Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

Here to there wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete wrote:

But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"


Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?

If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
severe consequences.

I'll
give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
Probably you'll discover all of those.

BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
event).

"Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
make everything infinitely strong.

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.

From what I've read,
it wasn't the first officer's fault, really - he did exactly
what he was trained to do. Unfortunately, his training was
wrong.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter wrote:
Here to there wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete wrote:

But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"


Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?

If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
severe consequences.


Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
land office business in the winter when the local students
decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)


I'll
give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
Probably you'll discover all of those.

BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
event).


Were the drivers turning the wheels rapidly, all the way to
the stops? According to the crash report, that seems to
be essentially what the first officer was doing with the rudder
as he attempted to recover from the turbulence.


"Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
make everything infinitely strong.

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.


Well, perhaps, if it was a fly-by-wire system....

- Rich

Here to there wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:02 -0700, Peter wrote:

Here to there wrote:


On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:45 GMT, Pete wrote:


But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than
it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the
subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American.

I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash. It's like an auto maker made a car that
sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly,
and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!"


Ummmmmm... so what exactly do you think will happen to a car if you
turn the wheel rapidly while driving at more than a snail's pace?

If it exceeds the available traction of the tires then I expect the
car to start sliding and possibly spin out. As long as the car
doesn't hit anything then I expect loss of tire rubber to be the
most serious damage. Of course if there is an impact (even with
something like a curb), then there are likely to be much more
severe consequences.

Except that's not the way it frequently happens in real life.
Rapid steering wheel movement at speed is one way that people
manage to flip cars, even when they haven't hit obstacles or
gone off the road. Around here, the tow trucks do a
land office business in the winter when the local students
decide to do donuts in the parking lots, and flip themselves. ;-)

In real life, parking lots unfortunately have many things you can
impact such as curbs, potholes, posts, etc. In the absence of those
there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
about the Corvair and VW Beetle - due to an unusual rear suspension
design it was possible to flip these. There are also some vehicles
that are relatively narrow with a high center-of-gravity, but most
cars will not flip when driven on a flat surface regardless of the
control inputs.

I'll
give you a hint - you'll get the opportunity to find out either how
expensive it is to replace your suspension, CV joints, etc, or how
well your roof supports the weight of the car after it has flipped.
Probably you'll discover all of those.

BMW had a sales promotion event recently where they had us
try out some of their cars on a large parking lot with a
course laid out with cones. They actively encouraged aggressive
driving and there were frequent incidents where control was lost
resulting in the cars sliding and spinning. As far as I know there
was no serious damage done to any of the vehicles other than loss
of tire rubber (tires were replaced every 2-3 hours during the
event).



Were the drivers turning the wheels rapidly, all the way to
the stops?

Yes, the wheels were turned rapidly and the cars did spin out of
control - but there was no indication that any even came close to
flipping over.

According to the crash report, that seems to
be essentially what the first officer was doing with the rudder
as he attempted to recover from the turbulence.



"Don't do that" is a perfectly reasonable approach. You can't
make everything infinitely strong.

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.

Well, perhaps, if it was a fly-by-wire system....

Yes, this accident was on the A300 without FBW - my comment was just
agreeing that this should be an advantage of the FBW systems.

My reading of the reports on the accident is that while the co-pilot's
actions may have been the proximate 'cause' of the tail's failure, the
fault was not the co-pilot's but rather with the training which failed
to indicate that such use of the rudder could cause structural failure.
Whether that's the fault of Airbus or American remains to be determined
- sounds like there's still plenty of finger-pointing going on.

Pete wrote:
I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems,
to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots. Sounds like Airbus shares
a lot of blame for the crash.

The A300-600 is not fly by wire. It is a 1970s plane updated to some extent
in the 1980s.

And I have been told that because rudders are so rarely used in flight that
Airbus didn't actually make it "smart" with software to restrict movement
depending on airplane's speed etc on its FBW planes.

Note that similar rudder use on Boeing planes would also cause the tail to
break off.

"Peter" wrote

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.

BINGO

Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
legally responsible.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/23/2004

"Peter" wrote

In the absence of those
there aren't all that many models of cars that can be flipped on a
flat parking lot. That was one of Nader's original complaints
about the Corvair

pppplease everyone note: That was true for pre 63, only.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/23/2004

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:05:42 -0400, Morgans wrote:


"Peter" wrote

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.

BINGO

Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
legally responsible.


????

From what I hear (1) the US certification standards *do not* require the
rudder to be able to withstand the sort of forces the exercise in question
resulted in, and no plane, whether Boeing or Airbus, builds rudders that
would. This is presumably public knowledge, and presumably open
information available to American Airline; incidentally, the same scenario
would have led to a similar accident with a Boeing plane. (2) apparently,
Airbus had repeatedly warned AA about the flaws in AA's training
procedures, which recommended excessive rudder use, even in situations
that were patently unsafe.

So, it does seem to me that the biggest share of the blame should be with
AA. AA doe claim that the warnings from Airbus were not clear enough or
not strong enough. My problem with that is that AA was recommending the
same procedure with Boeing planes too. So presumably Boeing's warnings
were not strong enough either?

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:05:42 -0400, Morgans wrote:


"Peter" wrote

But if there's a clear rule for what 'shouldn't be done' then it
would seem prudent to build it into the firmware for the fly-by-wire
system so that it can't be done.

BINGO

Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
legally responsible.


????

From what I hear (1) the US certification standards *do not* require the
rudder to be able to withstand the sort of forces the exercise in question
resulted in, and no plane, whether Boeing or Airbus, builds rudders that
would. This is presumably public knowledge, and presumably open
information available to American Airline; incidentally, the same scenario
would have led to a similar accident with a Boeing plane.
*****************************

My point was that a FBW aircraft that did not have limiting software, is
wrong. I now see that the plane in question was not FBW.

"Nevermind! "g


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/23/2004

Morgans wrote:
Seems to me that Airbus is, if not criminally responsible, morally and
legally responsible.

Then Boeing would also be guilty because the NTSB, very early in the
investigation, found that Boeing planes were also liable to lose tailfin upon
misused of rudder during flight.

Also early on, it had been revealed that AA stood out amongst all other
airlines with regards to rudder usage while in flight (training issue). If
the rest of airlines told pilots not to use Rudder to such an extent, then AA
stands out.

Airbus insists it has sent warnings about misused of rudder while in flight.
The question is whether a maufacturer (Airbus , Boeing etc) needs to approve
an airline's training programme for a specific plane. If so, the Airbus could
be held responsible for not forcing AA to change training to avoid misused of
Rudder. But if Airbus did not need to approve AA's training programme, then
why should it be held responsible ?

My point was that a FBW aircraft that did not have limiting software,
is wrong. I now see that the plane in question was not FBW.
"Nevermind! "g

Yeah, me too. I assumed all Airbus aircraft employed FBW. Mea
culpa.

But to start another flame war, maybe AA has a culture problem
of ignoring manufacturers' advice. Remember that it was an AA
DC-10 that lost an engine at ORD, and AA's maintenance practice
of removing engines with a forklift was the culprit, contrary to
McDonnell Douglas' advice.


Pete