Airbus Blames AA For Crash

[JJay]

Airbus blames American in November, 2001 jet crash.

NEW YORK - Airplane maker Airbus Industrie blamed American Airlines in court papers for "improper" flight operations that it said caused Flight 587 to crash in 2001, killing 265 people.
The papers, filed this month in federal court in Manhattan, said the airline "failed to operate the aircraft in the manner that was foreseeable and normal or intended by Airbus."

"Nothing Airbus did or failed to do caused the accident or any harm or injury to the plaintiffs," the court papers say, referring to the victims of the crash.

An Airbus A300-600 crashed on Nov. 12, 2001, minutes after taking off for the Dominican Republic, killing all 260 people aboard and five people on the ground in Queens.

More than 200 legal suits from victims' families have since been filed against American and Airbus.

American Airlines spokesman John Hotard told the New York Post, which reported on the court papers Thursday, that Airbus' position was "ridiculous."

The National Transportation Safety Board is still examining why the plane's rudder suddenly began swerving violently, causing the tail fin to break off and the plane to crash.

At a Washington hearing last year, the NTSB presented evidence suggesting the co-pilot moved the rudder back and forth after encountering turbulence from a jet five miles ahead. But it is also investigating whether there was a problem with the rudder itself.

It said it may reach some conclusions by this spring.

 

[328dude]

If pressing on the rudder cause's it to fall off, then umm, maybe I better quite using it then.

 

[B190Captain]

Yah just like Aerospatiale said there was no fault in the design of the ATR following the Roselawn crash.


French..."Oh it's not our fault!"

Not surprising.

 

[Ty Webb]

What else did you expect from a company that designs a plane where the pilot is little more than a "monitor"?

The pilot of the AA flight was a very experienced pilot with a fair amount of aerobatics experience. I don;t believe for a second that he responded to a bit of "used air" by mashing on the rudder pedals through full travel 7 times. No way.

That aircraft had been involved in a severe turbulence encounter prior to this incident, and the only inspection that was required was a "visual" inspection . .hardly adequate to determine damage to a composite control surface, IMHO.

Of course, true to form, the cowardly French will always blame the pilot before their product.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The reason it crashed is that the designers designed the vertical stabilizer as if it were a metal part, and attached it to the fuselage as if it were a metal part.

It is a carbon fiber part, and most aeronautical engineers, along with the companies that make the aircraft, especially at the time the plane was designed, do not understand carbon fiber parts that well.

The FAA also doesn't understand this, and will approve designs that are not optimal.

My brother is an aeronautical engineer and a carbon fiber parts designer specialist. While he said that the design of the Airbus is "safe", it could be made much safer if the people responsible knew how to use carbon fiber better.

Cliff
GRB

 

[House_X]

Funny...I don't see jetBlue, Northwest, United, FedEx, UPS, America West, US Airways, Air Canada and the HUNDREDS of other airlines around the world who fly Airbus complaining about safety issues.

And before you start waving American flags, check the subcontractor list that Boeing uses...you'd be suprised how much of the parts for the American Pie jet is made in other countries. Don't blame Airbus for Boeing layoffs...we live in a free market economy...BLAME BOEING!

The irony is that if an employer put an ad out for A-340 pilots, you'd be beating down the doors to get the job...I guess hypocracy is the greatest luxury...

House

 

[Marko Ramius]

They're all the same!

Who are we kidding, all the manufacturer's pull this cr@p-so do most of corporate America for that matter. Are people forgetting Boeing blaming pilots for 737 accidents that had to do with the rudder or 727 incident's that had uncommanded slat deployment? How long before Raytheon finds a way to do the same with this 1900 accident?

 

[mar]

Anybody read the transcript?

At the first upset the Capt asks the FO, "You alright?"

At the second upset the Capt tell the FO, "Stay with it."--or something to that effect.

At any rate, the Capt continues to encourage the FO to continue what he's doing. At *NO* point does the Capt ever take the controls which suggests to me that the FO was performing appropriately.

If the FO had begun to slam the rudder pedals from left to right I can imagine the Capt saying, "What in christ's name are you doing?"

I think Airbus has a software problem aggravated by a cheesy plastic tail...but that's just my opinion.

Fly safe.

 

[Eagleflip]

Mar, I see the implications differently than you do.

First, a "software" problem is quite unlikely, since the A300 is not a fly by wire jet. True, some models use FBW to make autopilot inputs, but the flight control connections (stick to actuator) are conventional.

In any case, even in the FBW A320, rudder control is conventional, e.g. movement of the pedals is physically linked to the rudder actuators.

What bothers me about the post-crash interperetation of the cockpit voice recorder is the context of the Captain's and F.O.'s comments. We have no idea of what it really means. "Hang on to it...hang on to it" is rather ambiguous and doesn't give me an impression that there is something wrong with the jet--simply that there is a bad situation developing, e.g. there are unwelcome changes in aircraft attitude.

Given the fact that the NTSB has stated that the rudder moved due to rudder pedal inputs, only two possiblities are probable: the F.O. made the inputs or they were commanded by some other system failure.

If the rudders were moving on their own accord, wouldn't the F.O. have made a comment to that effect? And, if that uncommanded input were indeed present, would not the Captain have tried his side to limit the travel?

Heck guys, I don't know the answer. I do know that it is premature to identify the root cause of this accident.

This "blame game" between Airbus and AA is just that--legal posturing to limit liability.

 

[jsoceanlord]

my gut feeling is it could have to do with all this training to pick up a wing with 'top rudder'

it seems like i can remember some instructors yelling "top rudder" in small twins

you can have turbulent air where the plane'll zig instead of zag

they were ground fueling a B-52 bomber near sacramento calif about 15 years ago and the wing fell off