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

[~~~^~~~]

The 727 has two rudders.

So does the E120

 

[Bringupthebird]

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)?

You mean like a B-2?

 

[UALRATT]

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)?

I'm sure that's exactly the gist of what he is saying. It seems that you are disagreeing with something that you actually agree with. By the way what do you mean by "flight test experience"? Hopefully not this type...
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/d-la081127ea/pdf/d-la081127ea.pdf
nor this type...
http://markpknowles.com/first-airbus-crash-photos/
nor...
To modify Boris Marshalov: This internet thing is so strange. A man writes his opinion, nobody really reads it carefully - and then everybody disagree...

 

[SkiFishFly]

I'm sure that's exactly the gist of what he is saying. It seems that you are disagreeing with something that you actually agree with. By the way what do you mean by "flight test experience"? Hopefully not this type...
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2008/d-la081127ea/pdf/d-la081127ea.pdf
nor this type...
http://markpknowles.com/first-airbus-crash-photos/
nor...
To modify Boris Marshalov: This internet thing is so strange. A man writes his opinion, nobody really reads it carefully - and then everybody disagree...

Although you can certainly say those XL Airways guys had considerable experience - there is no mention of prior flight test experience. It certainly seems they were "winging it" during this flight and ultimately paid the price for this.
Same thing goes for the A-340 crash you reference.

 

[B-atch]

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.

I would want to find the engines. Depending on where they fell, the investigators might be able to determine if the tail departed in flight or at impact. It is interesting to note that the doomed AC reported loss of pressurization, followed by total electrical failure. This might be consistent with the engines separating from their pylons, as the AC wobbled out of control.
If they fail to recover the DFDR and, or CVR, they will have to explore possible scenarios based on available evidence and historic analysis. Case in point AA A-300 accident in 2001.

 

[embpic1]

When the AA A300 tail came off it yawed so much that both engines came off before it went in. Those engines can't take 300 kts from the side. That would explain some of those ACARS messages.

 

[B-atch]

That looks a lot like AA587's tail. I'm a bus guy but I'm not smart enough to know what faults would be generated if the vertical stab separated in flight. The first acars messages were as followed (this list was borrowed from another site):

02:10Z:
Autothrust off
Autopilot off
FBW alternate law
Rudder Travel Limiter Fault
TCAS fault due to antenna fault
Flight Envelope Computation warning
All pitot static ports lost

02:11Z:
Failure of all three ADIRUs \
Failure of gyros of ISIS (attitude information lost)

02:12Z:
ADIRUs Air Data disagree

02:13Z:
Flight Management,
Guidance and Envelope Computer fault PRIM 1 fault SEC 1 fault

02:14Z:
Cabin Pressure Controller fault (cabin vertical speed)

The sequence and type of messages could be explained by the loss of the vertical stab. Now the question becomes what caused the stab failure? (If that in fact is what happened)

:-(

Again consistent with the tail separating in flight. Excessive side load gyrations would exceed the limits of any attitude platform. Including the ISIS. ADIRUs air data disagree consistent with the pitot probes sensing different inputs due to a wobbling/gyrating AC.
I suspect that the fuselage and wings impacted the water relatively intact/ minus the vertical fin.
Forensic analysis of the victims can also yield if traumatic injuries occurred prior to impacting the water.

 

[contrail67]

Boeing stock is up because the 787 flight test program is projected to start this month.

And the speculation that if United decides on Boeing to supply the possible order for 150 planes this fall.....

 

[ackattacker]

Where is the TCAS antenna in a bus? Is it in the fin?

 

[Marko Ramius]

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)?

No I have no flight test experience and aren't looking for any Full deflection of the rudder shouldn't cause the load limit of the tail to be exceeded on the A330 or any other transport category as that is part of the certification testing. What isn't part of that testing on any of the planes that we fly is fully deflecting the rudder one way, followed by a full reversal the other way. Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Airbus, etc, none of them have been designed for this scenario(to date) and we all are truly test pilots if it happens to us for whatever reason. Why design that way? Because the law allows it and as always $$$ are involved. It's the same reason that Boeing and McD were able to get away with some older certification standards on some equipment on the MD-80 and 737 while Airbus cried foul because they couldn't do the same with the A320.

 

[ackattacker]

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)?

I don't mean to get personal, but you are frankly talking out of your ass. I certainly hope you have no flight test experience.

Can you fully deflect the elevator of an airplane at normal cruise speed (above Va) and expect to remain within load limits? Or course not. Airplanes are not bumper cars, you can't just do whatever you want with the controls and expect everything to be OK. There's no promise that the airplane is unbreakable. No doubt Airbus has designed a acceleration limit into the elevator control system, but many of us fly airplanes without such a system and somehow manage to not break the wings off.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

French President Sarkozy flying used A330 as AF One

French President Sarkozy just upgraded his plane to the A330 last year. I wonder if they buy a new model.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/world/europe/12france.html

 

[habubuaza]

You know, keeping in mind that AF447 is a far way off from being solved (if ever) and AA587's tail separation is raising new questions, how about Air Transat? Didn't they lose a tail on an A310? I am not one to speculate, but come on. I never really did hear what came out of the A310 incident.

Air Transat : Status on Flight TS961 of March 6, 2005
Monday March 7, 12:28 am ET

MONTREAL, March 7 /CNW Telbec/ - Air Transat Flight TS 961 that left Varadero, Cuba, for Québec City, had to return to Varadero approximately 30 minutes after take-off, due to a mechanical failure. There were 261 passengers and 9 crewmembers on board the Airbus A310 aircraft, which landed normally in Varadero at 4:18 p.m. local time on Sunday. Deplaning occurred normally through the loading bridge.

Passengers were sent to hotels in Varadero. Passengers will arrive in Québec City in the early morning hours of Monday.

Preliminary observations indicate that a portion of the rudder detached from the aircraft, as the flight was progressing under normal conditions at its cruising altitude.

Air Transat operates 10 Airbus A310s. The Company immediately carried out a thorough visual examination of all its Airbus A310s. The inspection was completed in the following hours and no anomaly was detected. The inspection caused delays on certain flights but no Air Transat flights have been cancelled. The Company expects to be back to a normal schedule on Monday.

Following the incident, Air Transat immediately advised Airbus, Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Based on available information, an investigation will be conducted by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, with support and participation of Cuban authorities, Air Transat and Airbus.

The aircraft involved in Flight TS 961, an Airbus A310, was put into service in 1991. It had an A-Check inspection on March 1, 2005 and its next major C-Check inspection is scheduled for 2006.

Flight TS 961 left Varadero at 2:48 a.m. on Sunday, March 6.The problem occurred sometime about 3:15 a.m. and the aircraft landed normally at 4:18 a.m. in Varadero