Will Aa "ground" The Airbus A300-600

[Just Plane Crazy]

Please tell me of one single aircraft type that did not have some kind of problems in over 20 years of flying. Every single one US made or not had some kind of malfunction at one point or another. If we would ground all these aircraft types, we would not have one single commercial aircraft flying any more. Name them, B737, B727, DC10, L1011 etc. etc. etc.

Airbus makes good aircrafts, as does Boeing. Airbus started using Composites long before Boeing did it and look at the B777 and the B7E7. The first aircraft used wood & cloth and look, what we use today. There will always be changes and there will always be a sad moment when we realize that nothing is perfect. Errors where made by all involved parties and every one should learn from it. But that is no reason to ground a compete fleet of aircrafts.

 

[Decision 2004]

What about the fact that over capacity is a problem and reducing/grounding some of the fleet is the only thing that will save AA longterm?

Or we can bury our collective heads in the sand and keep flying more seats than ever, and allow priceline.com to put us out of business by selling seats cheaper than it cost to produce.

AA has the reason to put them on the ground, why don't they?

 

[FWAAA]

What about the fact that over capacity is a problem and reducing/grounding some of the fleet is the only thing that will save AA longterm?

Or we can bury our collective heads in the sand and keep flying more seats than ever, and allow priceline.com to put us out of business by selling seats cheaper than it cost to produce.

AA has the reason to put them on the ground, why don't they?

[post="195125"][/post]​

Despite the net loss last quarter of $214 million, AA was still cash flow positive (even after paying interest on its debt). So if AA grounds the planes (which I'm getting the impression would make you happy), AA would give up lots of revenue from the freight and the pax. Since you know that fixed costs are the real problem (not the variable costs), how would grounding the airplanes help solve AA's problem?

Sure, there's too much capacity, but if AA grounds that many seats (and cargo lift), someone else would just replace the lost capacity. Meanwhile, AA's revenue falls but expenses don't fall as much. Now AA is cash flow negative again. How is that good for you or AA?

What we really need is for the failing airlines to fail already. I take no pleasure in seeing thousands of people out of work, but better at some other failed airline than at AA.

AA has $3.2 billion or so of unrestricted cash, more than enough to pay the fuel bill next year. If USAir and UAL fold (and maybe ATA as well), then full-service airline capacity will have been reduced, and AA stands to gain. Lots.

Of course, it could be that you have ulterior motives, right? Continued bad news at AA only helps your AMFA drive, right? No, there's no way you'd wish hardship and unemployment on your fellow AA employees just so your change-of-union campaign would finally succeed. You are much too good a person for personal motives like that to win out.

 

[JFK777]

the A300's are getting old, its time to plan for there retirement. I know the belly space to the Caribean is great on the A300 but there has to be a newer airplane capable of the same. I just can't think of a big widebody with limited range to replace them. 777, 7E7, A330 & A340 are LONG Range planes. 757's with more frequency is the answer.

 

[kirkpatrick]

What about the fact that over capacity is a problem and reducing/grounding some of the fleet is the only thing that will save AA longterm?

[post="195125"][/post]​

The idea that overcapacity is the problem is based on a simplistic model that says if the number of available widgets goes down then the price goes up. A couple of comments on that seventyish concept:

1) If AA cuts capacity (and 34 A300's is a huge cut) the remaining airlines get higher load factors and more revenue with virtually no increase in costs. AA gets to add proof to the fact that you can't shrink yourself into profitability. We already proved that at TWA.

2) The A300's aren't deployed in the market where the "problem" is. They're deployed in the Caribbean and close in South America, where yields are high, there is little LCC competition, and cargo is extremely lucrative. Even if capacity cuts would help, it's the last place where cuts would help, and the last airplane that should be cut.

The problem is simple. The combination of high costs and cutthroat competition makes it difficult to do business as we once did. We simply cannot charge enough to cover our higher costs. The only solution is to get our costs down to more competitive levels. Unfortunately, that's gonna hurt, and I don't tell you who's gonna have to pay the price for it.

MK

 

[goingboeing]

The evidence presented so far showed the Airbus' rudder limiter performed properly. When a wing gets "heavy" you don't use your rudder. You use your ailerons. Ailerons are also what turns and banks an aircraft,not the rudder. The rudder is to used to help make cordinated turns and is also used on takeoffs and landings to correct for crosswinds. On a multi-engine aircraft the rudder is also used to compensate for an engine failure.

I agree that the rudder pedal control design of the Airbus needs to modified, but on the other hand an airliner is not a fighter or a Cessna. A good pilot should not have been stomping back and forth on the rudder pedals either.

[post="194861"][/post]​

The NTSB report does state that AA pilots were being trained to use the rudder to control ROLLING motions.The AA pilot was just doing what he was trained to do and Airbus should have informed AA if their aircraft could not withstand this type of control inputs.

 

[smfav8r]

goingboeing,

Read the report, Airbus and Boeing told American that they could not establish that the tail of both manufacturer's aircraft would stay together with excessive rudder inputs above 200kts.

Full deflection of the rudder on a transport category jet is used for one reason only. V1 cut, or loss of engine power at lift off. Slower speeds, low energy and lots of yawing.

Even with the rudder limiter working properly in any (boeing too) transport category jet; sudden and repeated abrupt movements over the rudder to full deflection at high airspeeds is going to bend or break the aircraft.

Boeing and Airbus stated this to AA in 1997 if I remember correctly from the report......but in AA's infinate wisdom....responce was..."You just build them, we know how to fly them!"

 

[AAmech]

goingboeing,

Read the report, Airbus and Boeing told American that they could not establish that the tail of both manufacturer's aircraft would stay together with excessive rudder inputs above 200kts.

Full deflection of the rudder on a transport category jet is used for one reason only. V1 cut, or loss of engine power at lift off. Slower speeds, low energy and lots of yawing.

Even with the rudder limiter working properly in any (boeing too) transport category jet; sudden and repeated abrupt movements over the rudder to full deflection at high airspeeds is going to bend or break the aircraft.

Boeing and Airbus stated this to AA in 1997 if I remember correctly from the report......but in AA's infinate wisdom....responce was..."You just build them, we know how to fly them!"

[post="195361"][/post]​

Like your answer but your last sentence is unfair. From my understanding these advanced rudder manuvers were taught to pilots to help them recover control of an aircraft in danger of possibly augering into the ground.

 

[Garfield1966]

OK, I have a question. I know virtually nothing about flying an aircraft.

Had the pilots only used inputs, responses or what ever you call them that were approved by Airbus, would the result have been any different? In other words, did the pilots take the wrong actions (was there another course of action in hind sight) or were they doomed from the start? Seems to me that if there were no other courses of action, they did what they thought was required to save the aircraft.

If what someone mentioned earlier that that if you put to much stress on the tail by repeated rudder action it will break, then either the tail needs more strength or we just go with the theory that every now and then sh1t happens and move on. The idea of having a flawless transportation system seems juvenile and obtuse. It is not like we put one in the ground everyday. Shouldn’t the tower be some what responsible for putting out plane on a route that a 747 had just left on? Seems like the NTSB is just blaming the dead guy because he cannot defend him self.

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[N738FZ]

Part of the problem is a widespread misconception among pilots, as kirkpatrick demonstrated, that below "maneuvering speed" one can make full control inputs and it is impossible to overstress the airplane. This is pretty far from the truth.

The only protection implied by being at maneuvering speed is this: At maneuvering speed and slower, one will not be able to exceed the flight load limits because the wing will exceed its critical angle of attack first, thus stalling and unloading itself. In most light planes, these load limits are at +3.8 Gs - in transport category aircraft, it is considerably less. It is critical to understand that these are only vertical loads - such as those you feel on a roller coaster when going through a loop.

Therefore, maneuvering speed implies no protection against overstressing caused by control movement, particularly the rudder. A particularly powerful and sensitive rudder, as the A300 apparently has, could overstress at a speed less than one could overstress the wings.

AAL's technique for training pilots to recover from wake turbulence using rudder seems odd. At any normal operating speed, ailerons/roll spoilers should be powerful enough to counteract rolling moment. Only near stall speed are ailerons ineffective or even counterproductive, as goingboing pointed out - particularly in swept-wing aircraft. As several people said, the only time you'd use anything near full rudder deflection, is a V1 cut.

So...it seems we have a pilot trained in a poor technique, who aggressively applied that technique, actions that were amplified by an aircraft design that had a powerful rudder with sensitive actuation. Aircraft accidents are seldom the result of one thing gone wrong, they are usually the result of a "chain of events" - and this seems a classic proof.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

It wouldn't have mattered whether this particular pilot was flying a 767,777, or an Airbus that day. From what I have read from the NTSB report, the pilot was pushing full rudder pedal travel stop to stop. Sensitive rudder or not the vertical stabilizer would have broken off the aircraft no matter the type or manufacturer. This particular pilot had been warned at least twice by other pilot's that "agressive" rudder usage was dangerous.
Don't get me wrong, but Airbus' rudder pedal control design needs some major fixing also. As far as AA saying they were not warned of the dangers of training pilot's to use the rudder "agressively,that's a bunch of B.S.! I read an article in Aviation Week back in 1995 or 1996 about a warning letter Airbus,Boeing,FAA signed together and sent to AA's flight dept. warning them to cease and quit this type of training. This letter was sent to AA after AA's own pilot's wrote to Airbus,Boeing, and the FAA telling them what was going on.

 

[smfav8r]

AAmech,

You are correct, the rudder movements were/are taught for certain types of upset recovery. And doing anything possible to correct the upset from turning into a buring hole in the ground is expected of all pilots.

BUT, my point is that some of the upset training done by AA and other airlines with use of rudder is the incorrect way to recover from certain upsets.

As stated earlier, the ailerons and roll spoilers are very effective without use of rudder in an upset recovery at speeds above 200kts. But on the other hand, at speeds much slower, say 150kts, the rudder is needed to recover. This is why most rudder limiters are directly associated with flap position.

If an airline only trains upset recovery at slow airspeeds, pilots may try to use this technique at higher airspeeds which will result in bent or broke aircraft.

Just my opinion, but that's what I think happened. The training wasn't incorrect for upset recovery, just incomplete!