A A Aircraft Undershoots Denver Runway

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Yes, you can use your rudder in a stall condition for roll control purposes, but stomping on the rudder pedals back and forth at 250+ knots in an airliner(the heavier,longer the airplane the more critical this becomes) can kill you,as the people on FLT587 found out. An airliner is not an AGCAT,Extra 300,or a Cessna. You can put all the safety devices you want on an airplane, and someone will still find a way to break the aircraft!

 

[TWAnr]

How much rudder to use in an upset condition is still a debate among professional pilots.

Wayne Handley,professional aerobatic pilot and ex-25 year veteran ag pilot,teaches and demonstrates on his training video to use rudder to recover from the onset of a wing stall in a steep turn or rollover condition.

[post="204220"][/post]​

Using the rudder to recover from upset conditions may be acceptable for general aviation, aerobatic and agricultural spraying airplanes. However, except at American Airlines, it is a universally disapproved procedure for large commercial passenger aircraft.

 

[AAviator]

Actually, AAviator found two articles about the same incident.

[post="204061"][/post]​

Never said they were the same incident, just added commentary that the Captain knew the F/O was going to make a bad landing.

 

[Winglet]

Yes, you can use your rudder in a stall condition for roll control purposes, but stomping on the rudder pedals back and forth at 250+ knots in an airliner(the heavier,longer the airplane the more critical this becomes) can kill you,as the people on FLT587 found out. An airliner is not an AGCAT,Extra 300,or a Cessna. You can put all the safety devices you want on an airplane, and someone will still find a way to break the aircraft!

[post="204237"][/post]​

I was wondering if you are a airline pilot qualified in heavy aircraft, and specifically if you know how the rudder system works in an A300? It doesn't sound like it from your post above.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Winglet, let me educate you with some basic physics. An object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by force. An object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by a force to cancel that motion. This is called the laws of INERTIA. In the case of FLT587 the pilot applied full rudder one way causing the airplane to yaw in that direction. While the airplane was still yawing in the direction originally inputted the pilot applied full opposite rudder. The vertical stabilizer attachment points now have the inertia(force) of the fuselage going one direction and the force of a full opposite rudder swing in the other direction being applied to them. If the two forces were applied directly in line with each other they would have cancelled each other out, but instead a shearing force at the attachment points was created that was way more than they were designed to withstand. According to the NTSB report,the pilot was applying 140 lbs of force on the rudder pedals. Take a scale at home and put it against the wall and apply 140 lbs to it. Even though the A300-600 has a poorly designed rudder pedal system,it wouldn't have made a difference in this case whether it was a 767,777,or an Airbus.

Winglet, while I do have a pilot's license I don't have a heavy aircraft type rating,yet that is. Being a mechanic,I do however know how the A300 rudder system operates.

 

[extwacaptain]

Thankfully, most of us do not get involved with upset conditions too often in our careers. My only experience was VERY minor and occurred shortly after "heavy jets" made their appearance.

Descending into the LA basin one evening we experienced a SMOOTH roll which occurred without any turbulence and required almost full aileron to counteract. In addition to the aileron input, the angle of descent was changed slightly, suspecting the problem to be jet wash.

Checking with center, it was learned that sure enough, a heavy 40 miles ahead of us had just touched down. There was a calm wind that evening and that "STUFF" just sat there on the approach.

The only other RUDDER story I recall, came from the TWA training center in the early days of our jet operation. Those things had four engines in those days and depending on which engine was cut on take-off, obviously the rudder input required would vary.

One of our very finest instructors, Buddy Haggins, was asked by the gentleman checking him out: "How much rudder are you gonna use when that engine gets "cut" ?

His reply was: "Whatever it takes".

That advice would probably be just as good today as it was then.

A rudder pressure reducing system similar to that on the 1011 seems to think just like Capt Buddy Haggens.

Randy Kramer

 

[Winglet]

There were flight characteristics and rudder sensitivities and weaknesses that Airbus failed to reveal to operators. Whether that would have made any difference, I don't know, but I'm inclined to think so. There are many many things in the maintenance manuals that are not in the flight manuals for pilots. But I'm sure the pilot reacted with what he thought was appropriate measures to regain control of the aircraft after the wake turbulence upset.

I've been in severe wake turbulence during 12 second interval takeoffs in heavy aircraft and can tell you it's pretty rough and can be difficult to control even when you know it's coming.

 

[smfav8r]

All you nAAtives are all the same....blame everyone else........it must of been the airplane........it was some crazy event that has never happened before.....light aircraft recover from upsets this way.....

DEAL WITH IT.......THE PILOT FLYING THAT AIRBUS SCREWED UP AND KILLED MANY PEOPLE BECAUSE OF IT!!!!!!

That seems to be a common practice with AA these days.....pilot error!!!! screw up an airframe or possibly kill some people....the track record for the past 10 years is not pretty!

And you wonder why folks on this board are already speculating about the 80 in Denver???

GROW UP!!!! Admit there is a problem and maybe folks in the industry will have a little more respect for you!!

 

[Buck]

All you nAAtives are all the same....blame everyone else........it must of been the airplane........it was some crazy event that has never happened before.....light aircraft recover from upsets this way.....

DEAL WITH IT.......THE PILOT FLYING THAT AIRBUS SCREWED UP AND KILLED MANY PEOPLE BECAUSE OF IT!!!!!!

That seems to be a common practice with AA these days.....pilot error!!!! screw up an airframe or possibly kill some people....the track record for the past 10 years is not pretty!

And you wonder why folks on this board are already speculating about the 80 in Denver???

GROW UP!!!! Admit there is a problem and maybe folks in the industry will have a little more respect for you!!

[post="204642"][/post]​

While unlikely, due to statistical data, these incidents could be mechanically related. Do not assume that the Flight Crew is always at fault. This problem you speak of, in your opinion what exactly is it? Moral, low pay and ever lowering benefits could this have anything to do with it?

 

[N924PS]

How much rudder to use in an upset condition is still a debate among professional pilots.There are very good pilots on boths sides of the coin.

Wayne Handley,professional aerobatic pilot and ex-25 year veteran ag pilot,teaches and demonstrates on his training video to use rudder to recover from the onset of a wing stall in a steep turn or rollover condition.In this condition lowering the aileron into the airstream compounds the drag on the wing thus increasing the wing stall.

I still say the aircraft certification process should require an effective rudder limiter so that the pilot cannot put the vertical stabilizer into an overstressed condition.

[post="204220"][/post]​

It might work well in an Aeobatic Monoplane such as the one Mr. Handley flys, but the same procedure might not work so well in a swept wing transport aircraft.

 

[MCI transplant]

Thankfully, most of us do not get involved with upset conditions too often in our careers. My only experience was VERY minor and occurred shortly after "heavy jets" made their appearance.

Descending into the LA basin one evening we experienced a SMOOTH roll which occurred without any turbulence and required almost full aileron to counteract. In addition to the aileron input, the angle of descent was changed slightly, suspecting the problem to be jet wash.

Checking with center, it was learned that sure enough, a heavy 40 miles ahead of us had just touched down. There was a calm wind that evening and that "STUFF" just sat there on the approach.

The only other RUDDER story I recall, came from the TWA training center in the early days of our jet operation. Those things had four engines in those days and depending on which engine was cut on take-off, obviously the rudder input required would vary.

One of our very finest instructors, Buddy Haggins, was asked by the gentleman checking him out: "How much rudder are you gonna use when that engine gets "cut" ?

His reply was: "Whatever it takes".

That advice would probably be just as good today as it was then.

A rudder pressure reducing system similar to that on the 1011 seems to think just like Capt Buddy Haggens.

Randy Kramer

[post="204531"][/post]​

B) Glad to hear from you Capt.! It's been soom time since I meet you at LAX, but am always clad to hear your opinons!! With 40 years Aircraft experiance, Military /TWA /a.a., I can say I don't believe there should be anything a pilot could due to produce a structural failure such as that of Flt.587...!I squarly point to a design failure of Airbus! Composit Control surfaces! O.K.! Composit fairings, O.K.!, but total Composit Primary Structure, Sorry!, No way!!!!!!Just my educated opinon!!!For whatever it's worth!

 

[local 12 proud]

i know the md80 has a rudder limiter which is automatically controlled by airspeed to prevent the rudder from full travel, im not familiar with airbus but perhaps this could have prevented a tragedy. anyone familiar with the rudder system on the airbus know of such a rudder throw limiter?

 

[N924PS]

i know the md80 has a rudder limiter which is automatically controlled by airspeed to prevent the rudder from full travel, im not familiar with airbus but perhaps this could have prevented a tragedy. anyone familiar with the rudder system on the airbus know of such a rudder throw limiter?

[post="204724"][/post]​

Not sure how the A300 is designed but on the A319/320/321 , a fly-by wire aircraft, the rudder is electrically controlled and hyrdraulically actuated. Dual Flight Augmentation Computers (FAC's), control Yaw functions such as Rudder Limiting (Higher Speed-Less Deflection/Lower Speed More Deflection), Yaw Damping, and Turn Coordination.

I think most Transport Category aircraft have similar systems. Didn't the old Boeing 707 have a "Q" Limiter that performed essentially the same job as the FAC mechanically?

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

The A300 is equipped with a rudder limiter,which was working properly on the Airbus involved in the flt587 crash. The overload(s) on the vertical stab probably only lasted a fraction of a second. Unfortunately,that's all it takes to rip a flight control off. It would be very difficult to design a limiter to prevent what happened without taking some controllability out of the airplane. The only real solution to this problem is to increase the FAA standards for vertical Stab. strength which haven't been updated in decades. Airbus also needs to fix their lousy rudder pedal controls.

I didn't mean to bash the co-pilot of flt587. This guy flew thousands of hours without an incident. Somewhere,someplace,somebody taught this guy that it was okay to do very rapid rudder swings in a heavy jet. Unfortunately,he just happened to hit a bad combination that day. If he had waited just a fraction of a second longer between rudder swings,we would not be having this discussion today.

 

[goingboeing]

The A300 is equipped with a rudder limiter,which was working properly on the Airbus involved in the flt587 crash. The overload(s) on the vertical stab probably only lasted a fraction of a second. Unfortunately,that's all it takes to rip a flight control off. It would be very difficult to design a limiter to prevent what happened without taking some controllability out of the airplane. The only real solution to this problem is to increase the FAA standards for vertical Stab. strength which haven't been updated in decades. Airbus also needs to fix their lousy rudder pedal controls.

I didn't mean to bash the co-pilot of flt587. This guy flew thousands of hours without an incident. Somewhere,someplace,somebody taught this guy that it was okay to do very rapid rudder swings in a heavy jet. Unfortunately,he just happened to hit a bad combination that day. If he had waited just a fraction of a second longer between rudder swings,we would not be having this discussion today.

[post="204864"][/post]​

If the aircraft had been a B-757 the vertical satabiler would have stayed on the fuselage.
TWA had B-727 in 1979 that went into a nose dive from 36.000 feet and the crew tried everything including moving ALL flight controls to extreme travel.The aircraft was recovered when the FE put down the landing gear handle and the extended gear created enough drag to make the flight controls work.[ Capt Hoot Gibson]The aircraft DID NOT break up because it was a Boeing airplane.
The Aloha Airlines B-737 lost a 15 foot section of the crown skin all the way down to the floor level and the aircraft DID NOT break up.
I can cite numerous other examples of Boeing aircraft being subjected to stresses much greater than they were ever designed for and the structure remained intact.
As a veteran structure mechanic I can assure you that Boeing airframes are built much stronger than MD-80's or F-100's. This also includes the vertical stabilizer.

Airbus is a European piece of crap and did not earn the name "SCAREBUS" for nothing.