Another Blow to Airbus

[a[_3_]]

A couple of days ago the NTSB found the 320 series to have too
sensitive a rudder, it can be torn off with peddle pressures. What's
especially of interest is the problem seems to persist even when crews
are given special training about the problem.

There are some details here.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/ntsb-airbus-a320-has-rudder-flaw-linked-to-deadly-2001-crash/1

The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
lurking near the edges of the envelope.

[John Smith]

Am 08.08.10 14:05, schrieb a:
> A couple of days ago the NTSB found the 320 series to have too
> sensitive a rudder, it can be torn off with peddle pressures.

"After being buffeted by the wake from a jet ahead of them, the pilots
made several sharp rudder movements." Note the key word "several".
"Several" sharp rudder movements may break any aircraft at any speed,
especially big ones, as any pilot sould know, especially after the
American Airlines crash from 2001.

[a[_3_]]

John Smith wrote

>
> "After being buffeted by the wake from a jet ahead of them, the pilots
> made several sharp rudder movements." Note the key word "several".
> "Several" sharp rudder movements may break any aircraft at any speed,
> especially big ones, as any pilot sould know, especially after the
> American Airlines crash from 2001.

True enough, but absent any conflicting factual information, if the
NTSB is indicating the controls are too sensitive and airframe damage
can happen even when special training is given. I'd call it a design
weakness or flaw.

The Airbus is a fly by wire airplane, pilot inputs for all intents are
'suggestions' to the software, and we've read elsewhere of accidents
caused because the software chose to ignore those inputs. A reasonable
person might find, then, that inputs that might damage the airframe
would be moderated by the programming. A jury made up of such
reasonable persons might be inclined to think harshly of Airbus.

If I was the plaintiff in such a lawsuit I'd ask for a change of venue
to, oh, Seattle comes to mind.

[John Smith]

a wrote:
> we've read elsewhere of accidents
> caused because the software chose to ignore those inputs.

Over the years I've read a lot of bull****, not only "elsewhere".

> A reasonable person might find,

A reasonable person might find that one should not believe all the
bull**** one reads "elsewhere".

[[email protected]]

On Aug 8, 7:05*am, a > wrote:

> The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
> the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
> lurking near the edges of the envelope.

Which begs a question on runup process.

My brother in law "vigorously" checked controls free and clear to the
point they banged at the stops. I was quite more gentle, taking them
to the stops on free and clear. In some ways, I could see why he did
what he did, but since my normal flight regime didn't abruptly take
control inputs to the stops I elected my way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki79yX4bhJ4 Runup starts 6 minutes into
the video.

I wonder how others did it?

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> A couple of days ago the NTSB found the 320 series to have too
> sensitive a rudder, it can be torn off with peddle pressures. What's
> especially of interest is the problem seems to persist even when crews
> are given special training about the problem.
>
> There are some details here.
>
> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/ntsb-airbus-a320-has-rudder-flaw-linked-to-deadly-2001-crash/1

Hmm. The whole purpose of having computers that fly the airplane, and ignore
the pilots' inputs if they find them contrary to what French engineers have
decided, is to prevent exactly this sort of incident. Why don't the
all-knowing, all-wise computers prevent any rudder movement that might
endanger structural integrity?

If my confidence in Airbus weren't already almost nonexistent, this news would
certainly crank it down a few notches.

[Brian Whatcott]

On 8/8/2010 7:05 AM, a wrote:
> A couple of days ago the NTSB found the 320 series to have too
> sensitive a rudder, it can be torn off with peddle pressures. What's
> especially of interest is the problem seems to persist even when crews
> are given special training about the problem.
>
> There are some details here.
>
> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/ntsb-airbus-a320-has-rudder-flaw-linked-to-deadly-2001-crash/1
>
> The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
> the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
> lurking near the edges of the envelope.

I am not going to act all shocked that pilots can pull pieces off of an
airframe: these pieces include
1) Wings
2) horizontal elevator/stabilator
3) vertical stabilizer, and pieces hinged or connected to the above.

That includes EVERY plane that has a certificate of airworthiness.

It is more troubling if pilots can get into the danger area (maneuver
speed plus as you know) and still inadvertently pull bits off if
correctly trained. A very troubling thought: how many incidents had
ex military fighter pilots at the yoke?

Brian W

[John Smith]

brian whatcott wrote:
> It is more troubling if pilots can get into the danger area (maneuver
> speed plus as you know) and still inadvertently pull bits off if
> correctly trained.

The most troubling part is that many pilots think the cannot pull bits
off below maneuver speed.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 8, 9:25*am, " > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 7:05*am, a > wrote:
>
> > The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
> > the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
> > lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> Which begs a question on runup process.
>
> My brother in law "vigorously" checked controls free and clear to the
> point they banged at the stops. *I was quite more gentle, taking them
> to the stops on free and clear. *In some ways, I could see why he did
> what he did, but since my normal flight regime didn't abruptly take
> control inputs to the stops I elected my way.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki79yX4bhJ4Runup starts 6 minutes into
> the video.
>
> I wonder how others did it?

As you, I move the controls to the limits, but gently. You'll see
elsewhere recommendations that throttle advancement be slow as well,
and there's little reason to be abrupt with the prop for that matter.
If one pays for the repairs on a personal airplane, gentleness usually
equals lower bills as well as more comfortable passengers.

One wonders if in fly by wire airplanes pilots might assume the
software will protect the mechanical parts. Speaking of that, if you
watch films of advanced jets landing (these airplanes are by design
unstable) you'll see very busy stabilizers, lots of flipping, but the
pilot will tell you he's just applying smooth back pressure to the
stick. The computers know the attitude the pilot wants and makes it
happen actively.

I did a test on our cars, in neutral or park full throttle will
accelerate the engine but it self limits well below redline. That and
the ABS mentioned in an earlier thread add a layer of protection. If
you extrapolate that sense of protection into taking a 1.1 g turn in
tires that can support only 0.9 gs you'll bend metal.

..

[John Smith]

a wrote:
> One wonders if in fly by wire airplanes pilots might assume the
> software will protect the mechanical parts.

One would hope that those pilots did receive proper training.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 8, 11:12*am, John Smith > wrote:
> a wrote:
> > One wonders if in fly by wire airplanes pilots might assume the
> > software will *protect the mechanical parts.
>
> One would hope that those pilots did receive proper training.

Somewhere in the body of the cited article it's mentioned pilots
received training or the like warning them of the danger. In the real
world, however, if a circumstance occurs, like wake turbulence, and a
pilot thinks full rudder deflection is needed that foot is going to
push hard on the rudder. If control pressures didn't supply enough
feedback for me to know I was approaching some limit I would say
there's a design flaw. If the NTSB conclusion is supported the Airbus
folks have a problem that a computer fix, as opposed to training, is
going to have to solve.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
a > wrote:

> A couple of days ago the NTSB found the 320 series to have too
> sensitive a rudder, it can be torn off with peddle pressures. What's
> especially of interest is the problem seems to persist even when crews
> are given special training about the problem.
>

I would guess that Airbus has a lot of pressure to peddle them! ;>)

That said, a friend (AA -- ret) has no kind words for the 320 -- he much
preferred the Boeings.


> There are some details here.
>
> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/ntsb-airbus-a3
> 20-has-rudder-flaw-linked-to-deadly-2001-crash/1
>
> The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
> the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
> lurking near the edges of the envelope.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[RST Engineering[_2_]]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote:

.. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
>lurking near the edges of the envelope.


Or as my first flight instructor told me, "The envelope has airspeed
going horizontal and altitude going vertical. Pushing the envelope
puts you into the upper right corner of the envelope. That's also
where the stamp gets cancelled."

Jim

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Aug 9, 1:47*pm, RST Engineering > wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote:
>
> . Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
>
> >lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> Or as my first flight instructor told me, "The envelope has airspeed
> going horizontal and altitude going vertical. *Pushing the envelope
> puts you into the upper right corner of the envelope. *That's also
> where the stamp gets cancelled."
>
> Jim

Actually, if the truth be known, not that exceeding the right side
won't get you killed, it's the LEFT side of the envelope that gets
most pilots in trouble. :-))
Dudley Henriques

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 9, 3:15*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 1:47*pm, RST Engineering > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote:
>
> > . Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
>
> > >lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> > Or as my first flight instructor told me, "The envelope has airspeed
> > going horizontal and altitude going vertical. *Pushing the envelope
> > puts you into the upper right corner of the envelope. *That's also
> > where the stamp gets cancelled."
>
> > Jim
>
> Actually, if the truth be known, not that exceeding the right side
> won't get you killed, it's the LEFT side of the envelope that gets
> most pilots in trouble. :-))
> Dudley Henriques

We SEL GA aviators don't get to play in the coffin corner, Dudley. I
can't get the Mooney to those altitudes and speeds (dammit!).

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Aug 10, 9:11*am, a > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 3:15*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 1:47*pm, RST Engineering > wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote:
>
> > > . Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
>
> > > >lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> > > Or as my first flight instructor told me, "The envelope has airspeed
> > > going horizontal and altitude going vertical. *Pushing the envelope
> > > puts you into the upper right corner of the envelope. *That's also
> > > where the stamp gets cancelled."
>
> > > Jim
>
> > Actually, if the truth be known, not that exceeding the right side
> > won't get you killed, it's the LEFT side of the envelope that gets
> > most pilots in trouble. :-))
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> We SEL GA aviators don't get to play in the coffin corner, Dudley. I
> can't get the Mooney to those altitudes and speeds (dammit!).

Hi a;

I'm assuming you are referring to the classic definition of the
"coffin corner" found at altitude. Although upset departure can indeed
be an issue for operation in the coffin corner this isn't what I'm
talking about when I say the left side of the envelope.
Just as an aside; there is another coffin corner seldom discussed
outside the high performance community. It's defined as the area on
the back side of the power curve where you cross the line where adding
power will no longer maintain altitude or rate of sink and ONLY angle
of attack reduction will accomplish that.
Back to current comment :-)
On a simple v/g diagram for ANY aircraft, the lift line that defines
aoa crit runs defines a g slope that runs from 0 on up to the Va
corner at the limit load factor limit on a GA airplane ( the corner
velocity for a fighter). This line defines the stall speeds above 1g
(acellerated stall) which increase as the square of the load factor.
It's violating this lift line on the left side of the envelope where a
vast majority of GA accidents occur.
Good CFI's will naturally cover teaching a student how to avoid the
Vne area on the right side and the limit load factor on the top, but
GOOD flight instructors will spend a LOT of time teaching their
students the dangers that live along that left side lift line.
Vne is a solid limit. So is the limit load factor, but the limits
along that left side lift line are variable and it's a wise pilot who
spends a whole lot of time learning how that long sloping lift line
equates to their exact aircraft, be it an airliner, a jet fighter, or
a J3 Cub :-)
Hope this helps a bit.
Dudley

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 10, 9:55*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 9:11*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 3:15*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 1:47*pm, RST Engineering > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote:
>
> > > > . Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
>
> > > > >lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> > > > Or as my first flight instructor told me, "The envelope has airspeed
> > > > going horizontal and altitude going vertical. *Pushing the envelope
> > > > puts you into the upper right corner of the envelope. *That's also
> > > > where the stamp gets cancelled."
>
> > > > Jim
>
> > > Actually, if the truth be known, not that exceeding the right side
> > > won't get you killed, it's the LEFT side of the envelope that gets
> > > most pilots in trouble. :-))
> > > Dudley Henriques
>
> > We SEL GA aviators don't get to play in the coffin corner, Dudley. I
> > can't get the Mooney to those altitudes and speeds (dammit!).
>
> Hi a;
>
> I'm assuming you are referring to the classic definition of the
> "coffin corner" found at altitude. Although upset departure can indeed
> be an issue for operation in the coffin corner this isn't what I'm
> talking about when I say the left side of the envelope.
> Just as an aside; there is another coffin corner seldom discussed
> outside the high performance community. It's defined as the area on
> the back side of the power curve where you cross the line where adding
> power will no longer maintain altitude or rate of sink and ONLY angle
> of attack reduction will accomplish that.
> Back to current comment :-)
> On a simple v/g diagram for ANY aircraft, the lift line that defines
> aoa crit runs defines a g slope that runs from 0 on up to the Va
> corner at the limit load factor limit on a GA airplane ( the corner
> velocity for a fighter). This line defines the stall speeds above 1g
> (acellerated stall) which increase as the square of the load factor.
> It's violating this lift line on the left side of the envelope where a
> vast majority of GA accidents occur.
> Good CFI's will naturally cover teaching a student how to avoid the
> Vne area on the right side and the limit load factor on the top, but
> GOOD flight instructors will spend a LOT of time teaching their
> students the dangers that live along that left side lift line.
> Vne is a solid limit. So is the limit load factor, but the limits
> along that left side lift line are variable and it's a wise pilot who
> spends a whole lot of time learning how that long sloping lift line
> equates to their exact aircraft, be it an airliner, a jet fighter, or
> a J3 Cub :-)
> Hope this helps a bit.
> Dudley

The only times I get close to the edges of the Mooney's envelope is
when landing and doing proficiency stuff. Other times my excursions in
the envelope are pretty much postage stamp sized, stuck dead center of
the envelope. Mooneys are 'get from here to there' airplanes, and I'd
rather not wrinkle my suit, or those of my pax, when doing that.

I wanna Pitts!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Aug 10, 10:46*am, a > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 9:55*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 9:11*am, a > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 3:15*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 9, 1:47*pm, RST Engineering > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote:
>
> > > > > . Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
>
> > > > > >lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> > > > > Or as my first flight instructor told me, "The envelope has airspeed
> > > > > going horizontal and altitude going vertical. *Pushing the envelope
> > > > > puts you into the upper right corner of the envelope. *That's also
> > > > > where the stamp gets cancelled."
>
> > > > > Jim
>
> > > > Actually, if the truth be known, not that exceeding the right side
> > > > won't get you killed, it's the LEFT side of the envelope that gets
> > > > most pilots in trouble. :-))
> > > > Dudley Henriques
>
> > > We SEL GA aviators don't get to play in the coffin corner, Dudley. I
> > > can't get the Mooney to those altitudes and speeds (dammit!).
>
> > Hi a;
>
> > I'm assuming you are referring to the classic definition of the
> > "coffin corner" found at altitude. Although upset departure can indeed
> > be an issue for operation in the coffin corner this isn't what I'm
> > talking about when I say the left side of the envelope.
> > Just as an aside; there is another coffin corner seldom discussed
> > outside the high performance community. It's defined as the area on
> > the back side of the power curve where you cross the line where adding
> > power will no longer maintain altitude or rate of sink and ONLY angle
> > of attack reduction will accomplish that.
> > Back to current comment :-)
> > On a simple v/g diagram for ANY aircraft, the lift line that defines
> > aoa crit runs defines a g slope that runs from 0 on up to the Va
> > corner at the limit load factor limit on a GA airplane ( the corner
> > velocity for a fighter). This line defines the stall speeds above 1g
> > (acellerated stall) which increase as the square of the load factor.
> > It's violating this lift line on the left side of the envelope where a
> > vast majority of GA accidents occur.
> > Good CFI's will naturally cover teaching a student how to avoid the
> > Vne area on the right side and the limit load factor on the top, but
> > GOOD flight instructors will spend a LOT of time teaching their
> > students the dangers that live along that left side lift line.
> > Vne is a solid limit. So is the limit load factor, but the limits
> > along that left side lift line are variable and it's a wise pilot who
> > spends a whole lot of time learning how that long sloping lift line
> > equates to their exact aircraft, be it an airliner, a jet fighter, or
> > a J3 Cub :-)
> > Hope this helps a bit.
> > Dudley
>
> The only times I get close to the edges of the Mooney's envelope is
> when landing and doing proficiency stuff. Other times my excursions in
> the envelope are pretty much postage stamp sized, stuck dead center of
> the envelope. Mooneys are 'get from here to there' airplanes, and I'd
> rather not wrinkle my suit, or those of my pax, when doing that.
>
> I wanna Pitts!

If you're operating within your envelope you are flying safely. Goes
without saying of course. This is the stated objective of all flight
instruction and good piloting in normal GA.
Aerobatics of course put you in a higher level of pilot performance
where for example, when flying an aggressive display, you will be
taking your aircraft well outside that left side lift limit line in
various maneuvers but doing it deliberately and with purpose. The Vne
and limit load factor parameters still apply however, even when
engaging in the most aggressive acro.
I was of course not a military pilot but spent most of my career with
military pilots and flying military high performance aircraft. Fighter
pilots have an interesting outlook on their flight envelopes.
As another aside and in no way relevant to GA; In the fighter
community, the flight envelope is treated with a slightly different
kind of respect. Most fighter pilots will admit that you can fly a
fighter within it's normal envelope, but limiting yourself to this
area can get you killed when engaged by a pilot who knows how to take
his aircraft beyond the normal limits. To be successful and above all
to stay alive in air combat of any kind, the pilots who survive to
reach retirement take the Dash 1 or Natops for their aircraft and
learn to fly and fight in the area explicitly noted as the areas in
the envelope to avoid in their manuals :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Bug Dout]

William Langewiesche, son of Wolfgang (Stick and Rudder) and a very
capable pilot and writer, makes the case that the Airbus design had as
much to do with the "Miracle on the Hudson" outcome as the pilots. Quite
likely that the Airbus design has prevented more accidents than it may
have caused.
--
In brief, I spend half my time trying to learn the secrets of other
writers -- to apply them to the expression of my own thoughts.
- Shirley Ann Grau

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 9, 1:47 pm, RST Engineering > wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote:
>
> . Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
>
> >lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> Or as my first flight instructor told me, "The envelope has airspeed
> going horizontal and altitude going vertical. Pushing the envelope
> puts you into the upper right corner of the envelope. That's also
> where the stamp gets cancelled."
>
> Jim

Actually, if the truth be known, not that exceeding the right side
won't get you killed, it's the LEFT side of the envelope that gets
most pilots in trouble. :-))
Dudley Henriques

--------------------

Or, to put it in a grossly understated way, the part of the envelope where
you would write "Attn: Whomever" is likely to get your attention!

Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Bug Dout writes:

> William Langewiesche, son of Wolfgang (Stick and Rudder) and a very
> capable pilot and writer, makes the case that the Airbus design had as
> much to do with the "Miracle on the Hudson" outcome as the pilots.

The pilots were everything, the Airbus was nothing. The only good thing about
the Airbus in that accident was that at least the computers didn't get in the
way.

> Quite likely that the Airbus design has prevented more accidents than it may
> have caused.

Pure speculation. Aircraft don't prevent accidents ... pilots do.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Aug 8, 10:05*am, a > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 9:25*am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 7:05*am, a > wrote:
>
> > > The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
> > > the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
> > > lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> > Which begs a question on runup process.
>
> > My brother in law "vigorously" checked controls free and clear to the
> > point they banged at the stops. *I was quite more gentle, taking them
> > to the stops on free and clear. *In some ways, I could see why he did
> > what he did, but since my normal flight regime didn't abruptly take
> > control inputs to the stops I elected my way.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki79yX4bhJ4Runupstarts 6 minutes into
> > the video.
>
> > I wonder how others did it?
>
> As you, I move the controls to the limits, but gently. *You'll see
> elsewhere recommendations that throttle advancement be slow as well,
> and there's little reason to be abrupt with the prop for that matter.
> If one pays for the repairs on a personal airplane, gentleness usually
> equals lower bills as well as more comfortable passengers.
>
> One wonders if in fly by wire airplanes pilots might assume the
> software will *protect the mechanical parts. Speaking of that, if you
> watch films of advanced jets landing (these airplanes are by design
> unstable) you'll see very busy stabilizers, lots of flipping, but the
> pilot will tell you he's just applying smooth back pressure to the
> stick. The computers know the attitude the pilot wants and makes it
> happen actively.
>
> I did a test on our cars, in neutral or park full throttle will
> accelerate the engine but it self limits well below redline. That and
> the ABS mentioned in an earlier thread add a layer of protection. If
> you extrapolate that sense of protection into taking a 1.1 g turn in
> tires that can support only 0.9 gs you'll bend metal.
>
> .

I've seen it done both ways too and as a jumper (non-pilot) I always
wondered if a more gentle approach might be more useful to detect a
subtle problem since (it seems to me) that a full force slam to the
stops would overcome any momentary resistance and could mask a problem
in a linkage. Conversely, I suppose it could force a *break* in a
weak link while on the ground. So then, YMMV.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 11, 3:08*pm, Richard > wrote:
> On Aug 8, 10:05*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 9:25*am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 8, 7:05*am, a > wrote:
>
> > > > The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
> > > > the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
> > > > lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> > > Which begs a question on runup process.
>
> > > My brother in law "vigorously" checked controls free and clear to the
> > > point they banged at the stops. *I was quite more gentle, taking them
> > > to the stops on free and clear. *In some ways, I could see why he did
> > > what he did, but since my normal flight regime didn't abruptly take
> > > control inputs to the stops I elected my way.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki79yX4bhJ4Runupstarts6 minutes into
> > > the video.
>
> > > I wonder how others did it?
>
> > As you, I move the controls to the limits, but gently. *You'll see
> > elsewhere recommendations that throttle advancement be slow as well,
> > and there's little reason to be abrupt with the prop for that matter.
> > If one pays for the repairs on a personal airplane, gentleness usually
> > equals lower bills as well as more comfortable passengers.
>
> > One wonders if in fly by wire airplanes pilots might assume the
> > software will *protect the mechanical parts. Speaking of that, if you
> > watch films of advanced jets landing (these airplanes are by design
> > unstable) you'll see very busy stabilizers, lots of flipping, but the
> > pilot will tell you he's just applying smooth back pressure to the
> > stick. The computers know the attitude the pilot wants and makes it
> > happen actively.
>
> > I did a test on our cars, in neutral or park full throttle will
> > accelerate the engine but it self limits well below redline. That and
> > the ABS mentioned in an earlier thread add a layer of protection. If
> > you extrapolate that sense of protection into taking a 1.1 g turn in
> > tires that can support only 0.9 gs you'll bend metal.
>
> > .
>
> I've seen it done both ways too and as a jumper (non-pilot) I always
> wondered if a more gentle approach might be more useful to detect a
> subtle problem since (it seems to me) that a full force slam to the
> stops would overcome any momentary resistance and could mask a problem
> in a linkage. *Conversely, I suppose it could force a *break* in a
> weak link while on the ground. *So then, YMMV.

On airplanes without 'augmented' controls, the feedback forces on the
yoke and rudder are significantly greater in flight than on the
ground during run up, so if there's going to be a failure it might
very well be aloft. The good news is, it's rare to the best of my
knowledge that moving the controls to the extremes,. either fast or
slow, will uncover a problem, or that they fail in flight.

With several thousand hours of SEL PIC, I can't remember once when
after leaving the ramp going back because the control excursions were
unusual. I have come back because RPM drop was not right, because VOR
tests showed failure, a DG that wasn't 'crisp'. etc etc. Have not yet
had the prop not cycle correctly. Did see someone in a 680 Commander
get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
the excursions were not 'free'. That brings up an interesting topic
for aviators -- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?

[vaughn[_3_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...
>Did see someone in a 680 Commander
>get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
>the excursions were not 'free'.

I once saw a renter pilot *return* from an apparently normal flight in a 172
with the rudder lock still installed. The fellow apparently never noticed!

Vaughn

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> "a" > wrote in message
> ...
> >Did see someone in a 680 Commander
> >get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
> >the excursions were not 'free'.
>
> I once saw a renter pilot *return* from an apparently normal flight in a 172
> with the rudder lock still installed. The fellow apparently never noticed!
>
> Vaughn

Oh come on now. One on the empennage? You'd have to notice. You'd
need to be blind for starters! :) And what light aircraft pilot doesn't
push the pedals, even if it's just for a feel.

--
Duncan.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > "a" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >Did see someone in a 680 Commander
> > >get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
> > >the excursions were not 'free'.
> >
> > I once saw a renter pilot *return* from an apparently normal flight in a 172
> > with the rudder lock still installed. The fellow apparently never noticed!
> >
> > Vaughn
>
> Oh come on now. One on the empennage? You'd have to notice. You'd
> need to be blind for starters! :) And what light aircraft pilot doesn't
> push the pedals, even if it's just for a feel.

Sorry, that's even if said pilot doesn't do pre-T/O checks (which
include of course the; Controls, full & free). PS: I hope they just fly
solo and aren't anywhere near me :)

--
Duncan.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 11, 8:42*pm, a > wrote:

>-- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
> without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
> hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?- Hide quoted text -

Several times in 10 years A.

For flight controls, on my preflight, heard a "rubbing sound" when
moving ailerons. Turned out internconnect spring between ailerons and
rudder in the Sundower popped off.

Failed mag check twice. While both were spark plug issues, one was due
to a cylinder getting wet before engine overhaul. Got the plug
cleaned up enough to fly it a short 9 miles KJAN - KMBO to get the
engine yanked for a major (it was at TBO).

At KJAN, while not preflight, avionics issues (user induced DUH) that
shop deftly pointed out I needed to put toggle switch from speaker to
headset

For those interested on how I preflight can be seen in these videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jnz8ikkAlA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAhF-x1kvpQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4mkhUFHWa0

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Dave Doe" > wrote in message
...
>PS: I hope they just fly
> solo and aren't anywhere near me :)

It was one of those home-made plywood disk affairs on the rudder; and yes, there
was a passenger.

And yes, the guy obviously managed neither a proper preflight nor a control
check.

Vaughn

[Berry[_2_]]

In article
>,
a > wrote:
That brings up an interesting topic
> for aviators -- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
> without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
> hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?


Used to have a share of a really pretty C-140 that was chronically
broken. Naive bunch that we were, when we bought it, we were fooled by
the nice paint (never skimp on the pre-buy inspection).

During preflight found completely broken welds on the upper motor mount
cluster weld. Broken enough that daylight was shining through the broken
mount. Of course, the engine was still warm from one of the other
partners having flown it earlier.

On another day: Found that the horizontal stabilizer was loose. The
mounting hardware had broken. Again, the engine was still warm from
someone having flown it that day.

Other problems: Found that the bolts holding the struts and wings on
were not aviation grade fasteners. Found that the primer leaked more
fuel than it pumped into the carb and that there were various electrical
system problems, such as bad wiring and no voltage regulator, in close
proximity to the leak. "Yellow tagged" mags were actually not and had
been rebuilt using stuff like bent paper clips (no kidding) and were
permanently "hot". Had a brake failure taxiing out to the runway. Had
tires going flat in the hangar or while taxiing. Tailwheel fell off. The
worst: the crankshaft broke in flight (previous owner had an
"undocumented" prop strike). Lucky that the crank broke just on entering
downwind, and we were all glider drivers anyway, so the landing was
interesting but not too scary.

It should be no surprise that we found that the logbook was pretty much
entirely fraudulent. Eventually everything was put right and it's a nice
airplane now. Still, I hated that airplane.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:

> With several thousand hours of SEL PIC, I can't remember once when
> after leaving the ramp going back because the control excursions were
> unusual. I have come back because RPM drop was not right, because VOR
> tests showed failure, a DG that wasn't 'crisp'. etc etc. Have not yet
> had the prop not cycle correctly. Did see someone in a 680 Commander
> get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
> the excursions were not 'free'. That brings up an interesting topic
> for aviators -- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
> without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
> hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?

Two years ago right after annual; no carb heat.

Turned out to just be an air duct coming loose 'cause the clamp wasn't tight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 12, 12:16*pm, wrote:
> a > wrote:
> > With several thousand hours of SEL PIC, I can't remember once when
> > after leaving the ramp going back because the control excursions were
> > unusual. I have come back because RPM drop was not right, because VOR
> > tests showed failure, a DG that wasn't 'crisp'. etc etc. Have not yet
> > had the prop not cycle correctly. Did see someone in a 680 Commander
> > get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
> > the excursions were not 'free'. That brings up an interesting topic
> > for aviators -- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
> > without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
> > hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?
>
> Two years ago right after annual; no carb heat.
>
> Turned out to just be an air duct coming loose 'cause the clamp wasn't tight.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I used to fly a Mooney Ranger (Joe-bar retraction of the gear!) that
had normal aspiration -- not injected -- and had the carb heat cable
break during an approach in actual, with carb ice buildup. There was
no engine response when I tried to fly the miss, tried everything and
it turned out leaning the engine gave me enough power to limp to an
alternate. That was a big snow storm in the northeast, had I gone down
in the mountains of eastern PA I would not have been found until
spring. (VOR approach into an uncontrolled airport, then got to
Scranton for a full ILS that I was NOT going to miss!).

I wish the damn thing had broken during run-up. That airplane would
grow carb ice in the wink of an eye -- first indication was the CHT
gauge would start falling.

[Dave Doe]

In article <e717c6e3-261a-4a7e-91f4-447fcd3eb048
@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, says...
>
> On Aug 11, 3:08*pm, Richard > wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 10:05*am, a > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 8, 9:25*am, " > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Aug 8, 7:05*am, a > wrote:
> >
> > > > > The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
> > > > > the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
> > > > > lurking near the edges of the envelope.
> >
> > > > Which begs a question on runup process.
> >
> > > > My brother in law "vigorously" checked controls free and clear to the
> > > > point they banged at the stops. *I was quite more gentle, taking them
> > > > to the stops on free and clear. *In some ways, I could see why he did
> > > > what he did, but since my normal flight regime didn't abruptly take
> > > > control inputs to the stops I elected my way.
> >
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki79yX4bhJ4Runupstarts6 minutes into
> > > > the video.
> >
> > > > I wonder how others did it?
> >
> > > As you, I move the controls to the limits, but gently. *You'll see
> > > elsewhere recommendations that throttle advancement be slow as well,
> > > and there's little reason to be abrupt with the prop for that matter.
> > > If one pays for the repairs on a personal airplane, gentleness usually
> > > equals lower bills as well as more comfortable passengers.
> >
> > > One wonders if in fly by wire airplanes pilots might assume the
> > > software will *protect the mechanical parts. Speaking of that, if you
> > > watch films of advanced jets landing (these airplanes are by design
> > > unstable) you'll see very busy stabilizers, lots of flipping, but the
> > > pilot will tell you he's just applying smooth back pressure to the
> > > stick. The computers know the attitude the pilot wants and makes it
> > > happen actively.
> >
> > > I did a test on our cars, in neutral or park full throttle will
> > > accelerate the engine but it self limits well below redline. That and
> > > the ABS mentioned in an earlier thread add a layer of protection. If
> > > you extrapolate that sense of protection into taking a 1.1 g turn in
> > > tires that can support only 0.9 gs you'll bend metal.
> >
> > > .
> >
> > I've seen it done both ways too and as a jumper (non-pilot) I always
> > wondered if a more gentle approach might be more useful to detect a
> > subtle problem since (it seems to me) that a full force slam to the
> > stops would overcome any momentary resistance and could mask a problem
> > in a linkage. *Conversely, I suppose it could force a *break* in a
> > weak link while on the ground. *So then, YMMV.
>
> On airplanes without 'augmented' controls, the feedback forces on the
> yoke and rudder are significantly greater in flight than on the
> ground during run up, so if there's going to be a failure it might
> very well be aloft. The good news is, it's rare to the best of my
> knowledge that moving the controls to the extremes,. either fast or
> slow, will uncover a problem, or that they fail in flight.
>
> With several thousand hours of SEL PIC, I can't remember once when
> after leaving the ramp going back because the control excursions were
> unusual. I have come back because RPM drop was not right, because VOR
> tests showed failure, a DG that wasn't 'crisp'. etc etc. Have not yet
> had the prop not cycle correctly. Did see someone in a 680 Commander
> get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
> the excursions were not 'free'. That brings up an interesting topic
> for aviators -- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
> without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
> hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?

My only experience is way way back in my student training days - so, in
a Traumahawk. The Tommy has an auxilary electric fuel pump as well as
the std engine driven mechanical pump. The aircraft checked out fine to
me. However (IIRC, it was 25 years ago), just prior to startup (upon
turning on the electric fuel pump (ON for startup, T/O and landings) it
sorta kept ticking. I didn't think too much of it, until I started up,
and noticed a very strong fuel smell. I shutdown and looked under the
engine cowls and noted a hell of a lot of fuel in there. I switched the
electric pump on and had another looksee - only to see fuel absolutely
****ing out! Got someone from the club to take a look and it was
grounded - I grabbed another Tommy and headed up for an uneventful
flight.

I hate to think what could have been!

(The problem was later found to be a broken 'T' connector - or
somethin' like that - in the fuel line.)

And the pre-flight checks did not, essentially, catch the problem.

--
Duncan.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 12:16Â*pm, wrote:
>> a > wrote:
>> > With several thousand hours of SEL PIC, I can't remember once when
>> > after leaving the ramp going back because the control excursions were
>> > unusual. I have come back because RPM drop was not right, because VOR
>> > tests showed failure, a DG that wasn't 'crisp'. etc etc. Have not yet
>> > had the prop not cycle correctly. Did see someone in a 680 Commander
>> > get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
>> > the excursions were not 'free'. That brings up an interesting topic
>> > for aviators -- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
>> > without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
>> > hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?
>>
>> Two years ago right after annual; no carb heat.
>>
>> Turned out to just be an air duct coming loose 'cause the clamp wasn't tight.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> I used to fly a Mooney Ranger (Joe-bar retraction of the gear!) that
> had normal aspiration -- not injected -- and had the carb heat cable
> break during an approach in actual, with carb ice buildup. There was
> no engine response when I tried to fly the miss, tried everything and
> it turned out leaning the engine gave me enough power to limp to an
> alternate. That was a big snow storm in the northeast, had I gone down
> in the mountains of eastern PA I would not have been found until
> spring. (VOR approach into an uncontrolled airport, then got to
> Scranton for a full ILS that I was NOT going to miss!).
>
> I wish the damn thing had broken during run-up. That airplane would
> grow carb ice in the wink of an eye -- first indication was the CHT
> gauge would start falling.

I fly a Tiger in SoCal and it would take some weird (for here) weather
to actually get carb ice, but I don't launch unless EVERYTHING feels
right.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 9, 12:41*am, a > wrote:
> John Smith wrote
>
>
>
> > "After being buffeted by the wake from a jet ahead of them, the pilots
> > made several sharp rudder movements." Note the key word "several".
> > "Several" sharp rudder movements may break any aircraft at any speed,
> > especially big ones, as any pilot sould know, especially after the
> > American Airlines crash from 2001.
>
> True enough, but absent any conflicting factual information, if the
> NTSB is indicating the controls are too sensitive and airframe damage
> can happen even when special training is given. I'd call it a design
> weakness or flaw.
>
> The Airbus is a fly by wire airplane, pilot inputs for all intents are
> 'suggestions' to the software, and we've read elsewhere of accidents
> caused because the software chose to ignore those inputs. A reasonable
> person might find, then, that inputs that might damage the airframe
> would be moderated by the programming. A jury made up of such
> reasonable persons might be inclined to think harshly of Airbus.
>
> If I was the plaintiff in such a lawsuit I'd ask for a change of venue
> to, oh, Seattle comes to mind.

Typical litigous mentality. The plane passed certification but any
pilot can break a plane. Control surfaces have the power to break
wings, tailplanes and rudders -fact. I believe NASA had to use a test
plane recently to examine the increase in tail fin load induced by
rapid reversal of rudder input after significant yaw had developed and
the found the structural load could be more twice the design load -if
I remember correctly.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 9, 1:49*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > A couple of days ago the NTSB found the 320 series to have too
> > sensitive a rudder, it can be torn off with peddle pressures. What's
> > especially of interest is the problem seems to persist even when crews
> > are given special training about the problem.
>
> > There are some details here.
>
> >http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/ntsb-...
>
> Hmm. The whole purpose of having computers that fly the airplane, and ignore
> the pilots' inputs if they find them contrary to what French engineers have
> decided, is to prevent exactly this sort of incident. Why don't the
> all-knowing, all-wise computers prevent any rudder movement that might
> endanger structural integrity?
>

Because the computers don't know actually know the relationship
between yaw, airspeed and allowable rudder input/structural load and
they are not required to. Neither do most pilots when they step on the
rudder pedals. Think about it...

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 9, 2:23*am, brian whatcott > wrote:
> On 8/8/2010 7:05 AM, a wrote:
>
> > A couple of days ago the NTSB found the 320 series to have too
> > sensitive a rudder, it can be torn off with peddle pressures. What's
> > especially of interest is the problem seems to persist even when crews
> > are given special training about the problem.
>
> > There are some details here.
>
> >http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/ntsb-...
>
> > The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
> > the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
> > lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> I am not going to act all shocked that pilots can pull pieces off of an
> airframe: these pieces include
> 1) Wings
> 2) horizontal elevator/stabilator
> 3) vertical stabilizer, and pieces hinged or connected to the above.
>
> That includes EVERY plane that has a certificate of airworthiness.
>
> It is more troubling if pilots can get into the danger area (maneuver
> speed plus as you know) and still inadvertently pull bits off if
> correctly trained. * *A very troubling thought: how many incidents had
> ex military fighter pilots at the yoke?

Good points. It is possible that fighter trained pilots may have a
lower awareness of the fragility of aircraft since their planes are so
strong. The fact remains that full opposite rudder deflection in a yaw
can produce very large fin loads with increased bending moment perhaps
the biggest problem. After all, Va is not defined for the fin but only
for the wings.

Cheers

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 9, 2:30*am, John Smith > wrote:
> brian whatcott wrote:
> > It is more troubling if pilots can get into the danger area (maneuver
> > speed plus as you know) and still inadvertently pull bits off if
> > correctly trained.
>
> The most troubling part is that many pilots think the cannot pull bits
> off below maneuver speed.

Make that most pilots.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 10, 7:15*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 1:47*pm, RST Engineering > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote:
>
> > . Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
>
> > >lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> > Or as my first flight instructor told me, "The envelope has airspeed
> > going horizontal and altitude going vertical. *Pushing the envelope
> > puts you into the upper right corner of the envelope. *That's also
> > where the stamp gets cancelled."
>
> > Jim
>
> Actually, if the truth be known, not that exceeding the right side
> won't get you killed, it's the LEFT side of the envelope that gets
> most pilots in trouble. :-))
> Dudley Henriques

So true. As far as I know the the real flight "envelope" looks nothing
like an envelope... But the safest place is also on the left side,
drinking tea... ;-)

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 11, 1:11*am, a > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 3:15*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 1:47*pm, RST Engineering > wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote:
>
> > > . Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
>
> > > >lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> > > Or as my first flight instructor told me, "The envelope has airspeed
> > > going horizontal and altitude going vertical. *Pushing the envelope
> > > puts you into the upper right corner of the envelope. *That's also
> > > where the stamp gets cancelled."
>
> > > Jim
>
> > Actually, if the truth be known, not that exceeding the right side
> > won't get you killed, it's the LEFT side of the envelope that gets
> > most pilots in trouble. :-))
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> We SEL GA aviators don't get to play in the coffin corner, Dudley. I
> can't get the Mooney to those altitudes and speeds (dammit!).

Strap on a JATO =:-O

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 11, 2:44*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 9, 1:47 pm, RST Engineering > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT), a > wrote:
>
> > . Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
>
> > >lurking near the edges of the envelope.
>
> > Or as my first flight instructor told me, "The envelope has airspeed
> > going horizontal and altitude going vertical. Pushing the envelope
> > puts you into the upper right corner of the envelope. That's also
> > where the stamp gets cancelled."
>
> > Jim
>
> Actually, if the truth be known, not that exceeding the right side
> won't get you killed, it's the LEFT side of the envelope that gets
> most pilots in trouble. :-))
> Dudley Henriques
>
> --------------------
>
> Or, to put it in a grossly understated way, the part of the envelope where
> you would write "Attn: *Whomever" is likely to get your attention!
>

You put the return (to sender) address on the left side or sometimes
the backside... How apropos.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 12, 1:42*pm, a > wrote:
> The good news is, it's rare to the best of my
> knowledge that moving the controls to the extremes,. either fast or
> slow, will uncover a problem, or that they fail in flight.
>

Err, I don't think you mean that.

Cheers

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 13, 12:18*am, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> *>Did see someone in a 680 Commander
>
> >get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
> >the excursions were not 'free'.
>
> I once saw a renter pilot *return* from an apparently normal flight in a 172
> with the rudder lock still installed. *The fellow apparently never noticed!
>

Never noticed? Wow, that is scary. While I admit to a tendency for
lazy feet, I usually wake them up on final.

Cheers.

[Mxsmanic]

Flaps_50! writes:

> Because the computers don't know actually know the relationship
> between yaw, airspeed and allowable rudder input/structural load and
> they are not required to.

They can be programmed to know this. And much of the reputation of Airbus
rests upon its implicit and explicit claims that their heavy computerization
of their flight decks somehow makes aircraft safer. But if the computer isn't
even programmed well enough to prevent something like this, how can it be
making the airplane safer?

> Neither do most pilots when they step on the rudder pedals. Think
> about it...

It would be tough for a pilot, but not for a computer.

There's a fundamental contradiction between claiming on the one hand that
computer-enforced limitations on control movements can prevent structural
damage, and then claiming on the other hand that computers should not be held
responsible for that enforcement. Either they protect the airplane or they
don't. If they are only creating the illusion of protection, then they need to
go.

[D Ramapriya]

On Aug 15, 3:19*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 1:49*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>
>
> > a writes:
> > > A couple of days ago the NTSB found the 320 series to have too
> > > sensitive a rudder, it can be torn off with peddle pressures. What's
> > > especially of interest is the problem seems to persist even when crews
> > > are given special training about the problem.
>
> > > There are some details here.
>
> > >http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/ntsb-....
>
> > Hmm. The whole purpose of having computers that fly the airplane, and ignore
> > the pilots' inputs if they find them contrary to what French engineers have
> > decided, is to prevent exactly this sort of incident. Why don't the
> > all-knowing, all-wise computers prevent any rudder movement that might
> > endanger structural integrity?
>
> Because the computers don't know actually know the relationship
> between yaw, airspeed and allowable rudder input/structural load and
> they are not required to.

You jest, surely?? If I understand what you say, most flights in
Autopilot through moderate turbulence would result in splintered
aluminum tubes raining down.

Any pilot would tell you that humans are incapable of matching
computers' sophistication in precision flying. Why else would most
airline SOPs actually bar pilots from hand-flying above 1,000 feet?


> Neither do most pilots when they step on the
> rudder pedals. Think about it...


Well, if the manufacturer intends to convey a limit that can be
reached where the airplane's structure is threatened, it should either
automatically limit the pilot's motion to a point before such
threshold is reached. Proper pilot training is a sine qua non, however
not a substitute for the automatic limitation.

I still can't believe the ultra-sophisticated Airbuses allow rudders
to move so much that the empennage can actually sever from the rest of
the fuselage. As omissions go, that must take the biscuit!

Cheers,

Ramapriya

[Mxsmanic]

D Ramapriya writes:

> Any pilot would tell you that humans are incapable of matching
> computers' sophistication in precision flying. Why else would most
> airline SOPs actually bar pilots from hand-flying above 1,000 feet?

Above 1000 feet? Did you miss a zero there?

I know that RVSM requires autopilot and some airlines have policies that
require autopilot for normal operations under certain conditions, but
requiring that autopilot be used above 1000 feet is hard to believe.

Which airlines require this, and why?

> I still can't believe the ultra-sophisticated Airbuses allow rudders
> to move so much that the empennage can actually sever from the rest of
> the fuselage. As omissions go, that must take the biscuit!

Having been the victim of French engineering on multiple occasions in the
past, I have no trouble believing that French engineers overlooked this. Their
objective is not to maximize safety, but to show the world how clever they are
(a rather tall order, given that they aren't actually very clever).

[D Ramapriya]

On Aug 15, 6:41*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> D Ramapriya writes:
> > Any pilot would tell you that humans are incapable of matching
> > computers' sophistication in precision flying. Why else would most
> > airline SOPs actually bar pilots from hand-flying above 1,000 feet?
>
> Above 1000 feet? Did you miss a zero there?

Nope. 1000-2000 are the typical figures for most airlines in the
Middle East. I could get you figures from Qatar Air and Etihaad (two
of the leading lights, not just of the region) in a few days.


> I know that RVSM requires autopilot and some airlines have policies that
> require autopilot for normal operations under certain conditions, but
> requiring that autopilot be used above 1000 feet is hard to believe.


Ditto here, but that's the way it is. "Passenger comfort and safety"
is what's apparently at the root of this requirement.


> Which airlines require this, and why?
>
> > I still can't believe the ultra-sophisticated Airbuses allow rudders
> > to move so much that the empennage can actually sever from the rest of
> > the fuselage. As omissions go, that must take the biscuit!
>
> Having been the victim of French engineering on multiple occasions in the
> past, I have no trouble believing that French engineers overlooked this. Their
> objective is not to maximize safety, but to show the world how clever they are
> (a rather tall order, given that they aren't actually very clever).


I beg to differ, mate. Apart from one A320 crash - a runway overrun in
Warsaw? - where the computers misread aquaplaning and didn't allow
braking, I struggle to think of an incident where computers and/or
automation caused a crash. On the other hand, I know a few instances
where the automation forfended accidents by thwarting ill-judged
premature takeoff attempts, which were an upshot of wrong loading
figures having been input, etc. There have been at least two incidents
involving Emirates A340 aircraft and one Virgin A330.

Not being a pilot, I'm utterly unqualified to enter Boeing-Airbus
debates but it does strike me that Boeing does have more friends in
the press, with its glitches getting downplayed. The dicky RA that
contributed to the Turkish crash at Schipol and the near-disaster with
the BA 747 @ Jo'burg caused by a faulty slat sensor are good examples.
If you analyze Airbus crashes, nearly every one of them has been
because of pilot error, including the Aeroflot A310 where they risibly
ended up blaming the kid on the Cap'n's seat when what really happened
was that the 3 other qualified pilots looking on within the cabin
failed for a very long time to detect that the AP had disconnected.
Most Airbus crash reports would tell you that they could've been
prevented had pilots acted correctly.

I admire the 747s and 777s and think the A340 a clunker, yet would
wager my life on Airbus's sophistication any day. It could be just me
but that's the way it is :)

Ramapriya

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 15, 1:31*pm, D Ramapriya > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 3:19*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 1:49*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > a writes:
> > > > A couple of days ago the NTSB found the 320 series to have too
> > > > sensitive a rudder, it can be torn off with peddle pressures. What's
> > > > especially of interest is the problem seems to persist even when crews
> > > > are given special training about the problem.
>
> > > > There are some details here.
>
> > > >http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/ntsb-...
>
> > > Hmm. The whole purpose of having computers that fly the airplane, and ignore
> > > the pilots' inputs if they find them contrary to what French engineers have
> > > decided, is to prevent exactly this sort of incident. Why don't the
> > > all-knowing, all-wise computers prevent any rudder movement that might
> > > endanger structural integrity?
>
> > Because the computers don't know actually know the relationship
> > between yaw, airspeed and allowable rudder input/structural load and
> > they are not required to.
>
> You jest, surely?? If I understand what you say, most flights in
> Autopilot through moderate turbulence would result in splintered
> aluminum tubes raining down.
>

I don't know if autopilots ever put in full rudder deflection during
yaw -do they?

Cheers

[D Ramapriya]

On Aug 15, 1:45*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 1:31*pm, D Ramapriya > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 15, 3:19*am, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 1:49*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > > a writes:
> > > > > A couple of days ago the NTSB found the 320 series to have too
> > > > > sensitive a rudder, it can be torn off with peddle pressures. What's
> > > > > especially of interest is the problem seems to persist even when crews
> > > > > are given special training about the problem.
>
> > > > > There are some details here.
>
> > > > >http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/ntsb-...
>
> > > > Hmm. The whole purpose of having computers that fly the airplane, and ignore
> > > > the pilots' inputs if they find them contrary to what French engineers have
> > > > decided, is to prevent exactly this sort of incident. Why don't the
> > > > all-knowing, all-wise computers prevent any rudder movement that might
> > > > endanger structural integrity?
>
> > > Because the computers don't know actually know the relationship
> > > between yaw, airspeed and allowable rudder input/structural load and
> > > they are not required to.
>
> > You jest, surely?? If I understand what you say, most flights in
> > Autopilot through moderate turbulence would result in splintered
> > aluminum tubes raining down.
>
> I don't know if autopilots ever put in full rudder deflection during
> yaw -do they?


My point is that flight automation would forestall a situation where
the airframe is imperiled, including not deflecting the rudder beyond
safe limits.

Ramapriya

[Mxsmanic]

D Ramapriya writes:

> Nope. 1000-2000 are the typical figures for most airlines in the
> Middle East. I could get you figures from Qatar Air and Etihaad (two
> of the leading lights, not just of the region) in a few days.

I had a sneaking suspicion that "most airlines" actually meant "most
Third-World airlines." That's the kind of rule I'd expect from them. I can
think of several reasons for such a rule ... and all of them are bad.

I don't think Southwest or British Airways are forbidding their pilots to fly
by hand above 1000 feet. You're not even clear of obstacles at that height.

> Ditto here, but that's the way it is. "Passenger comfort and safety"
> is what's apparently at the root of this requirement.

A serious misunderstanding of how safety works is probably at play as well.

> I beg to differ, mate. Apart from one A320 crash - a runway overrun in
> Warsaw? - where the computers misread aquaplaning and didn't allow
> braking, I struggle to think of an incident where computers and/or
> automation caused a crash.

Well, there's Habsheim ... but we cannot be sure, since Airbus modified and
removed data on the flight data recorders in order to hide something (and I
don't think it was pilot incompetence).

> On the other hand, I know a few instances
> where the automation forfended accidents by thwarting ill-judged
> premature takeoff attempts, which were an upshot of wrong loading
> figures having been input, etc. There have been at least two incidents
> involving Emirates A340 aircraft and one Virgin A330.

Maybe if the pilots were more competent and actually flew hands-on a bit more,
those problems wouldn't arise.

It's not the computers' job to compensate for incompetent crews.

> Not being a pilot, I'm utterly unqualified to enter Boeing-Airbus
> debates but it does strike me that Boeing does have more friends in
> the press, with its glitches getting downplayed.

It has more friends among pilots and mechanics, that's for sure. Boeing
designs airplanes that help a pilot do his job. Airbus designs airplanes that
try to eliminate the pilot's job.

> The dicky RA that contributed to the Turkish crash at Schipol ...

If it's the one I'm thinking of, the pilots were the weak spot, not the RA.

> If you analyze Airbus crashes, nearly every one of them has been
> because of pilot error, including the Aeroflot A310 where they risibly
> ended up blaming the kid on the Cap'n's seat when what really happened
> was that the 3 other qualified pilots looking on within the cabin
> failed for a very long time to detect that the AP had disconnected.
> Most Airbus crash reports would tell you that they could've been
> prevented had pilots acted correctly.

This is true for all crashes, not just Airbus crashes.

The problem is that the Airbus design philosophy encourages the employment of
less competent pilots, since the computers will take care of everything (in
theory).

> I admire the 747s and 777s and think the A340 a clunker, yet would
> wager my life on Airbus's sophistication any day. It could be just me
> but that's the way it is :)

If it's not Boeing, I'm not going.

[Mxsmanic]

D Ramapriya writes:

> My point is that flight automation would forestall a situation where
> the airframe is imperiled ...

So would good pilots.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 14, 6:16*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> On Aug 9, 12:41*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
> > John Smith wrote
>
> > > "After being buffeted by the wake from a jet ahead of them, the pilots
> > > made several sharp rudder movements." Note the key word "several".
> > > "Several" sharp rudder movements may break any aircraft at any speed,
> > > especially big ones, as any pilot sould know, especially after the
> > > American Airlines crash from 2001.
>
> > True enough, but absent any conflicting factual information, if the
> > NTSB is indicating the controls are too sensitive and airframe damage
> > can happen even when special training is given. I'd call it a design
> > weakness or flaw.
>
> > The Airbus is a fly by wire airplane, pilot inputs for all intents are
> > 'suggestions' to the software, and we've read elsewhere of accidents
> > caused because the software chose to ignore those inputs. A reasonable
> > person might find, then, that inputs that might damage the airframe
> > would be moderated by the programming. A jury made up of such
> > reasonable persons might be inclined to think harshly of Airbus.
>
> > If I was the plaintiff in such a lawsuit I'd ask for a change of venue
> > to, oh, Seattle comes to mind.
>
> Typical litigous mentality. The plane passed certification but any
> pilot can break a plane. Control surfaces have the power to break
> wings, tailplanes and rudders -fact. I believe NASA had to use a test
> plane recently to examine the increase in tail fin load induced by
> rapid reversal of rudder input after significant yaw had developed and
> the found the structural load could be more twice the design load -if
> I remember correctly.
>
> Cheers

Litigation is very much a factor in aviation, as well as in too many
other areas of human activity. I can assure you it is a real world
factor in our management decisions: is it not in yours?

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 14, 6:56*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> On Aug 12, 1:42*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > The good news is, it's rare to the best of my
> > knowledge that moving the controls to the extremes,. either fast or
> > slow, will uncover a problem, or that they fail in flight.
>
> Err, I don't think you mean that.
>
> Cheers

I have not done much research on the matter but can not recall a
control surface failure or linkage to a control surface of the sort
that might be be uncovered during run up as leading to an in flight
failure. One can fly a GA airplane into extreme turbulence and have
structural damage, but that possibility would not be uncovered in a
run up either.

So yes, I did mean what I typed. If there are factual examples of in
flight failures of control linkages that might have been uncovered
during run up I'd be happy to learn of them.

[Flaps_50!]

On Aug 16, 2:53*pm, a > wrote:
> On Aug 14, 6:56*pm, "Flaps_50!" > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 12, 1:42*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > The good news is, it's rare to the best of my
> > > knowledge that moving the controls to the extremes,. either fast or
> > > slow, will uncover a problem, or that they fail in flight.
>
> > Err, I don't think you mean that.
>
> > Cheers
>
> I have not done much research on the matter but can not recall a
> control surface failure or linkage to a control surface of the sort
> that might be be uncovered during run up as leading to an in flight
> failure. One can fly a GA airplane into extreme turbulence and have
> structural damage, but that possibility would not be uncovered in a
> run up either.
>
> So yes, I did mean what I typed. If there are factual examples of in
> flight failures of control linkages that might have been uncovered
> during run up I'd be happy to learn of them.

Ok, but that's not what you wrote.

Cheers