AA Pilots Unsafe: Use Too Much Rudder! (Quote)

Birdwatching · Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:53 am

I found a pretty stupid article on the web. It states that flight 587 that crashed at JFK because the pilots used the rudders too much. How stupid is that.

http://aa587.blogspot.com/

steve6666 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:59 am

Have you any idea the can of worms you have just opened?

AMSSpotter · Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:10 am

It's not really an "article", it's a person ,who lost both his parents on that flight, summarizing why, according to the NTSB, AA587 came down.
The person sums up 3 reasons,
- Inadequate pilot training program by the American Airlines
- Flawed design of the rudder control system on all A300-600 model planes
- poor judgement by the pilot

I think your post doesn't reflect the full story...

gigneil · Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:14 am

His representation of the facts is quite accurate.

N

N766UA · Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:16 am

Seems to me the testimony of someone who lost loved ones in the crash would be a bit slanted...

gigneil · Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:27 am

Except that it isn't.

N

senorcarnival · Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:59 am

That's not really news at all. Allegedly, when the NTSB released the results of their investigation, they were already aware about excessive rudder control use in these aircrafts.

Newark777 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:02 am

A very simple explanation of a very complex crash, and one that is partially true.

Harry

N766UA · Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:11 am

Inadequate pilot training program by the American Airlines;
American trains pilots to extensively use the rudder. Nobody at American realizes that under certain conditions the forces on the rudder can far exceed what an airplane is designed to withstand. At the American Airlines they believe that no matter what you do in the air to the plane it should not break up.

Nobody at American realizes this? Not one person? And how in the heck does this guy know what American Airlines believes? Seems slanted to me.

GdJet16 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:43 am

It seems a bit unfair to claim that there is a problem with the AA training program. Having read the report, it seems that this INDIVIDUAL first officer had a habit of overusing the rudder.

I think if there was a problem with AA crew training, we would see more A300's failing?

bennett123 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:33 am

How do you know that he lost both parents in the crash.

ACDC8 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:37 am

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 10):
How do you know that he lost both parents in the crash.

Read the article:

In exactly 106 seconds after the take-off it went down over the Jamaica Bay and crashed in Belle Harbor area, Queens, NY, killing 260 people on the plane (including both of my parents) and 5 people on the ground.

Unless the author lied to make his argument more dramatic.

Cheers,
Patrick

bennett123 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:48 am

I really must learn to read ALL the words rather than skimming.

ACDC8 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:52 am

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 12):
I really must learn to read ALL the words rather than skimming.

Happens to me all the time too! Smile

Cheers,
Patrick

CORULEZ05 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:18 am

If I remember correctly, the NTSB report found that the first officer who was in control of the plane used too much rudder. That was not the only factor that caused the crash but it was part of it. You have to expect the family member of a victim to be bias and attack AA. However, if anyone bases what they have seen on the media, they will say that the first officer was at fault. As for the AA training, well it must not be that bad because thankfully no other A300 crashes have occurred. Maybe it was just this one person who was not fully prepared to fly the plane on his own.

monteycarlos · Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:22 am

Quoting Gdjet16 (Reply 9):
I think if there was a problem with AA crew training, we would see more A300's failing?

I think that if there were a problem with the A300 there would be more A300's failing. Sound's stupid but IMO thats what the investigation showed.

ThePinnacleKid · Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:35 am

Okay people... here is something else to throw into this debate... I personally have no problems with AA or their flight crew training. I feel this way even in light of NTSB "revelations" because of one thing often overlooked when reviewing this case.

Aircraft are flown by the speeds... Vmc, Vne, Vr, etc... One HUGE important speed is Va. Va is "maneuvering speed." What is meaningful about this is that according to the FAA, etc... when operating an aircraft AT or BELOW Va.. you can "use full and abrupt control movement without causing structural damage. Va occurs at the point where the curved line representing maximum positive lift capability intersects the maximum positive load factor limit. (referencing a V-G diagram) At this speed (Va), a load in excess of X Gs will result in a stall. Above this speed, G loads may cause structural damage before a stall occurs." It also states that, "Design maneuvering speed, which decreases with total weight of the aircraft, appears in your POH or on a placard." All of this info is straight from my Instrument/Commercial text book I used for training from Jeppesen.

I personally have no first hand knowledge as to the Va general range for the A300.. however, AOPA Pilot January 2003 article stated "What is disturbing is that the indicated airspeed was about 255 knots, which is well below the design maneuvering speed of 273 KIAS for the Airbus. According to conventional, but perhaps flawed, wisdom the aircraft should have held together."

So to me, it is unjust to place any fault on the crews shoulders. Under EVERYTHING they had been taught, they could have and Should have been able to use full and abrupt control deflection and caused NO harm to the plane if in fact they were below Va.

-Chris

[Edited 2005-04-16 04:35:51]

AirWillie6475 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:38 am

"It states that flight 587 that crashed at JFK because the pilots used the rudders too much. How stupid is that."

It's not stupid at all since that was a major reason why the flight crashed. There is no reason why a pilot of a heavy jet should be using heavy rudder unless landing at a safe speed.

flymia · Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:50 pm

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 17):
It's not stupid at all since that was a major reason why the flight crashed. There is no reason why a pilot of a heavy jet should be using heavy rudder unless landing at a safe speed

The airplane was below maximum maneuvering speed (Va) it should have been completely safe but it was not. I was both pilot error and mechanical fault on the A300 rudder design.

Birdwatching: Its not a stupid article that is the reason AA 587 crashed. What did you think the reason was?

[Edited 2005-04-16 05:51:15]

bravo7e7 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:56 pm

Quoting Birdwatching (Thread starter):
It states that flight 587 that crashed at JFK because the pilots used the rudders too much. How stupid is that.

You are kidding, right? It is so stupid that it is the TRUTH! It did crash because the pilot DID use too much rudder, while trying to stabalize the plane.

bravo7e7 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:59 pm

From article:
Flight 587's co-pilot, Sten Molin, used the rudder in an overly aggressive manner as he reacted to turbulence from the wake of a larger jet that had taken off earlier from the same runway, the NTSB said. His actions with the rudder, a movable panel on the tail that pushes the jet's nose left or right, sent the jet skidding back and forth in the air.

http://www.slackdavis.com/news_artic...964/argname/back_link/argval/index

zotan · Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:03 pm

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 17):
It's not stupid at all since that was a major reason why the flight crashed. There is no reason why a pilot of a heavy jet should be using heavy rudder unless landing at a safe speed.

Unless you are actually a "pilot of a heavy jet" or a structural engineer I doubt you should be making this statement. Like Chris just said, everything the pilots were taught is that they can make full and abrupt control movement under Va, which they were.

[Edited 2005-04-16 06:05:14]

nudelhirsch · Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:05 pm

The Airfram was in climb, not "en route", and it did not crash "in" 106 seconds, rather "after" 106 seconds.
If it was about TWA800 or 9-11 a blog with that poor wording would be killed here as a conspiracy theory.

VC-10 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:34 pm

The problem was that the PF used 5 full rudder deflections L/R/L etc. This did not allow the stress induced into the structure with each deflection to dissipate. The loads just built up until the Vert Stab failed at load in EXCESS of its designed fail load and FAA regs.

N867BX · Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:34 pm

Quoting Gdjet16 (Reply 9):
It seems a bit unfair to claim that there is a problem with the AA training program

Not to bash training or operating manuals of American, BUT, training and operating manuals/checklists was considered one of the factors leading to the DC10 crash in 1979 at ORD. Operating manuals/checklists and training can actually vary quite a bit for different airlines operating the same aircraft. Not to say one is right and one is wrong, its simply a difference of opinion as to what is the best course of action in certain situation. Another example of this would be the Swissair MD11 crash, perhaps another airline might have stressed LANDING THE PLANE WHEN IT IS ON FIRE, rather than going thru a rather lengthily checklist then deciding to dump fuel first. Of course we have the benefit of hinesight when talking about crashes that have happened. The airlines don't have this unless they are operating 30+ year old aircraft. After 30 years anything and everything has already happened to the aircraft. God I do love old airplanes.

NWA · Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:40 pm

Well, IF the plane was Below Va, how can you blame the PF? However, I have heard people in the fourm say that Va in an airliner is a little differnt than GA, but maybe he/I am wrong. BUT, if it is true, how can one blame the PF?

gothamspotter · Sat Apr 16, 2005 4:01 pm

I'll preface this by saying I hate conspiracy theories and I do not belive 587 was downed by terrorists. That said, there will always be questions about what really caused Flight 587 to fall out of the sky. Given New York's and the nation's mindset only 2 months and 1 day after the 9/11 attacks, the local and federal governments had to immediately eliminate any public belief that 587's demise was anything but an accident. And that's precisely what they did, the mayor said so immediately and the NTSB commissioner said so within a couple of hours, without having even looked at the evidence. Had they not, the airline industry would have essentially disintegrated within a few weeks, and the mini-exodus that NYC experienced would have been much larger. After making statements like that, they had to stick with it no matter what.

AirWillie6475 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 4:54 pm

"Unless you are actually a "pilot of a heavy jet" or a structural engineer I doubt you should be making this statement. Like Chris just said, everything the pilots were taught is that they can make full and abrupt control movement under Va, which they were."

My statement was made by a captain that I talked to last year about this crash. The captain said he never uses the rudder unless he's landing because you don't need to.

astuteman · Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:21 pm

Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 18):
I was both pilot error and mechanical fault on the A300 rudder design.

Not correct.

Quoting VC-10 (Reply 23):
The loads just built up until the Vert Stab failed at load in EXCESS of its designed fail load and FAA regs.

Correct.

If you read the reports, and look at photographs taken at the time, not only did the rudder comfortably exceed it's design fail loading, but it was actually the TITANIUM fastening system at the base of the rudder that failed.

bennett123 · Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:45 pm

I remember taking a "flight" on the EAL L1011 simulator in September 2000.

The Simulator Technician saying only to use the rudder for manoevering on the ground.

The leaflet provided by the trip organiser, who presumably obtained the information from EAL, because they are basicly travel agents reads as follows:

"In an airliner, the rudder is used to keep the aircraft straight on the runway during take off and landing, and works in much the same way as the rudder on a boat. This movement is known as yaw. In a light aircraft the rudder is used with the aileron to turn the aircraft, but in a large airliner you will find that it is not normally moved in flight. If used on its own in flight it would soon make your passengers feel very uncomfortable - it would be like skidding around every corner at very fast speeds".

Apart from the fact that this was published before AA587(which means that it is not with the benefit of hindsight),IMO it raises several useful points. Firstly that flying an airliner is not like flying a Cessna, but with more buttons. Secondly, the emphasis on useing ailerons rather than rudder in flight and finally the risk over overcontrolling and hence needing to correct and then re-correct which is basicly what happened.

Adria · Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:58 pm

Quoting Birdwatching (Thread starter):
I found a pretty stupid article on the web. It states that flight 587 that crashed at JFK because the pilots used the rudders too much. How stupid is that.

Actually it's one of the reasons why the aircraft crashed so it is far from being stupid.

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 21):
Unless you are actually a "pilot of a heavy jet" or a structural engineer I doubt you should be making this statement. Like Chris just said, everything the pilots were taught is that they can make full and abrupt control movement under Va, which they were.

This may be but in wake or heavy turbulence you cannot just do with the controls what you want and you don't have to be an airline pilot to know that.

patrickj · Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:02 pm

First:
You only use the rudder on a transport airplane on takeoff and landing (and then only to align the nose of the aircraft with the runway), or in the event of an engine failure. Otherwise it is flown "feet flat on the floor" and you let the yaw damper system take care of any adverse yaw.

Second:
The pilot in question DID overstressed the vertical fin attach points by "aggressive use of the rudder to counteract adverse yaw induced by wake turbulence". He screwed up, period.

Third:
I don't think American trains its pilots to use the rudder like that, this guy slipped through the cracks. I've been through 5 different airline training programs and none of them included using the rudder like this in any way.

Fourth:
It was not the titanium that failed but the composite that the titanium attached to. It is the same attachment fitting Airbus uses on the A300, 330 and 340. American's inspection and maintenance procedures were flawed, as were their procedures on the DC-10 in ORD in 79.

Fifth:
If the flight had not taken off too close to a departing B747, and if the vertical fin had received the proper inspection and maintenance, and if the F/O had not used the rudder this may have been avoided. Crashes are a series of errors (human usually) that string together. American is no more flawed than any other airline.

Geo772 · Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:26 am

Quoting Patrickj (Reply 31):
Fourth:
It was not the titanium that failed but the composite that the titanium attached to. It is the same attachment fitting Airbus uses on the A300, 330 and 340. American's inspection and maintenance procedures were flawed, as were their procedures on the DC-10 in ORD in 79.

This sort of accident is less likely to happen on the 330 or 340 because of the extensive flight envelope protection in the flight computer software. The aircraft itself will control the flight through turbulence rather than the pilot.

As it is, especially on older aircraft types the autopilot systems had a turbulence mode which reduced the abruptness of control surface deflection the allow the aircraft to ride the turbulence. This significantly reduces the fatigue stress on the airframe.

patrickj · Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:00 am

To reply to Geo 772:

On the A330 and the A340 the rudder is the only flight control with a direct connection from the control surface to the flight deck. As for the auto pilot to dampen control surface deflection and give a smoother ride through turbulence, it must be engaged to do so. This may or may not be the case shortly after takeoff and on a complex departure routing such as would be experienced out of JFK. The turbulence mode on the older auto pilots would half the control input but only if it was engaged and if the pilot put it into the turbulence mode.

Even in a fly-by-wire aircraft if the auto flight system is not engaged through the mode control panel the pilot is in direct law and must control the aircraft him/her self. In this mode flight envelope protection is provided but only so the aircraft does not exceed pitch and or roll limits as well as "g" load limits.

In addition flight through the wake produced by a 747 on takeoff is much different that flight through turbulence.

LY4XELD · Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:04 am

All this and yet isn't it strangely coincidental that there was an Air Transat A300 that lost its rudder completely in the middle of March? Then the FAA mandated that the rudders be checked? If it was pilot error, why would they suddenly focus attention on the rudders and not the flight crew? It doesn't appear that all of the blame lies in the hands of the airline.

Starlionblue · Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:04 am

Quoting Birdwatching (Thread starter):
I found a pretty stupid article on the web. It states that flight 587 that crashed at JFK because the pilots used the rudders too much. How stupid is that.

http://aa587.blogspot.com/

As has been said, not very stupid.

I would add that the fin was found to actually be stronger that what was needed for certification.

If 1.0 represents the maximum strain expected in service, and 1.5 represents the certification requirement, IIRC the A300B4-600(R) fin can take up to about 1.57.

So there is little doubt the fin itself was strong enough. Pilot and control systems are another thing.

LuckyEddie · Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:27 am

Quoting Patrickj (Reply 31):
If the flight had not taken off too close to a departing B747, and if the vertical fin had received the proper inspection and maintenance, and if the F/O had not used the rudder this may have been avoided. Crashes are a series of errors (human usually) that string together.

Exactly. It is human nature to want to pidgeonhole matters like this and come up with one simple explanation that everyone can understand but life is not like that. Take out any one of the factors and there is no accident.

As far as use of rudder in a large aircraft is concerned, to me it is just common sense to be gentle with inputs at high speeds regardless of the exact value of Va. I do not regard 250 Kts when Va is 270 to be "significantly below" Va, in fact I would say it is far too close to test pilot territory for me to be fooling around with. I think the concept of Va has been taken too literally by many people reading this report.

Quoting Steve6666 (Reply 1):
Have you any idea the can of worms you have just opened?

Indeed.

bennett123 · Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:30 am

LY4XELD

They may have maintenance concerns, however we shall see.

patrickj · Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:44 am

Quoting LuckyEddie (Reply 36):

Quoting LuckyEddie (Reply 36):
As far as use of rudder in a large aircraft is concerned, to me it is just common sense to be gentle with inputs at high speeds regardless of the exact value of Va. I do not regard 250 Kts when Va is 270 to be "significantly below" Va, in fact I would say it is far too close to test pilot territory for me to be fooling around with. I think the concept of Va has been taken too literally by many people reading this report.

Lucky Eddie has hit on a point here. Va for a transport aircraft not a relavent speed. What is relavent is turbulent air penetration speed which is a function of IAs and or Mach. This is usually around 280 kts/.80M on most of the transports I've flown and as the A300 was below 10,000 feet and therefore at or below 250 Kts. Va is not a factor in the equation.

LMP737 · Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:32 am

Quoting Patrickj (Reply 31):
American's inspection and maintenance procedures were flawed, as were their procedures on the DC-10 in ORD in 79.

There was nothing wrong with American's inspection and maintenance procedures in regards to AA587. In the findings section of the NTSB report you will find this "The accident airplane was properly maintained and dispatched in accordance with Federal regulation."

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/presentations/04_materials.pdf

In the above materials presentation you will notice that "No evidence of preexisting damage was observed." This means there was no preexisting condition for AA's M&E department to miss. Nor was there any fatigue in the materials in question.

Aaron747 · Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:59 am

As far as use of rudder in a large aircraft is concerned, to me it is just common sense to be gentle with inputs at high speeds regardless of the exact value of Va. I do not regard 250 Kts when Va is 270 to be "significantly below" Va, in fact I would say it is far too close to test pilot territory for me to be fooling around with. I think the concept of Va has been taken too literally by many people reading this report.

On the contrary, the significance of Va is treated by most flight instructors as that of the gospel - a magic number with only a little wiggle room above and below the actual value. The category of aircraft isn't really at issue with regard to Va - and to suggest that only turbulent air penetration speed is important with transport category aircraft is to be in denial of the fundamental principle of varying control input extremity in *any* aircraft given a specific flight condition. Many aerodynamicists have written in postscript to AA587 that the whole philosophy behind the teaching and understanding of what Va really means should be re-evaluated.

VC-10 · Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:07 am

Quoting Patrickj (Reply 33):
Even in a fly-by-wire aircraft if the auto flight system is not engaged through the mode control panel the pilot is in direct law and must control the aircraft him/her self.

This is incorrect. Once the a/c (A330/340) becomes airborne the Flt mode laws are blended in without any input from the pilots.

milan320 · Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:46 am

Quoting Patrickj (Reply 33):
Even in a fly-by-wire aircraft if the auto flight system is not engaged through the mode control panel the pilot is in direct law and must control the aircraft him/her self. In this mode flight envelope protection is provided but only so the aircraft does not exceed pitch and or roll limits as well as "g" load limits.

I don't know about other FBW aircraft, but on the FBW Airbus, but this is completely innaccurate. Direct Law is after mutlitiple system failures.
Here's a description of Airbus' Direct Law:

Direct law is the lowest level of computer flight control and occurs with certain multiple failures.
·Pilot control inputs are transmitted unmodified to the control surfaces, providing a direct relationship between sidestick and control surface.
·Control sensitivity depends on airspeed and NO autotrimming is available.
·An amber message USE MAN PITCH TRIM appears on the PFD.
·If the flight controls degrade to Alternate Law, Direct Law automatically becomes active when the landing gear is extended if no autopilots are engaged. If an autopilot is engaged, the airplane will remain in Alternate Law until the autopilot is disconnected.
·There are no protections provided in Direct Law, however overspeed and stall aural warnings are provided.
·The PFD airspeed scale remains the same as in Alternate Law.

For more information on the different laws see the following link:
http://www.airbusdriver.net/FlightLaws.doc

/Milan320

gigneil · Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:58 am

Quoting N766UA (Reply 8):

Nobody at American realizes this? Not one person? And how in the heck does this guy know what American Airlines believes? Seems slanted to me.

He quoted the NTSB report. Hardly slanted, don't you think?

Quoting Patrickj (Reply 33):
On the A330 and the A340 the rudder is the only flight control with a direct connection from the control surface to the flight deck.

Only on pre-2002 A330s and A340s.

Post-2002 A330s and A340-300s as well as all A340-500s and -600s have FBW rudder control.

N

fabio777 · Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:11 am

All:

Here is a link to an interesting article on "The Myth of Maneuvering Speed:"

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=527

fabio777

ThePinnacleKid · Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:19 am

Which gets back to my point... how can you fault the flight crew when in reality with everything they/we all were taught, the plane shouldn't have snapped. It gets back to the need to re-evaluate how we teach and what we teach about Va. I still would not fault the crew with being abusive. On a side note, wake turbulence isn't a sunday stroll or normal bumpy air turbulence, its a violent affair and the pilots were engaging in an equally violent maneuver in order to get out of the emerency situation they were in. Without being in the situation it is hardly the place to place a judgment on their use of anything. Pointing fingers in a negative tone does nothing constructive. The best thing to do is to learn what happened and retrain in order to prevent similar accidents. May all involved rest in peace.

And as far as use of rudder is concerned, feet flat on floor isn't just for heavy transports, even in light piston twins you often fly feet flat... only time I ever really use rudder is when teaching maneuvers like Vmc demo, Single engine ops, etc.... other than that, there really isn't that much of a need in NORMAL flight regimes. Back to AA crash, I wouldn't consider this a normal flight regime, so all bars on tactics are pretty much off, you do what you need to do to survive. Under conventional wisdom, they should have had a plane in one piece after the rudder inputs...

LuckyEddie · Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:03 am

Does anyone have a copy of "Handling the big jets" handy. It will be a couple of weeks before I am reunited with mine. I would be interested to see what Mr. Davis writes about Va. I do not place much significance in Mclellans writing on this subject, I think he should have got Peter Garrison to write the article. That would be worth reading.

NAV20 · Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:08 am

Quoting ThePinnacleKid (Reply 45):
its a violent affair and the pilots were engaging in an equally violent maneuver in order to get out of the emerency situation they were in

Good point, PinnacleKid - in fact they were only at 1,300 feet and being thrown into twenty-degree banks by the turbulence.

I hope that the case of the Air Transat aeroplane that lost its rudder last month while cruising on autopilot at 35,000 feet (presumably with the rudder not in use at all except by the 'yaw damper') will cause a re-examination of how far Sten Molin (the First Officer of AA 587 Heavy) may actually have been to blame.

The Cockpit Voice Recorder from 587 Heavy shows that the whole thing hppened in split seconds. At (time) 0915.48.2, after negotiating the first vortex, the aeroplane seems to have been flying normally - Molin was apparently re-trimming and calmly asking for power for 250KIAS (the limit below 10,000 feet) - "Two-fifty thank you."

At 0915.51 the aircraft hit the second vortex. At 0915.51.8 a thump was heard, followed by others - and by 0915.54.2 they were clearly in deep trouble - "Max power" (spoken in strained voice).

If, as seems likely, the thumps were the rudder and fin parting company, 0.8 of a second is simply not enough time for Sten Molin to have applied a number of full-travel rudder oscillations, which is what he is claimed to have done.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cvr011112.htm

Sadly, the transcript also shows that he was worried at the outset about lack of separation from the previous takeoff - "You happy with that distance?" - and was overruled by the Captain.

[Edited 2005-04-17 03:10:45]

[Edited 2005-04-17 03:13:21]

LuckyEddie · Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:17 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 47):
I hope also that the case of the Air Transat aeroplane that lost its rudder last month while cruising on autopilot at 35,000 feet (presumably with the rudder not in use at all except by the 'yaw damper') will cause a re-examination of how far Sten Molin (the First Officer of AA 587 Heavy) may actually have been to blame.

I think it unlikely that the Airtransat incident has anything to do with this issue. The Airtransat Rudder itself failed, nothing to do with the structure which failed on the AA flight. Circumstances were entirely different too. It is a worrying incident but I just don't think it has any relevance to AA597.

monteycarlos · Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:18 am

Quoting VC-10 (Reply 23):
The problem was that the PF used 5 full rudder deflections L/R/L etc. This did not allow the stress induced into the structure with each deflection to dissipate. The loads just built up until the Vert Stab failed at load in EXCESS of its designed fail load and FAA regs.

Thats the way I read the report. Everything else said in here seems to be pure speculation.

Quoting LY4XELD (Reply 34):
All this and yet isn't it strangely coincidental that there was an Air Transat A300 that lost its rudder completely in the middle of March?

It was an A310, and the details of that are still being investigated but in this case, the rudder was actually seperated from the vertical stabiliser whereas the vertical stabiliser and rudder seperated on AA587.

Quoting LY4XELD (Reply 34):
Then the FAA mandated that the rudders be checked? If it was pilot error, why would they suddenly focus attention on the rudders and not the flight crew?

They mandated that the rudders be checked, yes. Not the attachments of the vertical stabiliser. No link to the AA587 incident.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net