![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 28, 9:36*pm, James Robinson wrote:
spanky wrote: Why would they be using rudder at cruising speed? *Further, according to the discussion in some of the other groups, the rudder limiter is still effective in alternate law. It supposedly clamps the limit at where it was when the shift was made from normal to alternate law. ...look at the first line in the ACARS messages: RUD TRV LIM FAULT... in other words, the rudder travel limiter not doing what it was supposed to do, i.e., limit the rudder travel. * My understanding from the pros in other groups, is that message simply says that the autolimiter disconnected, and as mentioned, the limits are clamped at what they were prior to the disconnect. *It is supposedly part of the change from normal to alternate law. This was followed in fairly short order by a TCAS fault, an autothrottle disconnect, a/p disconnect and institution of alternate flight law algorithms. * Look at the failure point of the 447 vertical stab and compare that with the failure point of the AA 300 that went down in 2001 on departure from JFK. * They are different. *Not at all the same type of attachment or type of failure. Despite having a rudder travel limiter in place and working, The A300 was not a FBW aircraft. the 2001 incident proved rather markedly that it is entirely possible, even at climb speeds, to overstress the vertical attach points of the structure. *...at cruise, in what may have been beyond extreme turbulence, that possibility may indeed be a probability in this case. Why would an experienced pilot be using the rudder at all at cruising speed and at that altitude? We'll never know until the FDRs and CVRs are found and the data downloaded, but on that subject I have no faith that they will be found and, given Airbus's shenanigans with black boxes from earlier incidents, I have no faith that the company wants them to be found. So they will just hope no other aircraft decide to disappear while in cruise flight? Or do you think they already know what went wrong, and are correcting it behind the curtain? Look at the behaviour of US Scare and Boeing with the 737 rudder reversal problem. "Problem? There is no problem" Meanwhile, back at Area 51, er, Seattle, all manner of work towards a solution is being performed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FWIW - One magazine's top ten harrowing airports | Paul T. | Aviation Photos | 2 | April 13th 08 06:59 PM |
FWIW, Moller Again ? | Al G[_2_] | Piloting | 62 | July 12th 07 06:59 PM |
FWIW, Moller Again ? | Al G[_2_] | Home Built | 65 | July 12th 07 06:59 PM |
airbus - Latest Plane From Airbus.jpg | [email protected] | Aviation Photos | 14 | June 26th 07 09:41 AM |
Soviet Ekranoplan redux, FWIW | Ogden Johnson III | Naval Aviation | 0 | March 23rd 04 08:44 PM |