Re: Air Bus 300 crash in NY now blamed on co-pilot's improper use

[PS2727]

I suppose my problem is that, as a pilot, the only thing I see when I look up
info on maneuvering speed is something along the lines of " the maximum speed
at which full control travel will not cause damage to the structure". I have
never seen any fine print or exceptions, nor do I see that it is limited to any
particular axis. So now that we have an accident related to this we now have
all the experts to tell us how we had it wrong all these years. I wonder, what
will the next accident teach us about our incomplete knowledge of how these
flying machines are designed?

[Ron Natalie]

PS2727 wrote:
> I suppose my problem is that, as a pilot, the only thing I see when I look up
> info on maneuvering speed is something along the lines of " the maximum speed
> at which full control travel will not cause damage to the structure".

What you were taught as a private pilot applies to SMALL aircraft.

If you're going to move up to transport category you're going to learn
all sorts of new stuff.

[Andrew Rowley]

(PS2727) wrote:

>I suppose my problem is that, as a pilot, the only thing I see when I look up
>info on maneuvering speed is something along the lines of " the maximum speed
>at which full control travel will not cause damage to the structure". I have
>never seen any fine print or exceptions, nor do I see that it is limited to any
>particular axis. So now that we have an accident related to this we now have
>all the experts to tell us how we had it wrong all these years. I wonder, what
>will the next accident teach us about our incomplete knowledge of how these
>flying machines are designed?

These limits are not so straightforward as many people think. It is
interesting to find out more about what they actually mean. For
example, the load factor for a wing may be significantly reduced by
aileron usage. So if it is rated at 3.8g, that assumes ailerons
neutral. If you are rolling at the same time, you might break
something.

Likewise maximum g is likely to be reduced with flaps extended,
although this should be documented in the manual.

[PS2727]

>
>If you're going to move up to transport category you're going to learn
>all sorts of new stuff.
>

Well, I have some knowledge of transport category airplanes and have never seen
anything in a flight manual which addresses the rudder reversal mode nor do I
know any pilot who will admit knowing of the problem before this accident. If
it is possible to overstress the vertical stabilizer of a transport category
airplane by applying full rudder and then reversing it even when that airplane
has a system specifically installed to prevent this, then maybe it would be a
good idea to let the pilots know about it.
Which brings up an interesting question...what about light aircraft? Are there
similar limitations or cautions which are applicable here? Should we be
concerned with how we use the rudder given that light aircraft are not
generally required to meet as high a standard for certification?

[Paul Sengupta]

"Andrew Rowley" > wrote in message
...
> (PS2727) wrote:
>
> >I suppose my problem is that, as a pilot, the only thing I see when I
look up
> >info on maneuvering speed is something along the lines of " the maximum
speed
> >at which full control travel will not cause damage to the structure". I
have
> >never seen any fine print or exceptions, nor do I see that it is limited
to any
> >particular axis.

The rudder was reversed stop-to-stop five times before the ultimate
load factor was exceeded. Even then the fin didn't break, but the load
continued to increase and it broke at far higher than the given ultimate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/flight587trans.shtml

"O'CALLAGHAN: And then in the final movement to the right, going past the
limit load, going past the ultimate load, and you're getting up into a very
high load level, and we see this load calculation continuing to increase.
NARRATOR: It was only at this point, well above the ultimate load, that the
tail's attachment lugs began to rip apart. First the two at the front, then
the middle ones, and finally the back two. The tailfin had failed only after
it was subjected to forces far higher than those it was certified to
withstand. "

> These limits are not so straightforward as many people think. It is
> interesting to find out more about what they actually mean. For
> example, the load factor for a wing may be significantly reduced by
> aileron usage. So if it is rated at 3.8g, that assumes ailerons
> neutral. If you are rolling at the same time, you might break
> something.

This is what happened to that Beech thing that was being used
for the mock dogfight thing wasn't it?