A310 Loses Rudder

[Weasil]

This story may have already been discussed because it happened a week ago but I came across a photo of the missing rudder so thought it was worth sharing.

http://epgv1.europeanprescriberguide.com/rudder.htm

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?p=53588#53588



Air Transat plane develops problem leaving Cuba

Last Updated Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:45:48 EST
CBC News


MONTREAL - Several Air Transat airplanes were temporarily grounded Sunday after the rudder on a plane flying from Cuba to Quebec City nearly fell off. On Saturday, an Air Transat Airbus 310 flying from Varadero, Cuba to Quebec City developed what the airline reported as mechanical difficulty about 30 minutes into the flight.

A spokesperson for the airline said the plane's rudder "partially fell off."

None of the 261 passengers or nine crew members were injured.

 

[Huck]

Want me to go ahead and give you Airbusses probable cause?

 

[H8ster]

From looking at the pictures and the company statement, we should all be relieved the entire rudder did not fall off! Thank God it was only partial. That remaining 5 inches of hinge saved the day!

 

[AlbieF15]

Those stupid pilots probably broke the tail off by slamming the rudder pedals the 1 1/4 inches required for full deflection. Those ham-fists!

For those who can't see the sarcasm there, a recent flying magazine highlighted the fact that the airbus engines made very light controls to harmonized with the relatively easy aileron forces. It also pointed out that during upset training, the sim "washed out" rudder forces until 90 degrees of bank so that the pilots couldn't recover the jet prematurely and the sim could show the full upset profile. The results where AA pilots made aggressive rudder inputs early during the upset (duh!) since the airplane wasn't reacting. Now...I'm not an AA pilot, but I've heard nothing but excellent reports on their training programs and I've seen a few of their videos put out and used by other organzations. This just seems to me to be a classic pilot/engineer disconnect.

 

[xanderman]

Want me to go ahead and give you Airbusses probable cause?

Did you make this same statement when the Boeings were crashing because of rudder problems?

 

[N1atEcon]

"Did you make this same statement when the Boeings were crashing because of rudder problems?"

I don't think that was ever proven to be true. Was it?????????

 

[BoilerUP]

Rudder hardover vs. Rudder detachment.


I thunk I'll take the hardover.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I don't think that was ever proven to be true. Was it?????????

Not really. At issue was the Rudder's PCU ( Power Control Unit ) built by Parker Hannifin to Boeing's specifications. The NTSB ran out of ideas and finally superheated hydraulic fluid and forced into a super cooled PCU. The thermal shock jammed the PCU in one instance out of their series of hundreds of tests. The NTSB admitted that their tests had no direct relation to the causation of the crash since the temperatures were manipulated to such an extreeme degree. However, gyro failures and other possible causes are hard to detect as well, so the NTSB took their questionable tests and ran with them.

Of course the tests were duplicated by Plaintiff attorneys. I think most of the PCU cases settled. If I am not mistaken the PCUs have been redesigned.

 

[I.P. Freley]

I'd think that this would be happening all the time if there were an inherent flaw in the rudder design.

There's obviously an explanation, but saying all Airbus' products are inherently flawed pretty much defies common sense... There are about 1500 of these airplanes out there (the A300/310/330/340 share substantially the same airframe), built over the last 30 years, and the only rudder issues I'm aware of are this most recent one and the AA crash in '01.

You know what they say, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Any number of things could've happened to that rudder, and saying the aicraft is a POS is the least likely of the explanations.

 

[Spur]

Rudder hardover vs. Rudder detachment.


I thunk I'll take the hardover.

I think you choose poorly... the rudder hardover was often fatal. I dont think loss of the rudder would be that difficult to adjust to once you got slowed down a bit, assuming no other malfunctions. In fact I cant think of any accidents attributed to losing the rudder...

 

[I.P. Freley]

In fact I cant think of any accidents attributed to losing the rudder...

You kinda set yourself up with that statement... Someone will inevitably holler "HELLO... American!!". But of course that wasn't an accident caused by losing a rudder, but one caused by losing the whole stabilizer.

The only accident I can think of (which is to say I haven't researched it) caused by a missing rudder was the JAL 747, though they lost MOST of the vert stab, too... Certainly less of it was left attached to the airplane than in this most recent incident. The fact that the rest of the tail was still attached and the airplane landed safely indicates to me that having at least a vestige of your vertical stab is good enough to get you on the ground.

Certainly we've all seen photos of WWII bombers and other combat aircraft with huge chunks of the tail missing that landed safely... And yes, I know many of those were Boeings.

 

[FL717]

This is thread has certainly brought up an interesting hypothetical question/debate.

Obviously since never having experienced any of the above listed malfunctions, I just have to take a wag at this.. so my order of preference for the above listed scenarios would be:

1. None of the above

2. Missing rudder - assuming all engines and remaining flight controls operating normally - yeah right.....

3. Rudder hardover

4. Missing the whole entire vertical stabilizer - this I believe to be a 100% showstopper.

 

[Huck]

Did you make this same statement when the Boeings were crashing because of rudder problems?

Yes, actually - or something similar.

I was at an DAL-ALPA sponsored safety forum in the late nineties when a Boeing flight test pilot theorized that one of the USAir pilots in the 737 hardover crash was an alcoholic who got the delerium tremens and locked one leg against the rudder pedals.

I don't trust any of them. And I used to work in that business before I started flying.

It sounds cliche but dead pilots really make the easiest scapegoats. The whole world has just swallowed the idea that a AA FO would tap dance on the rudder pedals at 5 hertz at 250 knots, ignoring that the composite rudder lug that failed had been field repaired BY AIRBUS; ignoring that the yaw damper had failed its preflight test and had been "reracked"; ignoring that there was no data on rudder input, just rudder pedal deflection (could be caused by YD).

 

[Cyclone]

Unfortunately after an accident the investigators version of what happened becomes gospel truth to some when in fact it is sometimes not much more than a guess. Some investigations do a good job solving the puzzle and figuring out what probably happened. Others have no clue and they still put out a report about what probably happened.

The 737 hardover rudder may in not have been rudder hardover afterall...could have been caused by flap problems. It hasn't been proved otherwise.

 

[FDJ2]

It sounds cliche but dead pilots really make the easiest scapegoats. The whole world has just swallowed the idea that a AA FO would tap dance on the rudder pedals at 5 hertz at 250 knots, ignoring that the composite rudder lug that failed had been field repaired BY AIRBUS; ignoring that the yaw damper had failed its preflight test and had been "reracked"; ignoring that there was no data on rudder input, just rudder pedal deflection (could be caused by YD).

Excellent observations Huck.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

The 737 hardover rudder may in not have been rudder hardover afterall...could have been caused by flap problems. It hasn't been proved otherwise.

Hard for a flap problem when they were retracted. (427 was 190kts and clean when the event occured)

It was rudder, they just never found out exactly why. There have been numerous rudder hard overs worldwide. It appears that only two resulted in crashes. USAir and United(Unclear about United but it fit the profile)

After the U crash, all the airlines developed a training program to combat the problem, as well as adjusting min flap speeds(220kts on the 200 and 230kts on the 300's instead of 190kts, the flaps provide a stabilizing effect that allows recovery below the 200 to 210 kts area). The airplane is savable in the situation(at least in the sim), as long as you know what it is doing. If you fly a 737 and look at the data, it is pretty clear that there is still a small window during configuration changes that "may" be problematic if you have a hard over during that time. If it happens, speed is your friend, as long as you have enough aileron to over power the rudder. The real problem that screwed up the crew on 427 was the apparant rudder pedal reversal, meaning that the pedals did the opposite of what the rudder did. In the sim it screws with you even though you know it can happen, airplane rolling right, but the pedals are showing full left.

Eastwind, and DAL are two that I know had it happen in flight after the training programs were in place. There were several foreign carriers that had similar "roll" problems also.

The last PCU redesign does seem to have fixed the problem, but no one is sure.

I feel that there were alot of "financial" considerations at work during that investigation, Every 737 pilot knew what the problem was 6 months after the accident of 427, And every airline spent millions setting up a training program to combat it 4 years before the NTSB got around to their final ruling. My airline devoted an entire special sim session to upset training and all the possible senarios that could arise when the PCU failed. I was offered a chance to go to boeing by one of our safety board guys(flew with him a bunch, I was junior F/O and he was Junior Capt.) and fly the boeing sims with him in the final stages of upset training development, however I had a trip during that time and couldn't get crew scheduling to release me since I was not officially on the board. I hate I missed it, it would have been fun.

After 427, I question the NTSB and their motives sometimes.

To answer the previous posters question, yes the same things were said about the 737 that is being said about the bus......and it was being said by the guys that flew them.

 

[ivauir]

adjusting min flap speeds(220kts on the 200 and 230kts on the 300's instead of 190kts,

Good post, except -300 min speed without flaps is 210 (-500 too)

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Good post, except -300 min speed without flaps is 210 (-500 too)

I was on the 200 so I knew it was 10 kts different, just remembered it the wrong way!

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

I know of no reason to suspect any flap problem, but I do belive 427 was at 190 kts. and Flaps 1....

Went back and looked it up, you are correct, flaps one was set, and all post crash examinations revealed that all flap actuators were in the flap one position.

Bug speed was set at 192 kts.

 

[AlbieF15]

Huck is pretty smart, especially for an Auburn guy. I think he was taking notes and staying awake in those classes I slept and skated through. In all seriousness...the boy has worked in some interesting spots in this industry and I find his insights quite enlightening.

Huck...when do you ditch the 727 avatar? I'm ready to see that MD-11!