Another Blow to Airbus

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...y-2001-crash/1

The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
lurking near the edges of the envelope.

Am 08.08.10 14:05, schrieb a:
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.

"After being buffeted by the wake from a jet ahead of them, the pilots
made several sharp rudder movements." Note the key word "several".
"Several" sharp rudder movements may break any aircraft at any speed,
especially big ones, as any pilot sould know, especially after the
American Airlines crash from 2001.

John Smith wrote


"After being buffeted by the wake from a jet ahead of them, the pilots
made several sharp rudder movements." Note the key word "several".
"Several" sharp rudder movements may break any aircraft at any speed,
especially big ones, as any pilot sould know, especially after the
American Airlines crash from 2001.

True enough, but absent any conflicting factual information, if the
NTSB is indicating the controls are too sensitive and airframe damage
can happen even when special training is given. I'd call it a design
weakness or flaw.

The Airbus is a fly by wire airplane, pilot inputs for all intents are
'suggestions' to the software, and we've read elsewhere of accidents
caused because the software chose to ignore those inputs. A reasonable
person might find, then, that inputs that might damage the airframe
would be moderated by the programming. A jury made up of such
reasonable persons might be inclined to think harshly of Airbus.

If I was the plaintiff in such a lawsuit I'd ask for a change of venue
to, oh, Seattle comes to mind.

a wrote:
we've read elsewhere of accidents
caused because the software chose to ignore those inputs.

Over the years I've read a lot of bull****, not only "elsewhere".

A reasonable person might find,

A reasonable person might find that one should not believe all the
bull**** one reads "elsewhere".

William Langewiesche, son of Wolfgang (Stick and Rudder) and a very
capable pilot and writer, makes the case that the Airbus design had as
much to do with the "Miracle on the Hudson" outcome as the pilots. Quite
likely that the Airbus design has prevented more accidents than it may
have caused.
--
In brief, I spend half my time trying to learn the secrets of other
writers -- to apply them to the expression of my own thoughts.
- Shirley Ann Grau

Bug Dout writes:

William Langewiesche, son of Wolfgang (Stick and Rudder) and a very
capable pilot and writer, makes the case that the Airbus design had as
much to do with the "Miracle on the Hudson" outcome as the pilots.

The pilots were everything, the Airbus was nothing. The only good thing about
the Airbus in that accident was that at least the computers didn't get in the
way.

Quite likely that the Airbus design has prevented more accidents than it may
have caused.

Pure speculation. Aircraft don't prevent accidents ... pilots do.

On Aug 9, 12:41*am, a wrote:
John Smith wrote



"After being buffeted by the wake from a jet ahead of them, the pilots
made several sharp rudder movements." Note the key word "several".
"Several" sharp rudder movements may break any aircraft at any speed,
especially big ones, as any pilot sould know, especially after the
American Airlines crash from 2001.

True enough, but absent any conflicting factual information, if the
NTSB is indicating the controls are too sensitive and airframe damage
can happen even when special training is given. I'd call it a design
weakness or flaw.

The Airbus is a fly by wire airplane, pilot inputs for all intents are
'suggestions' to the software, and we've read elsewhere of accidents
caused because the software chose to ignore those inputs. A reasonable
person might find, then, that inputs that might damage the airframe
would be moderated by the programming. A jury made up of such
reasonable persons might be inclined to think harshly of Airbus.

If I was the plaintiff in such a lawsuit I'd ask for a change of venue
to, oh, Seattle comes to mind.

Typical litigous mentality. The plane passed certification but any
pilot can break a plane. Control surfaces have the power to break
wings, tailplanes and rudders -fact. I believe NASA had to use a test
plane recently to examine the increase in tail fin load induced by
rapid reversal of rudder input after significant yaw had developed and
the found the structural load could be more twice the design load -if
I remember correctly.

Cheers

On Aug 14, 6:16*pm, "Flaps_50!" wrote:
On Aug 9, 12:41*am, a wrote:



John Smith wrote

"After being buffeted by the wake from a jet ahead of them, the pilots
made several sharp rudder movements." Note the key word "several".
"Several" sharp rudder movements may break any aircraft at any speed,
especially big ones, as any pilot sould know, especially after the
American Airlines crash from 2001.

True enough, but absent any conflicting factual information, if the
NTSB is indicating the controls are too sensitive and airframe damage
can happen even when special training is given. I'd call it a design
weakness or flaw.

The Airbus is a fly by wire airplane, pilot inputs for all intents are
'suggestions' to the software, and we've read elsewhere of accidents
caused because the software chose to ignore those inputs. A reasonable
person might find, then, that inputs that might damage the airframe
would be moderated by the programming. A jury made up of such
reasonable persons might be inclined to think harshly of Airbus.

If I was the plaintiff in such a lawsuit I'd ask for a change of venue
to, oh, Seattle comes to mind.

Typical litigous mentality. The plane passed certification but any
pilot can break a plane. Control surfaces have the power to break
wings, tailplanes and rudders -fact. I believe NASA had to use a test
plane recently to examine the increase in tail fin load induced by
rapid reversal of rudder input after significant yaw had developed and
the found the structural load could be more twice the design load -if
I remember correctly.

Cheers

Litigation is very much a factor in aviation, as well as in too many
other areas of human activity. I can assure you it is a real world
factor in our management decisions: is it not in yours?

On Aug 8, 7:05*am, a wrote:

The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
lurking near the edges of the envelope.

Which begs a question on runup process.

My brother in law "vigorously" checked controls free and clear to the
point they banged at the stops. I was quite more gentle, taking them
to the stops on free and clear. In some ways, I could see why he did
what he did, but since my normal flight regime didn't abruptly take
control inputs to the stops I elected my way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki79yX4bhJ4 Runup starts 6 minutes into
the video.

I wonder how others did it?

On Aug 8, 9:25*am, " wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:05*am, a wrote:

The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
lurking near the edges of the envelope.

Which begs a question on runup process.

My brother in law "vigorously" checked controls free and clear to the
point they banged at the stops. *I was quite more gentle, taking them
to the stops on free and clear. *In some ways, I could see why he did
what he did, but since my normal flight regime didn't abruptly take
control inputs to the stops I elected my way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki79yX4bhJ4Runup starts 6 minutes into
the video.

I wonder how others did it?

As you, I move the controls to the limits, but gently. You'll see
elsewhere recommendations that throttle advancement be slow as well,
and there's little reason to be abrupt with the prop for that matter.
If one pays for the repairs on a personal airplane, gentleness usually
equals lower bills as well as more comfortable passengers.

One wonders if in fly by wire airplanes pilots might assume the
software will protect the mechanical parts. Speaking of that, if you
watch films of advanced jets landing (these airplanes are by design
unstable) you'll see very busy stabilizers, lots of flipping, but the
pilot will tell you he's just applying smooth back pressure to the
stick. The computers know the attitude the pilot wants and makes it
happen actively.

I did a test on our cars, in neutral or park full throttle will
accelerate the engine but it self limits well below redline. That and
the ABS mentioned in an earlier thread add a layer of protection. If
you extrapolate that sense of protection into taking a 1.1 g turn in
tires that can support only 0.9 gs you'll bend metal.

..