AA A300 Crash On National Geographic Tonight.

JAM747 · Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:38 am

I am not sure if this is a repeat program, but tonight at 9pm EST National Geographic Channel will have the AA A300 crash featured on their 'Seconds From Disaster' series. It will be interesting to see the different angles to causes of this disaster. I hope it will be very detailed and un-biased. I know this crash has been discussed on here before but I am sure some fellow members on here would like to see this program.

nkops · Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:41 am

Damn basic cable!!!! hissyfit

ciccone · Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:45 am

According to my Dish Network Programming guide, it is a new episode.

tsaord · Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:10 am

Thanks. I just tuned in it's on commercial. I shouldn't be watching this but, I can't help it. Information on stuff like this is interesting but at the same time I still have a fear of flying because planes crash.

Dtw757 · Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:20 am

Thanks, I was just looking for something to watch! Did the airplane actually spin end for end out of control like they just showed?

tsaord · Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:44 am

I don't think so. From things I have read it nose dived. God Almighty

wilax · Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:50 am

It comes on again 3 hours later. I'm gonna tivo it then. There's also an episode coming up about the Pentagon on 9/11 Thursday at 9:00pm PDT.

JAM747 · Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:51 am

Commercial break. I Did not realise that they actually caught part of this flight on film from a camera on the Tri Boro Bridge. I am sure by the end of the program some of us will learn more. I notice they have more pictures of B767s, and 757s than the A300. However only a A.netter would notice that.

thebry · Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:59 am

Excellent! I'm not home, but am going to remote schedule it so TiVO will catch it for me on my way home.

jaysit · Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:01 am

Quoting Tsaord (Reply 5):
I don't think so. From things I have read it nose dived. God Almighty

No, it didn't. Read the NTSB Report.

It spun out of control and planed into the ground.

Its a relatively well made film, except for the usual business of substituting 767s, 777s, 757s for the A300B6 at various points in the film. The aircraft they show on the takeoff roll is a 767, but at least the computer generated graphics showing the actual crash depict an A300B6.

kc135topboom · Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:11 am

Quoting JAM747 (Thread starter):
I hope it will be very detailed and un-biased.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 9):
No, it didn't. Read the NTSB Report.

It spun out of control and planed into the ground.

Yes, the aircraft did flat spin into the ground, not a nose dive. The graphics do show the airplane spinning with no engines, or vertical tail. But, I read their depiction is based on the US State department revised NTSB report. Not to open up an old discussion, but this is the version that blames the tail seperation on the co-pilot cycling the rudder.

tsaord · Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:17 am

Interesting. Someone once told me the chances of survival are increased if the plane doesn't crash nose first. Maybe thats just a myth. R.I.P all who died.

KL808 · Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:22 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Not to open up an old discussion, but this is the version that blames the tail seperation on the co-pilot cycling the rudder.

what is the other version?

Isn't this version the final version, ie close of investigation?

Drew

socalfive · Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:32 am

WOuld love to see it, however, thanks to Time-Warner cable the National Geographic Channel was moved out of my expanded basic package and moved into a higher digital channel that requires a package upgrade. I declined after having a long heated chat with those assholes as it was one of my favorite channels. So, if you have a choice between Time-Warner cable and ANY OTHER GD option, take the other option, I've never seen worse service or attitude than I have with Time Warner. Ok, rant over.

comorin · Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:35 am

Quoting KL808 (Reply 12):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Not to open up an old discussion, but this is the version that blames the tail separation on the co-pilot cycling the rudder.

Not so simple. In the TV program, some of the blame is placed with AA's pilot training program that calls for aggressive use of rudder to recover from unusual attitudes. This training was triggered during the first encounter with the wake from the JAL747 ahead. While the initial deflection took the aircraft out of the turbulence field, the oscillation from the extreme deflection led the pilots to think that they were still battling turbulence. This disorientation led to successive (5) extreme applications of rudder that eventually led to rudder separation.

They also pointed out that rudder deflection increases with speed for a given rudder input. At 297 knots, a one-inch rudder application resulted in a complete deflection, as contrasted with a four-inch application at rest.

So was this Pilot Error, Training Error, Human Factors or aircraft Design Error?

JAM747 · Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:47 am

This situation kind of reminds me of someone over steering a car when it gets in a skid thus escalating the situation while trying to correct it. It is very unfortunate that this accident occured.

kc135topboom · Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:00 pm

Quoting KL808 (Reply 12):
what is the other version?

Isn't this version the final version, ie close of investigation?

Drew

AA has a dispute about the final NTSB report, I believe they are going to challange it in court.

Quoting Tsaord (Reply 11):
Interesting. Someone once told me the chances of survival are increased if the plane doesn't crash nose first.

Survival factors in any airplane accident depend on the a tremendous number of factors that are unique to that individual accident. There is no one or two facts that garantee survival.

Quoting Comorin (Reply 14):
So was this Pilot Error, Training Error, Human Factors or aircraft Design Error?

The terms Pilot Error and Training Error are different, If the pilot was trained to react a certain way, and that caused the accident, it is a training error, not a pilot error.

This is the road I didn't want to go down. The "Official NTSB Report" sites both pilot error and training error as the cause of this accident, aircraft design was a contributing factor.

AA maintanes a position that accident was cause by a poor aircraft design. They actually have a case hear to argue in court, if it ever gets that far. This AA A-300-605R was not the first aircraft to ever encounter wake turbalance from a B-747-400, nor has it been the last. This type of wake turbalance happens almost every day, before and since this accident. Yet, it was only the A-300 design that was not able to survive the rudder inputs by the pilot, if that was the cause of the fin seperation. Pilots stomp on rudders all the time.

stlgph · Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:02 pm

It's on again now. 11pm central time. 12am. eastern time.

skyharborshome · Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:07 pm

Thought it was well done. I had already seen one program on the accident but this one did a much better job. Glad that they fully explained where the fault really lies and not just with agressive rudder usage by the co-pilot.

columba · Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:31 pm

I have seen a report once here and they were interviewing AA pilots who refused to fly further on the A300 because it is a "death trap" this does not happen to be the same report ?

Lumberton · Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:47 pm

Quoting Columba (Reply 19):
have seen a report once here and they were interviewing AA pilots who refused to fly further on the A300 because it is a "death trap" this does not happen to be the same report ?

No, not this show. I thought it treated the accident fairly.

Zed · Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:04 pm

Quoting Comorin (Reply 14):
(In the TV program...) They also pointed out that rudder deflection increases with speed for a given rudder input. At 297 knots, a one-inch rudder application resulted in a complete deflection, as contrasted with a four-inch application at rest.

This should read "decreases with speed" - the model I am familiar with has a rudder travel limiter that allows 30 dgrees of rudder travel below 165 kts, and linearly reduces it to 3.5 degrees at 308 kts. Easy to reverse the function when typing, but would be interesting if National Geographic got it backwards in the show. I don't receive that channel. Can someone verify their reporting?

comorin · Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:22 am

[quote=Zed,reply=21]This should read "decreases with speed" - the model I am familiar with has a rudder travel limiter that allows 30 dgrees of rudder travel below 165 kts, and linearly reduces it to 3.5 degrees at 308 kts. Easy to reverse the function when typing, but would be interesting if National Geographic got it backwards in the show. I don't receive that channel. Can someone verify their reporting?

Just to be clear on what I saw/heard on the show:

They had an animation of rudder input, where they showed the pilot flooring the rudder - the travel was 4" and they said it resulted in a full deflection. They also graphically depicted how this input became more sensitive at higher speeds, where a 1'' input resulted in the same deflection. Commonsense tells me that it should be the other way around, but I'm not an expert.

Now that's what I thought I saw! Like you suggest, perhaps another viewer could verify one way or the other...

sv2008 · Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:37 am

Shouldn't the computers limit the rudder movement automatically, or vary the movement depending on the airspeed?

Maybe I've missed the point on this, but I don't see how it could be 'excessive' if it wasn't allowed to move too much.

AirbusBoeing · Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:44 am

Quoting Comorin (Reply 22):
Just to be clear on what I saw/heard on the show:

They had an animation of rudder input, where they showed the pilot flooring the rudder - the travel was 4" and they said it resulted in a full deflection. They also graphically depicted how this input became more sensitive at higher speeds, where a 1'' input resulted in the same deflection. Commonsense tells me that it should be the other way around, but I'm not an expert.

Now that's what I thought I saw! Like you suggest, perhaps another viewer could verify one way or the othe

What they should have mentioned perhaps is that the effect of 1" deflection at high speeds is the same as that of 4" deflection at low speeds

DL777Dude · Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:36 am

Quoting Airbusboeing (Reply 24):
What they should have mentioned perhaps is that the effect of 1" deflection at high speeds is the same as that of 4" deflection at low speeds

That's what I understood from watching the documentary.

This was an excellent documentary in my opinion. NatGeo rocks!

af773atmsp · Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:51 am

I watched it. I missed the ending but I got up at 11:30 a.m. to see the ending. It was very interesting.

af773atmsp · Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:57 am

Scrath a.m. Actually p.m. Embarrassment

airfrance · Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:51 am

Shoot it says on my TV guide that another show is on instead of the AA A300 crash. Can you tell me another channel it is on because the discovery channel on my TV is 25. If there is another channel tell me.

Thanks All!

texasaggie · Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:14 am

Quoting Nkops (Reply 1):
Damn basic cable!!!!

I feel you Sad

David L · Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:24 am

Quoting Sv2008 (Reply 23):
Shouldn't the computers limit the rudder movement automatically, or vary the movement depending on the airspeed?

The A300 and A310 aren't Fly By Wire.

phxtravelboy · Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:27 am

I checked my programming guide for Nat'l Geo and it shows something called "Crash Science" tonight. I don't show this show at all.

Jpax · Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:28 am

I only caught a few minutes of the program, will have to catch it another time. From the small bit I saw, it seemed fairly decent.

Quoting Af773atmsp (Reply 26):
watched it. I missed the ending but I got up at 11:30 a.m. to see the ending. It was very interesting.

Hah, you make it sound terrible to have to wake up at 11:30 scratchchin

Zed · Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:43 am

Quoting Sv2008 (Reply 23):
Shouldn't the computers limit the rudder movement automatically, or vary the movement depending on the airspeed?

Quoting David L (Reply 30):
The A300 and A310 aren't Fly By Wire.

True, they aren't Fly By Wire, but most transports have computer controlled rudder travel or rudder load limiters, including B757, 767, A300, A310. The Rudder Travel Limiter discussed in replies 21 - 25 above limits rudder travel automatically, depending on airspeed.

David L · Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:09 am

Quoting Zed (Reply 33):
but most transports have computer controlled rudder travel or rudder load limiters

Ah, I tripped myself up there. Smile

sv2008 · Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:17 am

Quoting Comorin (Reply 22):
where a 1'' input resulted in the same deflection. Commonsense tells me that it should be the other way around, but I'm not an expert.

A lesser input is going to result into a higher output at at a higher increased airspeed. Not quite sure how it could 'be the other way around' but I might have miss understood your post.

I'm no expert on aviation controls, but I have studied Automotive Control systems for university so I've assumed similar rules apply.

I could well be wrong, so please don't take this as I'm saying it's correct, because i'm not sure.

ContinentalAUS · Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:49 am

My parents are too cheap to get anything more than basic cable. If I had NGC, I would definitely watch it- it's my favorite show. Sucks.

comorin · Fri Sep 08, 2006 10:37 am

Quoting Sv2008 (Reply 35):
A lesser input is going to result into a higher output at at a higher increased airspeed. Not quite sure how it could 'be the other way around' but I might have miss understood your post.

I'm no expert on aviation controls, but I have studied Automotive Control systems for university so I've assumed similar rules apply.

Sorry to confuse the issue ( I'm no expert either). I would imagine that in any control system you would want the feedback to be proportional to the force 'felt' by the component. Since the forces on a rudder will be higher at higher speeds, it should be harder for the operator to deflect the rudder by the same amount.

Wouldn't this be similar to variable-assist power steering, or am I using a bad example?

Thanks.

AAFan · Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:19 pm

I finally got a chance to watch this tonight on Tivo. Another great "Seconds From Disaster" documentary by National Geographic. In the last month I've watched several of these shows including one on the Tenerife crash, the Concorde crash, the Ethiopian Airlines 767 crash into shallow water, the El Al Cargo 747 crash in Amsterdam, and the British Midland 737-400 crash in England. All were well done and seem to be unbiased in their conclusions.

Looking forward to more great episodes of "Seconds From Disaster."

JAM747 · Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:26 pm

I thought the analyisis of the tail fin and the composite structure was pretty interesting. It makes me wonder if there has ever been any other crash where the tail fin tore off because of the pilot stomping on the rudder. Also it was the first time that I heard that other pilots who previously flew with the co-plot flying actually spoke about how he used used the rudder.

justplanes · Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:07 pm

Interesting program and well done...
One comment...
Why show pretty much all Boeing footage during the program...
To some degree I'll buy the 737, 757, 777 air to air footage... but when they show the taxi and takeoff from JFK... why a 767!

Zed · Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:56 pm

Quoting Comorin (Reply 22):
They had an animation of rudder input, where they showed the pilot flooring the rudder - the travel was 4" and they said it resulted in a full deflection. They also graphically depicted how this input became more sensitive at higher speeds, where a 1'' input resulted in the same deflection.

At low speed (below 165kts), 4" pedal travel results in full deflection of the rudder surface: 30 deg.

At 250 kts, 1" pedal travel results in full deflection of the rudder surface, but the rudder travel limiter defines "full deflection" as approx. 9 deg of rudder surface.

This is a variable stop limiter, where the faster you go - the more restricted your pedal movement (hence rudder movement). It feels more responsive / sensitive at speed, as a full 4" of pedal travel might require, e.g. 75 lb of force, whereas 1" of travel at high speed would require less pedal force.

Another type of limiter is the variable ratio - (used on, for example, the B757/767). With this system you would get 4" pedal travel at all speeds, but the ratio of rudder suface movement to pedal travel decreases with speed. It doesn't feel as sensitive because the same 75 lb is needed to achieve the same 4" of travel at any speed - you just get less rudder for your input.

-I'll 'fess up: I verify control "feel" integrity of several flight simulators including an A300 as part of my job. Apologies for taking the discussion technical... I know we have a proper forum for that.

RIHNOSAUR · Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:01 pm

Quoting AAFan (Reply 38):
I finally got a chance to watch this tonight on Tivo. Another great "Seconds From Disaster" documentary by National Geographic.

hi, you say you have it on tivo....I dont have the Nat Geographic channel.....or tivo...so I always miss these very interesting documentaries....

is there a chance you can burn that on a CD???? eyebrow

I am just trying to find a way to see the darn thing....

cheers

Lucky42 · Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:06 pm

Quoting Zed (Reply 33):
The Rudder Travel Limiter discussed in replies 21 - 25 above limits rudder travel automatically, depending on airspeed.

That's true however it usually limits rudder with speed. At takeoff or landing most airplanes have full rudder authority.

wukka · Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:12 pm

Quoting Comorin (Reply 37):
Wouldn't this be similar to variable-assist power steering, or am I using a bad example?

That's an excellent example to compare.

The problem is that the A300-B6 apparently operates on the inverse of that.

Press on the pedal 4" on the ground at standstill = full physical defelection

Press on the pedal 1.5" at 270 mph = full physical deflection

Variable-assist would make it easy to deflect at a groundstop, and more difficult at increasing speed.

A 4" input on a steering wheel at 10 mph will barely take you off of a straight line, but at 80 mph will probably lead you to a nasty skid, telephone pole, oncoming traffic, if not a rollover in your car.

You would think that at higher speeds there would be some sort of input dampener. The design apparently says not, and it makes no sense.

If the same logic were applied to the ailerons, there'd be a bunch of airliners doing unintentional barrel-rolls when the yoke is touched at cruise, yet would have a hard time turning left to 270 when lifting off the tarmac.

David L · Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:07 pm

Quoting Zed (Reply 41):
-I'll 'fess up: I verify control "feel" integrity of several flight simulators including an A300 as part of my job. Apologies for taking the discussion technical... I know we have a proper forum for that.

No need to apologise - what you've said is very relevant to the topic at hand.

Now I'll 'fess up. I've read those details about rudder travel in other discussions and completely forgot about them. I just hope those who provided the details in those discussions didn't see my faux pas above. Smile

bennett123 · Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:31 pm

I understood that the issue was not that he used the rudder, but the repeated, (5) reversals one after another.

Strangely, I had a flight on the EAC simulator in 2000, the paperwork that I had said that the Rudder is not normally used in flight, (in 2000).

AA767400 · Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:40 pm

Did you notice how witnesses were stating that it looked like it exploded from a bomb.

I just find the timing on the crash very odd. And it would be in the government's interest to cover up any wrong doings because of the impact on the nation.

I work on this plane all the time, and I can tell you that 587 was a bomb IMHO.

And you can tell me all the peddling stories you want, because it is not the first or last time the bus has gone through wake, or severe turbulence.

Now let the flaming begin!

David L · Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:48 pm

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 47):
I work on this plane all the time, and I can tell you that 587 was a bomb IMHO.

Is this a wind-up?

Quoting AA767400 (Reply 47):
it is not the first or last time the bus has gone through wake, or severe turbulence.

But is it the first time one has experienced full deflection rudder oscillations like that?

AA767400 · Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:52 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 48):
But is it the first time one has experienced full deflection rudder oscillations like that?

You don't know what happened, you were not there.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net