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

It was just a news blurb this morning on the local TV news, but they
claimed that investigators now blame the loss of the Air Bus 300's
tail on the improper use of the rudder by the co-pilot.

If true (that the co-pilot is actually being blamed), I find that
difficult to believe. A little research on the net uncovered a bunch
of articles about how the Air Bus encountered wake turbulence from a
preceding airliner and that the rudder experienced some rapid movement
which exceeded it's structural design parameters, and it cleanly
parted the aircraft.

Prior to this accident, were Air Bus 300 pilots specifically told NOT
to use the rudder in flight? Because if they did they might exceed
the design parameters of the rudder? One article claimed that pilots
were taught to counter wake turbulence using ailerons only. It wasn't
clear to me if that applied to Air Buses only, or all airliners.

Or did they learn not to use the rudder during flight because of this
accident?

Either way, I find it difficult to blame the co-pilot for reacting in
what is likely a normal pilot response to turbulence. Surely all
airliners aren't so tempermental when it comes to rudder input are
they?

Corky Scott

Corky Scott wrote:

If true (that the co-pilot is actually being blamed), I find that
difficult to believe. A little research on the net uncovered a bunch
of articles

I've always been wondering why they do those thorough and long lasting
investigations when all it takes to find the truth is a quick google
search...

Stefan

A tremendous amount of money could be save by eliminating the investigation
in the first place. There would still be articles written about crashes and
we could simply google up the cause.

Mike
MU-2

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Corky Scott wrote:

If true (that the co-pilot is actually being blamed), I find that
difficult to believe. A little research on the net uncovered a bunch
of articles

I've always been wondering why they do those thorough and long lasting
investigations when all it takes to find the truth is a quick google
search...

Stefan

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:36:02 +0200, Stefan
wrote:

I've always been wondering why they do those thorough and long lasting
investigations when all it takes to find the truth is a quick google
search...

Stefan

You will notice that I was asking a question, not suggesting a
conclusion. I used the internet to refresh my memory of the crash and
the particulars surrounding it, not to second guess the NTSB.

Or maybe you wouldn't notice.

Corky Scott

Corky Scott wrote:

Or maybe you wouldn't notice.

Maybe, I didn't want to? :-P

Stefan

Well, throughout the process, Airbus has submitted a large number of documents
in the effort to prove that they've been trying for years to get American
Airlines to wake up and correct their flawed training procedures. Some of
these documents are co-introduced by Boeing, and apply to "Airliners"
indicating efforts on Airbus' behalf to get the spotlight away from their
product.

Some pilots expressed their astonishment at the fact that there would be
instances, in normal operations and within the manoeuvering speed of the
aircraft, where full-amplitude control inputs would have the risk of
destroying the aircraft.

The most surprising thing to me in all of this is that in their never-ending
quarrel over whose "method" is better - the hardcore fly-by-wire method of
Airbus or the "assisted" method of Boeing, Airbus never ceases to stress the
fact that their computers will prevent inadvertent "inappropriate" control
inputs from pilots, such as increasing pitch angle to where the AOA exceeds
stall margin.* Now are we supposed to believe that rudder inputs were simply
"not included" in this guardian angel policy?

Though it may not be fair to the NTSB, it is sometimes hard not to conclude
that placing the blame on a pilot, who is no longer here to defend himself, is
far less "costly" than implicating an airline or major airfarme manufacturer.




*Boeing, it must be said, has not done much better, because they chose to
counter the Airbus argument by saying there could be cases where the
theoretical limits of useful control inputs could (an should) be exceeded
momentarily in an emergency situation. They chose to illustrate this with the
757 accident in Cali. Couldn't they find a more, well, successful,
illustration?

G Faris

G Farris wrote:

Though it may not be fair to the NTSB, it is sometimes hard not to conclude
that placing the blame on a pilot, who is no longer here to defend himself, is
far less "costly" than implicating an airline or major airfarme manufacturer.

The NTSB has no interest in what is "costly" or not. It frequently makes
recommendations that the FAA and the airlines decide not to heed for "cost"
reasons.

Obviously we haven't seen the print of the "fimal" report, but I suspect
that the results will be improper control input by the pilot flying with
some blame on the training by the manufacturer or airline on how to deal
with wake turbulance encounters.

In article ,
says...


The NTSB has no interest in what is "costly" or not. It frequently makes
recommendations that the FAA and the airlines decide not to heed for "cost"
reasons.



Actually, I meant "costly" more in social terms. With Boeing and Airbus
currently sparring over the subsidy issue, and the European Commission getting
involved, for the NTSB to come out and directly implicate Airbus in the
accident could spark a diplomatic incident.

I am no "conspiracy" theorist, nor do I believe that politics and finance
completely govern the workings of the NTSB, but to suggest they have "no
interest" in the political ramifications of their decisions would be, well,
not very credible.

G Faris

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:15:09 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote:

G Farris wrote:

Though it may not be fair to the NTSB, it is sometimes hard not to conclude
that placing the blame on a pilot, who is no longer here to defend himself, is
far less "costly" than implicating an airline or major airfarme manufacturer.

The NTSB has no interest in what is "costly" or not. It frequently makes
recommendations that the FAA and the airlines decide not to heed for "cost"
reasons.

Obviously we haven't seen the print of the "fimal" report, but I suspect
that the results will be improper control input by the pilot flying with
some blame on the training by the manufacturer or airline on how to deal
with wake turbulance encounters.

I recall some question concerning a weakness in the design of the
rudder itself, in that the supports to the composite structure were
too few. Not too long after the accident, I saw it was explained on
TV that the manufacturer should have distributed the load over more
points for the sake of the composite material. The known and
understood weakness of composites, compared to metals, is their lesser
ability to handle bearing stress. So Airbus should've known better,
presumably.

I think I heard this on CNN, and their expert (probably Boeing, but I
don't recall) seemed to know what he was talking about; even supplying
drawings of the rudder. From current discussion, I assume this is not
considered valid anymore, and so I may not be valid in bringing it up.
But I thought the problem close to being solved way back when.

If the control inputs are controlled, as I believe Airbus is, then the
pilot cannot be blamed for over-controlling; unless the manufacturer
pointedly states not to do that. So I'm thinking Airbus is really
getting a free one from the NTSB on this. Or the report we are
reading is premature.

Typical structure failure is from stabilizer abuse, not the rudder, I
thought. But now do I need to be concerned with what I do with my
feet?

--Mike

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
[...]
If the control inputs are controlled, as I believe Airbus is, then the
pilot cannot be blamed for over-controlling; unless the manufacturer
pointedly states not to do that.

The manual for my airplane (and most, I believe) says nothing about not
pulling too hard on the yoke when recovering from a dive in which the
airspeed exceeds Vne. Does that mean that the manufacturer would be to
blame if I caused the wings to fail by doing so?

I don't think so. I'm curious why it appears that you would.

This vertical stabilizer failure is a more esoteric issue, granted...but
it's essentially the same. All aircraft have their limits, and pilots
should be aware of them.

Typical structure failure is from stabilizer abuse, not the rudder, I
thought. But now do I need to be concerned with what I do with my
feet?

You needed to be before. Though, to be fair, unless you're flying transport
category aircraft, your concerns are defined by different certification
rules than those at issue here.

As far as how structure failure happens, I don't know what you mean by "from
stabilizer abuse, not the rudder". The rudder is the primary way to stress
the vertical stabilizer, it being attached to it and all, as well as using
the vertical stabilizer to transmit forces generated by the control surface
to the airframe.

Pete