loads. Engines are mounted to give very strong front to back support, but they will sheer off with large side loads experienced due to the high yawing created by the tail coming off. The rudder movements were given in response to large roll moments coming from wake turbulence following a 747.

Chicks dig winglets.
 
FlyingColours
Posts: 2202
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:13 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:14 am

Well an AA lost a chunk of a tail once on the A300 I think (Very sure I heard it here) but landed safley.

It could have happened to any aircraft really it was just a case of the design of the AB6 rudder controls (less force being required on the pedals once a few inputs have been made).

Either way, the case is closed.

Phil
FlyingColours
Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
 
Newark777
Posts: 8284
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:23 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:24 am

Sorry, I guess I was the one who was confused. Embarrassment

Harry
Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
 
ANNOYEDFA
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:16 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:56 am

Well you know what! I think it is a god damn desing flaw. No system on a plane should be allowed to exceed the limit of what it can handle. There should be some type of warning or the plane should of been designed to where it could of NEVER reach the limitation. When the rudder revered on the 73's it was a DESIGN FLAW. There is not only one other insident with AA's A-300's there are quite a few. One left from MIA to south america and the rudder started shifting on it's own. Throwing the cabin crew to the floor and thankfully the plane landed safely. The plane is know around AA as the Scarebus because of it's many problems. I personally would never fly on one to this day.

I have flown many times and have hit wake turbulence. I hit is so bad one time the plane was banking on 40% angels and the captain said the rudder was at full deflution and on a lil old RJ it managed to stay intact. So thats my opinion just like I think the whole TWA 800 is a bunch of bull$shit SO IS THIS!
"TWA... One Mission, Yours."
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:46 am


I may be missing something here, but in AA587 the FO pushed the pedals and the aircraft responded. In the B737 cases, the aircraft made UNCOMMANDED rudder inputs.

My understanding is that if you take off, and immediately pull the stick right back, then the plane will crash. Are you saying that this is a design fault.

If there is a design fault, why does it only appear to affect AA.

Finally, I am not saying that it would not be a good idea to modify the A300-600 rudder, just that the pilot crashed the plane. This is what the NTSB are saying as well.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:01 am

Before passing your opinion here why don't you actually READ the report.


The PF on the incident a/c made 5 full opposite deflections before the Fin failed. Cycling the rudder like that doesn't give the structure time to dissipate the loads induced by each deflection. The result is the loads build up to the point where the structure fails. In this case I believe the failed at over twice it's designed max load

The purpose of the rudder is to assist with:-

1. Lateral control on TO Roll. especially in Xwind conditions

Ldg Flare with Xwind, de crab purposes

During Ldg Roll when on ground.

2. To counteract thrust assymetry

3. a) Cater for the loss of both Yaw Dampers

b) Rudder Trim Runaway

c) Landing with abnormal Ldg Gr position. The rudder then can be used for directional control on the ground.


All the NTSB is recommending is that input loads required to move the rudder are increased to slow the rate of movement and increase the amount of pedal movement required to fully deflect thr rudder.

The fin and rudder worked as advertised. Th PF operated the controls incorrectly. I have spoken to several Boeing & Airbus pilots and they all said the AA pilot was wrong to fly like that
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:08 am

No system on a plane should be allowed to exceed the limit of what it can handle. There should be some type of warning or the plane should of been designed to where it could of NEVER reach the limitation. When the rudder revered on the 73's it was a DESIGN FLAW.

Nonsense, very few aircraft have hard limits on control movement (or, more importantly, control repetitiveness) at any altitude or airspeed. Try turning you car wheel from full lock one way to full lock the other five times while travelling at 70mph. If you crash, is it a design flaw? The rudder hardovers, on the other hand, were design flaws – the rudder should not have done that.

The A300-600R rudder pedal characteristics were unusual, as the report pointed out – but unusual characteristics don’t make an unsafe aircraft. Every aircraft is unusual in one way or another. Safety is ensured when training informs crews of the quirks of the aircraft, and in the case of AA 587, training wasn’t adequate.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:47 am

I have flown many times and have hit wake turbulence. I hit is so bad one time the plane was banking on 40% angels and the captain said the rudder was at full deflution and on a lil old RJ it managed to stay intact

How coul you possibly know that the pilots was using the rudder?

And I concur with the much more experienced posters. You can't save people from using stuff incorrectly. It's like putting warning labels on a knife: "Can cut your fingers." Well duh...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:59 am

Try turning you car wheel from full lock one way to full lock the other five times while travelling at 70mph. If you crash, is it a design flaw? The rudder hardovers, on the other hand, were design flaws – the rudder should not have done that.

Err - haven't you just contradicted yourself?


The rudder system was doing what it was told to do. The PF demended L - R - L - R - L and the rudder gave him L - R - L - R - L until the fin couldn't take the loads imposed.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 12:26 pm

Ah.. I've just realised the hardovers you are referring to are the 737 ones.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:05 pm

Sorry should have been more clear.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
ktachiya
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:34 pm

So nothing was asked with JAL?

I don't know which ac but it was a 744 that was fully loaded heading for Tokyo. Does anybody know how much spacing there was between the two?
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:25 pm

I don't know which ac but it was a 744 that was fully loaded heading for Tokyo. Does anybody know how much spacing there was between the two?

Not enough spacing. That is clear. But the situation was still salvageable. If the FO had not tried to chase the plane around the sky with the rudder things would most probably have turned out much better. Large jets simply don't react to rudder inputs fast enough to make what the FO attempted a viable option, quite apart from the fact that it can break the aircraft.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:39 am

Why is it that the FO used the rudder for spin recovery? This isn't the way spin recovery is to happen. The Navy teaches you to never touch the rudder for spin recovery, so do most other major airlines, but not AA. If you look at the spate of AA accident lately, it appears that they have some training issues.

C
 
NightFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:44 am

American Airlines 587,Case Closed

Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:01 am

Just want to add one more thing to this. I read a little further into the report and found this shocking detail !!!!!. An American Airlines captain who flew several times with the first officer of 587 on a 727 recalled a account when during a flight in 1997 this same first officer had been "very aggressive" on the rudder pedals after a wake turbulence encounter. (Source NTSB Reporter )
Airplanes are only as good as the people who fly&fix them.
 
airtahitinui
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 4:39 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:24 am

Uh CTHEWORLD, first, spin recovery is taught with use of the rudder pedals - the control yoke is set to a neutral position (or full forward as I prefer) and you yaw against the direction of the spin. Open any abc123-my first groundschool book and look it up. So I believe you were misinformed.

Second, counteracting wake turbulence is completely different, in my opion as a pilot, than getting out of a spin. Wake turbulence, typicially in my experiences, tries to roll the aircraft more than anything else - something easily solved with aileron input and a little rudder as needed.

I expect a full resination of your a.net membership on my desk tomorrow morning...
send a real message - DON'T VOTE!
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:50 am

Both are to blame here. Yes the FO should have not been as aggressive as he was with the rudder, but the aircraft should have had stop limits, just like the elevators and airlerons and thrust commands do. So there is a design flaw.

Case closed.
One Nation Under God
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: American Airlines 587, Case Closed

Sat Dec 25, 2004 2:42 am

Yes the FO should have not been as aggressive as he was with the rudder, but the aircraft should have had stop limits, just like the elevators and airlerons and thrust commands do. So there is a design flaw.


There is no design flaw. The travel of the rudder didn't cause the crash, it was the repeated movement back and fore that overstressed the fin.

Case closed.

Yup, by the NTSB who say there wasn't a design flaw.
Your bone's got a little machine