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

 

[TurboS7]

This is a generalization but French engineers are convinced that pilots don't know how to fly that is why everything is via electron's and autopilot. Boeing is a pilot's airplane, at any moment you can click everything off and fly it, they trust the pilot the French do not. After all the bs that has happened in the last couple of months I don't trust the French and never will.American pilots use rudders that is bad, we just all grew up flying real airplanes.

 

[mckpickle]

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.

I'm not sure you know all the facts of this crash. While it was found that moving the de-ice boots aft would help, the crew was the more to blame in this. They were holding at a very slow speed in a 72 with flaps at 15 while in SEVERE icing. It was determined that no aircraft could have withstood that same icing. And they held in it for 30 minutes. I have seen sick amounts of ice on ATR's but only long enough to get out of it. In contrast the Emb-120 has had more icing related incidents than the ATR but prehaps since only 30 people can die instead of 70 the media doesnt care as much. But lets not forget one of the big reasons this gained so much attention was a book titled "Unheeded Warning" by Stephen A. Fredrick in which he provided the media with mass histeria about the ATR. Bottom line; the pilots did not understand the danger they were in and hence didnt avoid it.

 

[Jeff G]

This is a generalization but French engineers are convinced that pilots don't know how to fly that is why everything is via electron's and autopilot. Boeing is a pilot's airplane, at any moment you can click everything off and fly it, they trust the pilot the French do not.

Oh, not this crap again. If I thought you knew what the heck you were talking about, I'd even debate with you. But since you've been repeatedly corrected on this issue, I have to assume you're just willfully ignorant and therefore not worth the trouble.

For everyone else, suffice it to say that an Airbus pilot is fully in command of the aircraft at all times and can take the airplane up to the limits just as fast and as safely as a Boeing pilot. The airplane is not on full-time autopilot as detractors insinuate, and hand-flies just fine, with or without all the "magic."

 

[seagle]

Just one question, was the aircraft below maneuvering speed? If so, then rudder inputs, as harsh as they are allleged to be really should not be an issue. And BTW, did anyone really think Airbus Industries would really take the blame? It's always easier to blame the pilots, especially when they are'nt around to defend themselves! Just my thoughts.

 

[100LL... Again!]

As much as I would love to bash the French here, any corporation would behave the same way, given our litigation-oriented culture.

Hard to believe that the pilot did something that wrong.

 

[mckpickle]

Lawyers are the lowest scum on the face of the earth. Hell they make the French and Mesa pilots seem refined.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

I could have sworn i read somewhere that airbus recomended that American total that airplane well before the crash due to an incident that occured on the ground. Not sure exactly what happend but apparently some ground vehicle struck the airplane.
After repairing the damage it entered back into service.
American flew it even though Airbus recomended to scrap it.

Anyone verify this. Might be bull**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** but i remember reading it somewhere.

 

[chperplt]

I'm not sure you know all the facts of this crash. While it was found that moving the de-ice boots aft would help, the crew was the more to blame in this.

Wasn't the captain in the lav doing the FA during most of the hold?? I remember reading something about that in the final report.

 

[DoinTime]

I've met a lot of pilots who have hated every single airbus that has ever rolled off the assembly line. Not one of them had ever piloted an airbus.

I have never met an airbus pilot that didn't like thier airbus.

Go figure.

 

[VMA214]

Let me clear up a couple of misconceptions about this airplane. I am type rated on this airplane, fly for AA, have flown this (JFK/SDQ) trip many times and have personally flown with the co-pilot.

1. The A-300 is capable of being hand flown at a moments notice by clicking off the auto pilot. And trust me, it takes no longer than Boeing or McDonald Douglass airplanes...flown 'em both.

2. The ONLY specific rudder training AA did was during unusual attitude training for extreme nose high recoveries. After rolling to a 30 degree AOB we were trained to use a little bottom rudder to help get the nose moving toward the horizon.

3. The vertical stab/rudder assemblies on Air transport aircraft are certified for ONE full deflection of the rudder followed by a return to center. THAT is it!!! These airplanes are not certified for a rudder doublet and certainly not a triplet which is what occured on this airplane when the rudder finally departed the airframe. Engineering analysis has shown that almost any other air transport airplane out there, save maybe the 727, would have also lost the vertical stab/rudder assembly under the same conditions.

4. The rudder limiter on the A-300 does limit the movement of the rudder but, once again, protects the flight envelope for only ONE full deflection. The rudder limiter on this airplane (and this is important for you Mad Dog drivers out there) like the MD-80s has the effect of limiting the travel of the rudder PEDALS, unlike the Boeing 757/767/777 airplanes which actually limit the travel of the rudder while keeping the travel of the rudder pedals constant. Therefore, when the airplane (A-300) is starting the takeoff roll you will have about 6 inches of rudder pedal travel. At 250 knots, FULL rudder pedal travel is only about ONE inch either side of center. So, your feet only have to move from one inch of center to one inch the other side of center and you have just EXCEEDED the certified structural limit of the airplane. THIS is what most people (yours truly included) did not understand about this "rudder limiter" system.

It DOES remain to be seen what was the actual cause of the rudder moving as violently as it did. On that, I will not speculate. I hope this helps clear up some misconceptions about the airplane.

By the way, I find the A-300 to be one of the lightest and fastest rolling airplanes in its category and, having flown A-4s I know what a fast rolling airplane is!

 

[Ty Webb]

I have never flown the MD80, but it is my understanding that on the B717 (basically a DC9-32) that the rudder limiter ("porkchop") limits rudder travel, and I am assuming that the hydraulic back-up does the same . . . . . . . ?

As for the NTSB . . . . everyone likes to talk about rudder "inputs", but how do we know that the rudder "inputs" weren't really caused by the vertical stab twisting? I would be curious if this is possible.

 

[mckpickle]

Wasn't the captain in the lav doing the FA during most of the hold?? I remember reading something about that in the final report.

(Inset Porn Music Here!) While I'm not sure of the "reason" for his trip in the back, he had just returned and there was some speculation as to whether or not he was belted in when the roll upset occured. Now don't hold me to this but it is also unclear if both pilots were trying to pull it out because the A/C got a pitch disconect which only happens after ....ah...(foggy memory) I think a 115 pound difference in control colum input. But there was enough force to rip the tail clean off as they tried to pull out. Of course doing 350 knots and out of control might have had something to do with it! Poor basteds!

 

[metrodriver]

Ty, I think that's not very likely. Hydraulics by nature move easily one way, but very difficult the other. Most systems have an artificial feel system, simply because the actuators will not give you the correct response. If you move a control one way, the only way for it to return is if you make a control input the opposite way. I could see a problem with the rudder limiter-if it only limits pedal travel, or pilot input counteracted by the yaw damper. I don't know if the A300 has a rudder split in 2 pieces, with only one piece hooked to the yaw damper. I can see a situation where pilot input moves one pice, and the yaw damper moves the other piece the opposite way. The yaw damper works independant from everything. If it senses any yaw in the plane (whatever the reason) it will try to correct this.
Maybe VMA214 can shed more light on this.
Concerning FBW: in a lot of conventional planes you can select CWS (control wheel steering) on the autopilot. All control inputs will go through the autopilot system to the controls, effectively giving you FBW. Using this might give you more protection, and is an excellent substitute for manual cables. If I'm correct a DC10 could have been saved in the late '60's-early 70's when the floor collapsed, rendering control cables inop. If the crew had had CWS on, they might have been able to control it (wires ran through the ceiling).

 

[dsee8driver]

Hmmm..

VMS said:

3. The vertical stab/rudder assemblies on Air transport aircraft are certified for ONE full deflection of the rudder followed by a return to center. THAT is it!!! These airplanes are not certified for a rudder doublet and certainly not a triplet which is what occured on this airplane when the rudder finally departed the airframe. Engineering analysis has shown that almost any other air transport airplane out there, save maybe the 727, would have also lost the vertical stab/rudder assembly under the same conditions.

VMA, I'm not questioning your response at all. I would like some info on where you came up with it to follow it up a read a little more on it. All along we are thought that below VMA you can use FULL control delfection and never has there been any talk of a limit.

Thanks
Dsee

 

[typhoonpilot]

dsee8driver:

Boeing has put out a Bulletin. For your DC-8, it would be Bulletin No. DC-8-02-01 that is an excellent explanation of rudder design, load limits, and usage in modern transport jet aircraft. It is a rather lengthy piece full of technical detail written by a very sharp test pilot in Long Beach.

" Boeing airplanes are designed to withstand the structural loads generated by a full rudder input out to the airplane's maximum operating airspeed, Vmo/Mmo. Some Boeing airplanes meet these requirements out to the design dive speed. This means the structure has at least a 50% safety margin over the maximum load generated by this kind of manuever... Boeing airplane vertical fins can also sustain loads if the rudder is rapidly returned to neutral from over yaw sideslip or the rudder is fully reversed from a full steady state sideslip. Boeing airplanes are not designed to a requirement of full authority rudder reversals from an over yaw condition. Sequential full or nearly full authority rudder reversals may not be within the structural design limits of the airplane, even if the airspeed is below the design manuevering speed.

Ty:

For the 717 here is some engineering info on the rudder. Typical V1 ( 135 KIAS )

Pedal Force 75 lbs., Pedal Travel 3.3", Rudder deflection 29 degrees

250 ( KIAS )

pedal force 65 lbs., pedal travel 1.6 ", Rudder deflection 13 degrees

Mmo

pedal force 40 lbs., Pedal travel 0.5 ", Rudder deflection 4 degrees

American's Advanced Manuever Program or whatever they called it by Captain Van Derberghe ( Sp? ) was very informative and I quite liked the videos but it was based on information applicable to military fighter aircraft not modern Jet Transports. Boeing and Airbus both freaked out when they saw what was being taught to the American pilots in regards to rudder usage during unusual attitude manuevers. As a result it is my understanding that the program is no longer being taught. Perhaps VMA214 has better info on that as it appears they have changed recently.

Typhoonpilot

 

[ksu_aviator]

Just one question, was the aircraft below maneuvering speed? If so, then rudder inputs, as harsh as they are allleged to be really should not be an issue

I remember hearing shortly after this incident that aircraft are only tested to one full deflection from center. Not full travel from one side to the other and not repeatedly. So, 7 rapid full travels would far exceed the testing that Airbus did.

Why it traveled 7 times from side to side is probably an unaswerable question.

 

[redd]

Maybe this will shed some light on what happened.

Here are the links to the NTSB reconstruction of AA Flight 587, the DFDR data and performance data combined w/the CVR recording on Media Player:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/NTSB_reconstruction587.wmv

And this is the NTSB web page it’s found on:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/anim_587.htm


I first saw this reconstruction back in November, I want to caution you, it is heart rending to watch, it made tears come to my eyes when I first saw it.

Their speed was 239 kts, higher than earlier posted in this thread, and they were climbing. You see calibrated full rudder deflection 5 times, occurring slightly after violent yoke movement.

About a month ago, I had a conversation with an AA, A-300 pilot about the rudder deflection depicted in the reconstruction, and he said to me, that full deflection was what they were taught at AA, similar to military fighter a/c. (Exactly what Typhoonpilot says above.) I even argued with the AA pilot about it, that they couldn’t possibly, but he stood his ground, he insisted they were taught that.

I still find it hard to accept that it was pilot error, the final results are not in, I keep hoping that it wasn’t.

 

[trainerjet]

I remember watching this reconstruction during the NTSB hearings where they were questioning representatives from Airbus.

I don't doubt that the AA Airbus pilot (although I'm sure you meant to say AA A-300 pilot...they don't operate A-320s) was correct in stating this is what they were taught. Their training program has come under scrutiny and criticism by the NTSB on several other accident investigations.

 

[B190Captain]

I'm not sure you know all the facts of this crash. While it was found that moving the de-ice boots aft would help, the crew was the more to blame in this. They were holding at a very slow speed in a 72 with flaps at 15 while in SEVERE icing. It was determined that no aircraft could have withstood that same icing. And they held in it for 30 minutes. I have seen sick amounts of ice on ATR's but only long enough to get out of it. In contrast the Emb-120 has had more icing related incidents than the ATR but prehaps since only 30 people can die instead of 70 the media doesnt care as much. But lets not forget one of the big reasons this gained so much attention was a book titled "Unheeded Warning" by Stephen A. Fredrick in which he provided the media with mass histeria about the ATR. Bottom line; the pilots did not understand the danger they were in and hence didnt avoid it.

I know only from what the NTSB had reported on the accident. I am not ruling out the fact that the crew may had a degree of responsibility but when Aeorspatiale was notified that some flaw may exist they said the only fault lies with the pilots.

On another subject relating to french aircraft manufacturers:

A couple of years ago I saw a documentary called "Survival in the Sky" on the Discovery Channel. It was said companies like Airbus build aircraft for the goal of removing the pilot entirely.

A senior pilot from Lufthansa commented that Airbus aircraft deprive the pilots of a sense of touch or feel for the aircraft when it's under automation. The joystick does not move nor the thrust levers move when the aircraft is flying on it's own unlike Boeing products. Boeing bulids aircraft by pilot input in many areas and when flying under automation the pilot can determine what the aircraft is doing just by touching the yoke.

The French don't give a rats @$$ about the pilots so who are they to blame when a superior french product becomes a hole in the ground?

I have no personal experience on the bus but know some that do and do not like'em very much. Don't get me wrong, I may prefer Boeing but will fly a bus if I had to.

Fly Safe!

 

[VMA214]

don't doubt that the AA Airbus pilot (although I'm sure you meant to say AA A-300 pilot...they don't operate A-320s)

Hey TJ, Dude...an A-300, last time I looked, is just as much an "Airbus" as an A-320.

The joystick does not move nor the thrust levers move when the aircraft is flying on it's own unlike Boeing products.

While this may be true of the "fly by wire" Airbus' it is not true of the A-300 which is NOT fly by wire.

About a month ago, I had a conversation with an AA, A-300 pilot about the rudder deflection depicted in the reconstruction, and he said to me, that full deflection was what they were taught at AA, similar to military fighter a/c.

I don't know who told you this and I guess this is what "concerned" people about this training, BUT, having undergone AA unusual attitude training NEVER ONCE did ANY Check Airman ever say anything to me about using FULL rudder to help bring the nose toward the horizon. The words I always heard was "use a "little" rudder to help get the nose moving toward the horizon. From what I saw, they were VERY careful not to imply that "full" rudder imputs were to be used. However, people and their ability to "hear" what they want to hear will probably tell you that this is NOT what they heard.

Also, having flown "tactical" jets (A-4s) rudder usage at relatively LOW airspeeds and HIGH angles of attack is not so much a "fighter" "technique" as it is a technique to be used on "swept wing" airplanes. And under those conditions (low A/S, high AOA) one would still NOT use FULL rudder authority either in a fighter or transport A/C. I'm not saying that NO check airman ever said to use "full" rudder but that I never heard it used!

Fly Safe!!