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/communit.../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