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!