Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

"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

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

Pete wrote:

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.



That sounds interesting. How was it that removing them with the
forklift caused a problem, and how were they supposed to do it? Just
curious.

--
Chris W

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

Chris W wrote:

Pete wrote:

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.



That sounds interesting. How was it that removing them with the
forklift caused a problem, and how were they supposed to do it? Just
curious.


They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing the
engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that the pylon
wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.

AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for doing
that.

Sylvia.

They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing
the engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that
the pylon wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.

AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
doing that.

AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
practice, which Continental later adopted.


Pete

"Pete" wrote in message
news
They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing
the engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that
the pylon wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.

AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
doing that.

AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
practice, which Continental later adopted.
\
Braniff never flew DC10's, and their 747 maintenance was largely contracted
out (up til about 1980, they only had 1)


Pete

Jeff Hacker wrote:
"Pete" wrote in message
news
They were taking the pylon off with the engine, rather than removing
the engine from the pylon. Reattaching them involved impacts that
the pylon wasn't designed to cope with, and caused cracking.

AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
doing that.

AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
practice, which Continental later adopted.

\
Braniff never flew DC10's, and their 747 maintenance was largely contracted
out (up til about 1980, they only had 1)

It was AA, Continental, and United. I believe United used an overhead
crane rather than a forklift which lessened the chance that the pylon could
rotate.

AA weren't the only culprits, and were not the only ones fined for
doing that.

AA, Continental, and Braniff, I think. But American developed the
practice, which Continental later adopted.
\
Braniff never flew DC10's, and their 747 maintenance was largely
contracted out (up til about 1980, they only had 1)

I tried to find the facts via surfing but I could only find mention of
AA and Continental. However, at the time it was announced that
three airlines were fined as a result of the ORD accident. I was
working in the airline business at the time, and the three separate
fines were big news to us.


Pete

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:56:43 +0000, Pete wrote:


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.


Correct. Still was a poor design though.