MountainFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:19 am

FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:35 pm

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
 
phishphan70
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:23 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:40 pm

Big blow for FX having to pay for these mods. Are FX and DHL the only airlines in the US still using A300/310s?
 
MountainFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:19 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:50 pm

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
 
starrion
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:58 pm

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
 
LV
Posts: 1546
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 6:02 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:00 pm

I get the feeling FX will speed up the retirement of the Airbus fleet with this.
 
thegoldenargosy
Posts: 489
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:14 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:01 pm

Seems kinda crazy that it took 11yrs for this if it really is that important.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14022
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:14 pm

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! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:03 pm

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 :)
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:03 am

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
 
User avatar
yellowtail
Posts: 3734
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:46 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:42 am

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.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:55 am

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.
 
FI642
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:48 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:32 am

This could really accelerate the retirement of the A310's from the FX fleet.
737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:57 am

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.
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:29 am

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
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:57 am

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
m1m2
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:39 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:06 am

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.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:17 am

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.
 
GLA MD11
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:43 am

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:29 am

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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:35 am

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....
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13479
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:17 pm

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:41 pm

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.
 
MountainFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:19 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:53 pm

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
 
soon7x7
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:24 pm

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...
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:08 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:13 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 23):
Why don't they just redesign the rudder assembly...ever see inside one?...nothing in there!...nothing like a Boeing structure.

If you redesign the rudder you need to re-certify the lateral control. No way that business case will work out.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 24):
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.

Markup of 10x over production cost isn't unusual in commercial aviation. It happens because most of the cost of the widget isn't the manufacturing of the widget, it's the engineering & certification.

Tom.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7704
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:26 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 23):
Why don't they just redesign the rudder assembly...ever see inside one?...nothing in there!...nothing like a Boeing structure.

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 able to withstand aerobatic maneuvers, or should airline pilots refrain from performing them ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:31 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 25):
It happens because most of the cost of the widget isn't the manufacturing of the widget, it's the engineering & certification.

Sure, but this is also true in the satellite business. Anyway, thanks for the information.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
A320ajm
Posts: 587
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:57 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:28 pm

Monarch still use A310s. Being a UK airline do they have to do this?

A320ajm
If the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:34 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
Do you think a Boeing would have fared better under the same stress as AA 587 ?

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.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11866
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:44 pm

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
I find it interesting that they are just now doing this, over 11 years since AA 587,

Ditto. Why bother?

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.

$100k would be cheap. Your forgetting the down time to pull the wire. Check flights to very the system was installed properly, etc.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):
Naively, I would have expected the accelerometer to cost around $100, and the bell and light about $10 each...

   Parts certified for the appropriate fire, durability, and certified for fault rating? It will cost $500k for the vendor to laboratory certify this kit and a similar if not 2X amount to verify it is ok for flight. You do not get pedigreed parts for $10...

Aircraft coffee makers a long time ago cost over $3,000 (in 1984, probably about double that now, maybe a wee bit more):
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...&sjid=k1IEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3394,3559866

No one builds anything certified to the 9G crash load for cheap. No one can verify every part is made per print for cheap.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
I've seen individual bolts with price tags close to $600.

I've seen bolts costing 4X that amount and had a customer happy that a further 3X was levied for the expediting charge.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 25):
Markup of 10x over production cost isn't unusual in commercial aviation. It happens because most of the cost of the widget isn't the manufacturing of the widget, it's the engineering & certification.

   and the cost of engineering to verify manufacturing is making the parts to print.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
UALWN
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:50 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 30):
t will cost $500k for the vendor to laboratory certify this kit and a similar if not 2X amount to verify it is ok for flight. You do not get pedigreed parts for $10...

As mentioned above, I have experience in the (unmanned) satellite business. And the costs of space-qualifying any part is high, but not this exorbitantly high.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:21 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 23):
A pilot should not have to be concerned over the possibility that his input may destroy a control surface...that is nonsense...

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 providing wrong input.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:29 am

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
In light of AA Flight 587, the FAA has decided to require Airbus to install a rudder warning system on A300s and A310s.

It will not be Airbus installing this, it will be the owner/operator. Airbus does the design and certification of the change, produce the documentation, updates manuals, gets suppliers to bid, stocks parts, distributes and supports them etc etc.

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 full narrative of the AD suggests that a number of events have occurred since AA587, and most if not all of them were not on A310/A300s. This AD maybe widened to include additional types. The issue is not unique to the A310/A300 like some people would like you to believe.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 8):

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.

There are two way to achieve compliance with this AD at the moment, one is to install a new limiter, that is around 200k or the other way is to install this new warning system for about half the cost.

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 9):
Are there any foreign carriers flying into the US that maybe affected by this....Maybe Air Transat or soem cargo carriers at MIA?

Flying into the US will not trigger compliance with the AD, it will be based upon how the certificate of airworthiness for the aircraft is issued, for aircraft that have their certificate of airworthiness issued on the basis of the FAA TCDS, they will need to comply.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 25):

If you redesign the rudder you need to re-certify the lateral control. No way that business case will work out.

They have a new travel limiter as an option to comply with this AD, the cost is around 200k.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
Well, then obviously it's designed differently. Do you think a Boeing would have fared better under the same stress as AA 587 ?

It is entirely possible that Boeing maybe caught up in this AD as well. The narrative mentions a number of events on Boeings that have occurred since AA587 which may prompt the NTSB to ask the FAA to expand the AD to cover additional types. The NTSB is concerned over preventing what they view as being an unsafe condition, which is not the same as what the FAA considers as an unsafe condition. The A300/A310 for example is a certified aircraft, by definition the FAA would consider the design as being safe.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:52 am

Quoting uALWN (Reply 31):
As mentioned above, I have experience in the (unmanned) satellite business. And the costs of space-qualifying any part is high, but not this exorbitantly high.

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 other cost burden on top of qualification.

Tom.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:37 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
It is entirely possible that Boeing maybe caught up in this AD as well. The narrative mentions a number of events on Boeings that have occurred since AA587 which may prompt the NTSB to ask the FAA to expand the AD to cover additional types.

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 there is one significant difference between Boeing and Airbus planes. While the physical leg force for a full rudder deflection on an Airbus is at a comfortable level - some 20 lbs pressure - then it is much higher on Boeing planes - more like 100 lbs.

The reason should be historic. While a majority of 50'es and 60'es US airline pilots had many hours on big WWII transport and bomber planes without powered rudder, then this was not the case in Europe. Consequently Sud Aviation, DeHavilland, Wickers, BAC, BAe etc. stuck to a more Spitfire like "pedal-comfort" on their powered rudders. And that carried on to Airbus.

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
They have a new travel limiter as an option to comply with this AD, the cost is around 200k.

Yes, I read that. And I understand that price much better than the 100k for warning bell and light only. That has got to be a very special travel limiter.

The 300/310 already has a travel limiter. Available rudder travel is reduced with increased IAS. What is asked for is a travel rate limiter. In addition to the existing travel limiter.

The full rudder deflection is needed, for instance for engine shut down at low speed. What is asked for is an accelerometer which reduces the rudder travel rate to avoid overstress of tail structures when pedals are slammed repeatedly from one side to another.

And that brings us back to Boeing: That is one pilot error which is harder to do when the physical input is in the 100 lbs region.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:06 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 35):
While the physical leg force for a full rudder deflection on an Airbus is at a comfortable level - some 20 lbs pressure - then it is much higher on Boeing planes - more like 100 lbs.

You will need to show me where you got those numbers from.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 35):
What is asked for is an accelerometer which reduces the rudder travel rate to avoid overstress of tail structures when pedals are slammed repeatedly from one side to another.

That must be some new technique....."pedals are slammed repeatedly from one side to another".

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 35):
And that brings us back to Boeing: That is one pilot error which is harder to do when the physical input is in the 100 lbs region.

And yet Boeing aircraft have had the same issue since AF587, which is why the NTSB is looking at it.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:03 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):
Really? Naively, I would have expected the accelerometer to cost around $100, and the bell and light about $10 each...

Anytime you add aircraft in front of a part the price goes up 10X.

Quoting CM (Reply 16):
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.

and wouldn't this mean a STC for the mod and TSOs for the part?
New airliners.net web site sucks.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:20 am

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 37):
and wouldn't this mean a STC for the mod and TSOs for the part?

STC and/or TSO are only required when someone other than the type certificate holder is providing the engineering definition for the change, or qualifying the parts. In the case of this AD, I would expect the engineering to come via Service Bulletin from Airbus and the parts to be covered by their certifications as the OEM.
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:41 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):
Really? Naively, I would have expected the accelerometer to cost around $100, and the bell and light about $10 each...

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. You could buy them for about $0.63 each even today (this was 15 years ago), but to buy them (in an approved, certified state) made them cost over $70 each. Over 100x the price.

One of many reasons I prefer to avoid aerospace and defense related jobs!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:49 am

Quoting CM (Reply 38):

STC and/or TSO are only required when someone other than the type certificate holder is providing the engineering definition for the change, or qualifying the parts.

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.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
pilotanthony
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:52 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:57 am

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 28):

Monarch do not have any A310's they have A300's which they are in the process of retiring
Anthony Paraschou
 
RubberJungle
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:16 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:51 am

This firms up the story which Flight International ran back in July:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...udder-warning-modification-373554/
 
User avatar
yellowtail
Posts: 3734
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:46 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:03 pm

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 39):
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. You could buy them for about $0.63 each even today (this was 15 years ago), but to buy them (in an approved, certified state) made them cost over $70 each. Over 100x the price.

Part of the cost is also the liability issues with aircraft parts.
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:33 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 35):
And that brings us back to Boeing: That is one pilot error which is harder to do when the physical input is in the 100 lbs region.

And yet Boeing aircraft have had the same issue since AF587, which is why the NTSB is looking at it.

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 that you can execute an maneuver that will exceed ultimate load on the fin; that maneuver is physically harder to execute on a Boeing than an Airbus (apparently, I don't know what the rudder pedal force on an Airbus is) but can be done on either plane and, currently, isn't required to be certified.

Tom.
 
rcair1
Crew
Posts: 1139
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:07 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 44):
The NTSB is looking at the fact that you can execute an maneuver that will exceed ultimate load on the fin; that maneuver is physically harder to execute on a Boeing than an Airbus (apparently, I don't know what the rudder pedal force on an Airbus is) but can be done on either plane and, currently, isn't required to be certified.

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 VS can be over stressed.

If you read the NTSB reports on it - you can see the measured forces required on various a/c. Those rudder pedal forces are discussed (going by recollection here - but I'm pretty sure it was in the NTSB reports I read it.)
rcair1
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:27 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
That must be some new technique....."pedals are slammed repeatedly from one side to another".

11 years and 9 days old. According to the AA587 report.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Thu Nov 22, 2012 3:54 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 44):

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 inputs and consequent loads on the vertical stabilizer that exceed ultimate design loads. Such events could lead to failure of the vertical stabilizer and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane."

Excessive loads leading to an unsafe condition occurs due to the technique, not the amount if deflection. One can slowly go from stop to stop on the rudder with maximum deflection and not encounter an unsafe condition, or one can go to less than full deflection rapidly and get into an unsafe condition. This is on ANY aircraft, regardless of the pedal force. Pilots have on Boeing aircraft had the aircraft in an unsafe condition due to the technique.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 45):

No that is not the issue, it is incorrect technique full stop. Rudder force alone does not parent an unsafe condition, that is why Airbus used the waring light and voice as an alternative means of compliance. It addresses the incorrect technique.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 46):

That technique is just as incorrect today as it was back then, changing pedal force does not prevent the incorrect technique.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
soon7x7
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:42 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
Well, then obviously it's designed differently. Do you think a Boeing would have fared better under the same stress as AA 587 ?


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 these events resulted in fatal crashes. My point is the Vertical fin nor the rudders separated from the pressure vessel nor did they come apart. I have chopped up Boeing Rudders and A300 Rudders. Huge structural differences.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3217
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

RE: FAA Orders Change To A300/310

Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:01 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 26):
Do you think a Boeing would have fared better under the same stress as AA 587 ?
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
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.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 48):
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 these events resulted in fatal crashes. My point is the Vertical fin nor the rudders separated from the pressure vessel nor did they come apart. I have chopped up Boeing Rudders and A300 Rudders. Huge structural differences.

So who do we believe???
I sell airplanes and airplane accessories