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

[ImbracableCrunk]

It is unlikely that they will be able to gleam much info from this piece alone. One piece of a puzzle doesn't paint a picture. What they need is the magic boxes and the worlds most talented deep sea salvige teams will be on scene in a few short hours;
The Navy.

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.)

 

[EWR_FO]

A ground school (line safety instructor) told a class today that a TAP Air Portugal flight, shortly behind Air France, deviated a significant distance to the west on a similar route. I don't know how accurate his information is or if there is any way to verify that, I would imagine it will come out eventually.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

I do recall two 737s going down due to rudder problems.
I don't think one manufacturer has it perfect on everything.

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

 

[Marko Ramius]

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.

 

[RedRum]

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

NO. Accident aircraft was a much newer A330-200. The Queens, NY aircraft was an A-300. (Much older)

 

[J Dawg]

I agree, but someone should tell Airbus, ALL their problems are always pilot error, sometimes like in Toronto its airport error.

No, that was pilot error as well.

But I buy "airport error" as a contributing factor, which of course the Canadians deny. YYZ is the only place I've landed with "poor" braking action reports under damp runway conditions in July (it was sunny and stopped raining 15 minutes prior). The runways are not grooved, and they don't seem to like scrubbing the rubber off from time to time.


As far as all the comments about this vertical stabilizer breaking off at the attachment points...I must ask - If a vertical stabilizer is to break off, where exactly is it supposed to break off from then???? Before someone comments it shouldn't have come off....if a Boeing drops into the ocean from 35,000', I doubt the vertical stab will be found attached to what's left of the fuselage.

 

[Ty Webb]

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.

 

[flynryan15]

I do recall two 737s going down due to rudder problems.
I don't think one manufacturer has it perfect on everything.

HMMMM I wonder what I have a better chance of recovering from? A rudder hard over due to a bad actuator, or the tail leaving the fuselage? :erm:

Either way the tail section is in pretty good condition if it fell 35,000ft at terminal velocity.

 

[Patriot328]

HMMMM I wonder what I have a better chance of recovering from? A rudder hard over due to a bad actuator, or the tail leaving the fuselage? :erm:

Either way the tail section is in pretty good condition if it fell 35,000ft at terminal velocity.

So was the tail on the AF plane the first thing to come off, causing the crash, or was it one of the last things to come off during the inflight breakup of the a/c?

Finding the tail intact doesn't mean it caused the accident, yet.

 

[J Dawg]

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.