Great article in today's USA Today. Read it and let's hear your comments here. I will never fly an Airbus, I believe the design of this plane was at fault, and have never liked the way Airbus was made way before this crash. I was mis-understood in an earlier post where certain individuals put a spin on my words and made it sound like I blamed maintaining. I do not, I don't like the composite construction or, after reading this article, the rudder. I believe the F/O should have been able to regain control of this A300 after he experienced the wake of the 747 in front of him. Looks like AA and Airbus are going to be involved in this for a long time. Link is below..

No Boeing, No Going!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-02-05-rudder_x.htm

I've driven many different types of cars and find huge variation in the amount of pressure required to actuate the accelerator and clutch....so what? If the pilot was rated for the aircraft then they should be familiar with the amount of pressure to actuate the rudder pedals.......AA grasping at straws......

I am going to do some research into this, my main question is why the tail failed and broke away from the fuselage. I don't believe this should have happened. I think AA should focus on that, maybe the rudder pressure didn't have a whole lot to do with the crash but once that tail failed it was all over.

While the article is very interesting, it also says the definitive cause of the accident has not yet been determined. There is also a suggestion in the article that pilot training may be a factor. The A300-600 and A310 have had a good safety record and this is, to my knowledge, the first accident in which this type of failure has happened to this type.

Also, the report says that oversensitivity of the rudder, not the tail's composite construction, may be the culprit here. I think your "I will never fly an Airbus" comment is way premature. I've flown on AA's A300s a lot and I'm still here, so I will wait for the final report before reaching any conclusions. It may well be by the time all is said and done the crash may be blamed on a combination of factors. I really don't see any reason to put down Airbus over this.

cheers, Ralph

Research what if both AA and Airbus new the tail was damaged from a previous incident and Airbus recommended the tail be removed.....and you might get some answers.

I think that in this case both sides are to blame, For not communicating with
each other. I also think that the 300 and 310 are very different from the newer airbus models, which I think are perfectly safe aircraft.

Widebody,

I hope that is not true, if that's proven AA is going to have hell to pay!!

I think you are personalizing the dispute too much. Airbus and AA each have insurers-While one firm may be the name on the policy the risk is divided out to a large pool. No doubt there is a deductible and a policy limit so AA will pay something almost certainly but the real risk of loss is on these two pools of insurers. The airline and airbus ill be concerned about the long term but the two insurer pools will be concerned about only one thing-paying the least amount of money, holding onto it w so it can be invested for the longest time and paying the lease amount in attorney fees- so this really isn't a fight between Airbus and AA

AA grasping at straws......

Wait a second...this article was written by USA Today, not AA. The research was done by USA Today.

FACT: The A300's rudder sensitivity is far greater than its competition.

On a side note ... I was in a meeting in DFW yesterday, and we were told AA is accelerating the retirement of the Airbus fleet from 2013 to 2008-2012. It wasn't mentioned what aircraft/fleet type would replace the Airbus.

KKMolokai,

If that is true, those years perfectly fit the year of launch for the 7E7 (2008).

Whats AA waiting for another A300 accident?, they should had taken the A300 from their fleet days after the 587 accident.

They are waiting too long, 2008, hopefully their will not be another accident, but I tell ya, if their is another one, AA will ground all A300 in a second. And of course AA will take the blame since they are only interested in filling that Ship with people almost 270 people!!

And is true, the design on the A300/310 is different from the other Airbus family a/c.

Tekelberry,

"FACT: The A300's rudder sensitivity is far greater than its competition"

Let's rephrase it;

"FACT: The competitions rudder sensitivity is far less that the A300"

Again, so what? What does the above actually mean in terms of the aircraft?

For example, the force required to press the brake in a car can vary greatly. If someone runs out in front of my car, and the car doesn't stop in time, can the force required to depress the pedal be a factor? Potentially, yes it can, but you'd have to prove why the variation in force impeded performance......stating that the force is greater than the competition is simply just not enough.

In other words, is the pedal sensitivity relevant or not?

I also think that the 300 and 310 are very different from the newer airbus models, which I think are perfectly safe aircraft.

The basic design of the A300/310 vertical stabilizer is almost identical to that of the A330/A340.

I will never fly an Airbus, I believe the design of this plane was at fault, and have never liked the way Airbus was made way before this crash.

Then you're unreasonable and misinformed.

You aren't an engineer, or a pilot, you appear to be in sporting goods. You have no basis upon which to decide that they weren't made well.

It was a tragic and unfortunate incident, one that didn't receive nearly the coverage or time in our hearts that it should have due to the timing, but both manufacturers have incidents, both manufacturers lose hulls, and both manufacturers have been responsible for deaths.

N

I think there will be plenty of blame to go around. I believe the problem centers around the rudder limiting system and the pilots use of the rudder and the lack of understanding of how the rudder limiting system effects the rudder movement.

I think Airbus will get blamed for a rudder limiting system that isn't foolproof. American will get blamed for training their pilots to use excess rudder. And the FAA will get blamed for insufficient guidance from the FAR, as to how a rudder limiter system should work, and what it should do or prevent.

I look forward to some answers for this tragic event.

Reminds me of Firestone tires and the Ford Explorer. Whose fault is it? I say there must be blame on AA in some way becasue as far as I know a tail has never snapped off an A300 before.

Even a guy in sporting goods gets to decide whether or not he'll fly on a particular type of plane without being considered unreasonable or misinformed. Most passengers can't imagine anything less interesting than what type of plane they're on. But if a person does happen to be interested and thus aware of possible safety issues regarding the A300, I see nothing unreasonable about him feeling more comfortable by avoiding it.

fanatic, why should AA take the A300 out of service so quickly? They should have also taken the DC-10 out of service too. Same with United. And Eastern should have taken the L1011 out of service as well. This list could go on for a very long time. There is no reason to take the A300 out of service. Its safety rating is impressive.

"FACT: The competitions rudder sensitivity is far less that the A300"

Again, so what? What does the above actually mean in terms of the aircraft?

In other words, is the pedal sensitivity relevant or not?

Yes, pedal sensitivity is very relevant. The investigator was clearly describing PIO - Pilot Induced Oscillation. The investigator's position is that the A300's rudder sensitivity scale was a cause for increasing chance of PIO. Virtually all aircraft with artificial feel systems are designed so that increasing control movement requires ever increasing physical effort (i.e. pressure). The A300's rudder design requires far less "increase" in effort (50% increase) than comparable aircraft (>300% increase for 767). The story's last sentences summarizes nicely:

At 290 mph, a pilot who had begun to move the rudder need only add 10 pounds to the pedal to swing the rudder all the way to one side.

By comparison, the similar-sized Boeing 767 requires 63 pounds of additional pressure to move the rudder as far as possible.

Pilot induced oscillation [pilot action not taught by anybody] eventually lead to structural failure. Aircraft control design might be a contributing factor to the onset of PIO.

Gigneil,

I am not naive when it comes to aircraft, my father was a mechanic for EAL and he knows a hell of a lot about planes. He did not care for any Airbus product and nor do I, I am not mis-informed and I could care less how many planes Airbus delivers, anyone can deliver a lot of planes when they give them away cheap to LCCs. The fact is the tail fell of a plane while a pilot was trying to stabilize an aircraft probably due to the fact the rudder pedals are way too sensitive. I think this scientist hired by federal investigators will conclude this. Fly whatever you please. I prefer Boeing. I would fly an old 707 before I fly a new Airbus.

AA is making the right move in phasing out Airbus, Airbus is strictly a LCC plane, the sooner the better. The future is a Boeing/Embraer fleet.

This is my first ever post on Airliners.net. Everybody is entitled their own thoughts and opinions, here are mine.

A couple of people in this thread have said that they believe design of the A300 is at fault and that AA should have withdrawn the type immediately following this tragic accident.

However, this would have left a hole in their fleet as the A300 is their highest capacity aircraft (250/251 seats) - their 777s seat less (224/245) and is considered to be "too much aircraft for the job", and their 763s seat less still (212) with less cargo capacity than the A300. The A300 is the perfect aircraft for the routes AA use it on - AA obviously thinks so as it is still in their fleet and is planned to be for a number of years yet to come.

To my knowledge, this is the only loss of an A300 which may be attributed to the rudder system. The sensitivity of the rudder system should not have had any adverse effect as the flight crew should be fully accustomed to the controls of their aircraft, just as people get accustomed to the controls of their cars. They should have known how much to move the rudder pedals to accomplish the response they wanted from the aircraft, and acted accordingly. Although panic could have caused over-reaction to the wake turbulence of the 744.

AA lost a DC-10 at Chicago in the 1970s. This was one of a number of accidents involving the DC-10, and resulted in the worldwide grounding of the fleet, yet AA did not dispose of its fleet. It even went ahead and purchased other DC-10 variants and the MD-11.

AA has built up a large fleet of 737s over recent years. The 737 is an aircraft with a history of accidents that have been attributed to the rudder control system, although none to my knowledge involving AA. Should AA withdraw the 737 from its fleet due to the concerns that have existed over its rudder design?

All aircraft type are at some point afflicted by a problem or tragedy, and this sometimes tragically means the loss of life.

As for "not liking the way Airbus are built" - it is exactly the same as any other current large transport aircraft: aluminium fuselage, aluminium wings, carbon fibre vertical tail and carbon horizontal tailplane. All held together with thousands of bolts and rivets, etc. There isn't a great deal of difference at all.

Airbus pioneered the use of carbon fibre in transport aircraft structure, other manufacturers have been forced to follow suit. Most, if not all modern commercial aircraft have composite tails and other composite parts. The American Airlines livery helps us identify the carbon tails as they are not polished metal, but painted grey. The 727s, DC-10s and 707s all had shiny metal tails, the current fleet all have grey tails.

If people feel so strongly against the use of composites in aircraft structures, then I would suggest that they avoid the 7E7 and any other designs that appear after it from whichever manufacturer because the use of composites is only going to increase. Would these people then rather take a more conventional aircraft such as the A300 or 737 to their destination than the 7E7, or will they be choosing another mode of transportation?

I'd feel as safe on an A300 as I would on a 737 or on any other aircraft for that matter. I am not going to blame Airbus or AA for the accident - there are experts paid to investigate events such as these and make judgments, and I feel that it should be left up to them.

Just my £0.02/$0.02

Re my prior post: I spoke too soon.

B752 fanatic writes...
"Whats AA waiting for another A300 accident?, they should had taken the A300 from their fleet days after the 587 accident."

PANIC!
The A300/A310's in the world have flown over 16 MILLION hours in their time.

Its a trusted proven design,and hardly any have gone down 'in anger'.

If thats your case, then lets ground all 737s in the process shall we, as far more have lost their lives in them, with various problems.

The evidence seems to point to AAs training, not the integrity of the airliner.

At 290 mph, a pilot who had begun to move the rudder need only add 10 pounds to the pedal to swing the rudder all the way to one side.

By comparison, the similar-sized Boeing 767 requires 63 pounds of additional pressure to move the rudder as far as possible.

Yes, but these statements are somewhat inaccurate or misleading as on both the B757 and A300, rudder movement is limited to 3.5 degrees left or right of center at high speed. High speed is considered 127 knots to above 410 knots for the Boeing, 165->395 for knots for the Airbus. At 290 Kts, approximately 7 degrees of rudder travel is available on the A300.

The rudder feel system on the B757 requires 72 pounds of force to move the rudder to full deflection. The A300 rudder feel needs 67.4 pounds for the same effect.

The real difference between the two aircraft is the rudder limiting system.

Airbus uses a variable stop actuator. In high speed, the rudder is limited to 3.5 degrees and the rudder pedal travel is limited to a few inches.

Boeing uses a rudder ratio changer. The rudder is limited, but full rudder pedal travel is still allowed.

The result in the airbus system is that available rudder deflection is arrived at much sooner, if you can push the pedal hard enough

EGNR: that was a pretty good first post...well articulated. i think for the most part, i agree with what you have, though i do have a few comments.

as a pilot, i do understand the point made about the rudder, perhaps more than a non-pilot might. but with just about anything mechanic, the more significant a problem becomes, the more effort we use to alleviate the problem. to me, it is counterintuitive for the a300/a310 to have a rudder system that requires a pilot, in what could be an already high-pressure situation, to use unnatural responses to counter the problem. it seems much more logical for the rudder system to require a progressive amount of pressure.

with that said, i do not see rudder pressure as being anything more than a nuisance. many things in flying are counterintuitive: anyone with an instrument rating will agree that relying on instruments requires the pilot to ignore information he/she is receiving from his/her body. therefore, if the a300 rudder system is that different, and this difference is known ahead of time, then the pilot operating the airplane should be properly trained to adapt to this.

what about the history of the particular plane? i recall a report that the plane had had a tail problem prior to the accident. also, there was mention that the plane went through more-than-normal wake turbulence. interesting that neither of these were mentioned in the article.

i certainly think the article mentioned some interesting points, but as i read it, i felt that it was written so as to set up a culprit or scapegoat. i am sure the tragedy was caused by a combination of factors, and hopefully, investigation will reveal the series of events that lead to the disaster. i do think that anything blamed now would be blamed prematurely.

One must pose the question, in all of the hours of Airbus A300 flights, why hasn't this happened before? I mean, you can't tell me that someone put the same inputs on the rudder in near to the same conditions before. It just seems odd that through all the years of Airbus A300 flights, this happened nearly 20 years later. In my opinion, the structural quality of the rudder and stabilizer must come into question as well as AA's maintenance practices.

In my opinion, the structural quality of the rudder and stabilizer must come into question as well as AA's maintenance practices.

The rudder performed within specified values. There was no structural problem.

[Edited 2004-02-07 04:14:17]

I remember a while back the USAToday reported that Airbus did not report an incident involving a American Airline A300. This happened a few years before the crash in New York. An AA A300 was flying from JFK to MIA and the tail fin almost came off. The plane almost crashed in the ocean, but thankfull it did not. However I do hope this does not turn into another Airbus vs. Boeing debate as I agree with EGNR that most planes are made pretty much the sameway.

God bless through Jesus,

Jeff

It´s hard to believe what people are saying here.

I don´t want to fly on a "foolproof" plane driven by fools;
I want to fly on a safe plane driven by professionals.

And everything that contributes to the plane being more safe and to the pilots being trained even better is progress in my book.

Is the rudder limiter a fair, but ultimately suboptimal solution for an engineering problem? Very likely.
Is it excusable that this "surprised" any pilots rated for the type? I don´t think so.

AAR90,

I wouldn't even try to argue from my side the specifics of the design of the system, however as you said it still must be decided whether a pilot rated on this type should be aware of such a characteristic of the aircraft handling or not i.e. is it a design flaw or not or is it a system characteristic?

Jeffrey1970,

Many people confuse aircraft manufacturer with aircraft operator. Once the aircraft is sold, the operator owns the aircraft i.e. the manufacturer no longer has control. If an incident had previously occurred, it is the responsibility of AA to report it, not Airbus. If Airbus is made aware of the incident by AA, then yes they must alert the authorities if they see the need.

Ultimately however, such reporting is the sole responsibility of the operator.

In the same manner, if the tail was damaged from a previous incident, the responsibility is within AA's domain. The only role the manufacturer plays is supporting AA actions, only if requested by the operator e.g. providing test and inspection methods, feedback on test results etc. Remember, Airbus cannot take an aircraft out of service, it can only recommend that an aircraft is taken out of service.

Have you ever heard of a freak accident. It usually occurs when no particular cause is evident, but can be identified by a chain of events or variables. To blame the pilots would be a shame because the level of experience they had achieved over the years. To blame maintenance puts all aircraft in AA's fleet at risk for potential failures. To blame the aircraft says no matter how good the pilots are, and how well the aircraft is maintained, the plane will crash. Could it be the pilot was a sleep at the wheel, maintenance didn't tighten a screw, and Airbus has no clue how they put together the some 3,000 or so planes they've made to date? Probably not. Crashes are not exacting. No one will want to take responsibility. The good news is ladies and gentlemen, we now know there is a problem. How do we prevent this accident in the future? Even if AA gets rid of the "Buses" some other carrier will have to deal with them. Fix'm now and have a clear conscious when you loose them. I'm already confident in AA's pilot training. The design of the "Buses" isn't a bad one. It's been stretched, shortened, lightened, weight increased, and updated like all other aircraft. Somewhere there is an answer. And not an easy one at that!

AA is making the right move in phasing out Airbus, Airbus is strictly a LCC plane, the sooner the better. The future is a Boeing/Embraer fleet.

They aren't phasing out the Airbus, and this is one of the stupidest statements I've ever read here. That's saying a LOT too.

The 737 had a fundamentally flawed rudder system, many people died. Make sure you don't get on a 737.

The DC-10 had an engine fall off on takeoff, and due to a combination of variables fell out of the sky basically overhead O'Hare. I'd avoid Douglas planes too, if I were you.

A 747 exploded for practically no reason overhead Jamaica Bay a few years back, remember? Avoid those like the plague.

It wasn't Airbus that didn't report the first incident on the same frame... it was AA. The plane was involved in severe turbulence that exceeded the maximum design limit of the stabilizer by over 100% on repeated and sustained occasions. People were injured and the plane had to declare emergency.

Airbus suggested that the fin be replaced, AA declined to do so. Its no wonder it snapped off under turbulent conditions with rapidly cycling periods of maximum deflection.

N

Gigneil,

Your statements are foolish. The rudder system on the 737 is fine, it was the first 737s that had a faulty servo valve. The new 737s are improved and are a great plane.

The DC-10 crash at O'Hare from what I know was maintaining related, had nothing to do with design.

TWA800 exploded over Great South Bay, not Jamaica. I hate to tell you but that 747 was shot down by a missile I believe. I don't care what any body says, the NTSB had a bunch of witnesses who saw it, including a Korean war pilot who was flying in the area and saw it as well. I refuse to believe that a short in a wire ignited the fumes in the center fuel tank. That's nonsense.

We will just have to wait and see what this Schenectady says, but I believe the tail was at fault, the sensitive rudder just added to the situation.

NIKV69,

You're right, the tail was at fault, however the majority of the blame will lie with AA.....subsequent testing of the materials of the fin revealed the tail failed at approx. its ultimate load.....as Gigneil said, Airbus previously recommended the tail be removed, AA decided not to follow this recommendation....remember, when the aircraft is delivered, it is no longer the property of Airbus, it is the property of the airline, and Airbus has relatively little say in how the plane is operated, maintained or flown......AA's rejection of the Airbus warning re their pilot training is another example of this.....

AA can attach another 7 engines and fly it upside down if they want, its their aircraft.

Wow, if AA knew the tail needed to be replaced after a previous incident and did not act on the advice to replace it then they of course are at fault. I hope for AA sake the ultimate ruling doesn't go against them. They don't need that press.

Widebody,

I believe the USAToday article that I read a while ago did say that Airbus was aware of the problem. Like I said I could be wrong though. I remember thinking at the time that it seemed like both American and Airbus should have reported the problem.

God bless through Jesus,

Jeff