Air France tail found. Wow looks like a clean break....

[UALRATT]

When did this happen?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/02/air-new-zealand-airbus-a320-cr.html

Accident occurred on November 28, 2008

Get use to google.com

 

[Colonel Savage]

Post deleted.....since I just caught myself speculating before the facts are in.

How very good of you, now allow me....

My AA 777-flying neighbor says a high-up Hamas figure was onboard. Hmmmmm.....

 

[PHXFLYR]

Reality Check:

Both of the 737 accidents you mention (Colorado Springs and PIT), occurred before much was known of the 'hardover rudder' situation involving the 737. A/C have now been retro-fitted to help prevent the problem and crew training on such a situation.

And, there has been incidents of a hardover rudder with 737s and NO crashes.

Now, think for a minute; the rudder of a Boeing airplane slams 'full deflection' to one side, and the a/c is still flyable and even more important, the tail stays attached to the a/c. And, according to the NTSB (and Airbus), an F/O walks the rudder (side-to-side, full scale or near full scale, AA587, NY), and the tail just 'snaps off' the a/c.

Again, I ask you, just think about for a minute??? Any questions??

For what it worth,

PD

Excellent post and exactly the point I was getting ready to make. I believe the airline that was involved in the 737 hardover incident where the crew managed to recover was Eastwind Airlines out of GSO. The Captain on that flight and I flew at the same commuter airline many years ago in Northern Maine. Sharp pilot, even back then. Believe he's with JetBlue today.


PHXFLYR

 

[ackattacker]

My first thought is midair breakup in turbulence. I would have thought that if the tail came off due to impact with the water, then it wouldn't be in such good shape. However it is easy to jump to conclusions. Composite structures don't necessarily get all mangled and twisted during an impact like aluminum does. They either break or don't. We'll have to wait for the experts.

 

[OurMoney1]

I disagree. I bet someone much smarter than us can figure out quite a bit about what caused the tail to come off and infer a lot about what happened. Those investigators are pretty sharp.

(BTW Glean = gather. Gleam = glow.)

I doubt even an expert can figure out if the tail fell off first from just this piece of wreckage alone. Without other pieces, FDR, and the supporting FOQWA data you are largely in the arena of speculation.

I agree that we have come miles in rebuilding these scenarios but drawing conclusions from a photo alone is really going out on a limb.

 

[Kugelblitz]

Is this the same type of plane that lost its tail over queens in NY right after 9-11?

Makes you wondering if they exaggerated that story about the FO horsing around with the rudder to cover up for poor design by the French? I sure wouldn't put it past the modern P.C. version of "international goodwill."

-Too early to judge, but damn if that whole thing didn't just break right off-just like that American crash over queens.

Blame it on the French!

VIVA BUSH!!!!

 

[Redmeat]

My first thought is midair breakup in turbulence. I would have thought that if the tail came off due to impact with the water, then it wouldn't be in such good shape. However it is easy to jump to conclusions. Composite structures don't necessarily get all mangled and twisted during an impact like aluminum does. They either break or don't. We'll have to wait for the experts.

Exactly.

My opinion is composite tails are too strong. They make the weakest link in that part of the structure the attachment points.

In the 'Douglas verse Airbus verse Boeing' thread, I described the NW 747 hardover incident. That tail went 'every which way but loose'.

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/94360_air06.shtml

The initial hardover of the lower rudder at cruise twisted the entire tail in one direction from the design loads being exceeded. Then the crew used maximum deflection on the upper rudder to counter act the rolling forces of the lower rudder (the lower rudder was 'stuck' fully deflected)...twisting the upper portion of the vertical stabilizer in the opposite direction.

I'm pretty sure had the tail been composite that it would have separated.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

I doubt even an expert can figure out if the tail fell off first from just this piece of wreckage alone. Without other pieces, FDR, and the supporting FOQWA data you are largely in the arena of speculation.

I agree that we have come miles in rebuilding these scenarios but drawing conclusions from a photo alone is really going out on a limb.

It appears that the Forward attach point is still on the tail. I am guessing that if the aircraft hit the water intact that point would be missing as the leading edge would be the first part to hit the water.

I am guessing that they will be able to tell a lot about when the tail separated from the aircraft just by how certain components failed, and how they broke. Science will go a long way to determining the most probable cause of this accident.

 

[bubbers44]

The location of the vertical stabilizer and rudder in reference to the bodies and main debris field would be helpful in figuring when the tail separated.

 

[Linedriver]

Here is the tail of an A-320 which recently crashed on a pre-delivery test flight. Considering all the debris in the water, I imagine this tail stayed with the airplane and broke off during impact. It looks very similar to the AF tail; therefore I don't see why the A-330's tail couldn't have broken off at impact as well.

Three tails have left Airbus aircraft.

Obviously if they broke off on impact that is one thing but if they are coming off in turbulence, it's time for the French to get their heads out of the sand.

 

[727gm]

From the seattlepi.com article 747 article:

The 747 has two. It is the only Boeing commercial jetliner with two rudders, a fact that may have helped prevent an accident.



The 727 has two rudders.

 

[NEDude]

Before we get all riled up in another Boeing vs Airbus and composite structures, keep in mind all of the composites that Boeing is using on 787.

 

[SkiFishFly]

Reality Check part 2. No airplane has been certified swinging the rudder full scale one direction and then the other. It's not required by the FAA and after AA 587, there's no chance it will be except possibly on new designs where it can be engineered in ahead of time(iow the 737 and A320 replacements would be the first) It's quite probable the results of a full scale swing would be pretty ugly in any airplane, especially in the lower speed regimes where the load limiters tend not restrict movement. Also, Airbus doesn't have the market cornered on always blaming the crew. There's a book about the UsAir 427 crash and the NTSB investigation, that will make you feel just as warm and fuzzy about Boeing as Airbus.

I'm guessing you have not had any flight test experience. Simple question - would you want to design/fly/ride-in an airplane that would allow full deflection of a control surface to exceed the load limit of the accompanying structure? (assuming you are within the flight envelope of the aircraft)?

It will be very interesting to see if this debris is in the same vicinty of the rest of the wreckage. Investigators really can't conclude much without this key info.
A previous poster conjectured about the tail would have been torn up from impacting the water at terminal velocity had it separated early. I suspect it may have fluttered much like a falling leaf and thus impacted without much velocity at all.

 

[samballs]

I find the story about the AA A300 being the result of over-zealous rudder inputs to be pretty suspect, especially given the fact the the pilot flying had extensive aerobatic experience, and the sim crew that had to duplicate those "inputs" said that it practically made them sick and that no pilot would ever intentionally make those inputs.

I agree, but did you see the seconds from disaster program about this crash? There seemed to be some pilots from AA willing to throw the FO under the bus. I suspect they were mang. pilots though, can't imagine a line pilot saying some of that stuff.

 

[bubbers44]

AA587, in my opinion, had nothing to do with the copilots rudder inputs. Airbus used him to avoid law suits and possible redesign costs to strengthen the vertical stabilizer. One captain said the FO used too much rudder during one of his flights but even the FE said it wasn't true. Hopefully the dead FO will be found blameless if they can prove this accident was a repeat of AA587.