Should the book be closed on AA587?

[Dangerkitty]

AA did also have the video of the guy showing you what to do in the event of an unusual attitude and use of the rudder. Everyone in my class laughed when they saw it. Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm sure you will.

I guess you guys have never heard of top rudder.

Read and learn what B6? I guess the AAMP program was just over your head.

 

[Dangerkitty]

From a old Boeing manual (1993)

The AAMP program never told pilots to use large alternating control inputs on ANY control surface.

 

[ils2minimums]

So what about the Air TransAt A310? There were NO rudder inputs being made when the rudder departed the airplane.

I think one of the main objectives of the commentary is to point out the misconceptions about the composite material being used and the manner in which the search for defects is being conducted.

A note about the NTSB animations link in a post above. Those animations are based on a DFDR whose data was deemed ineffectual until it was reconstructed by two teams from, of all places, Airbus.

They don't even MENTION the filter on the DFDR in this program, even though the NTSB Hearing in October, 2002 began with the words of Bob Benzon himself: "Due to the filter that augmented the readout data from the DFDR, we will never know exactly what the flight controls on AA 587 did on november 12, 2001" or words to that effect. He then explained that, the DFDR normally records 60 data points per second. The filter installed--which was ordered by the FAA to be de-activated years prior, but was not--filtered out 59 of these datapoints, so that only one data reading per second was sent to the cockpit instruments.

In order, however, to get a good read on the rudder, the filtered-out data points had to be put back in. Two models were made of this data to re-introduce this...and, the project team called in to perform BOTH models?

Airbus.

 

[B6Driver]

ils2minimums,
Your attempting to go over just what happened with AA587 and other A300 crashed and your fellow AA buddy danderkitty wishes to just roll around in the mud and sling arrows at all the so called aa bashers. That was never my intention on this thread.

 

[B6Driver]

dangerkitty,
much of my time is in heavy acft and yours? Oh never mind, I can read for myself. Run along now son.

 

[Dangerkitty]

dangerkitty,
much of my time is in heavy acft and yours? Oh never mind, I can read for myself. Run along now son.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Your problem is that you can't even address what I said so you resort to plain insults.

Just because you have flown a 747 and I haven't doesn't mean that you are more experienced than I am. Using your logic I guess that since TWA flew heavies and Southwest never has then TWA must be the better airline.

Well Southwest has a $13 billion dollar market cap. What about TWA?

Run along now old fart. Looks like you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[Dangerkitty]

ils2minimums,
Your attempting to go over just what happened with AA587 and other A300 crashed and your fellow AA buddy danderkitty wishes to just roll around in the mud and sling arrows at all the so called aa bashers. That was never my intention on this thread.

No, I just pointed out how you did and continue to make a complete and total fool of yourself. If you disagree with some of the AAMP program, fine. (I am sure you watched the whole program) However for you to state that you and your whole TWA class laughed at the program means you really dont have much of an education in high performance jet aerodynamics.

Then you imply that you must know more than me because you have flown two heavies and I haven't.

Why dont we compare W2's instead. Up to the challenge?

 

[B6Driver]

"Why dont we compare W2's instead. Up to the challenge?" Pea brain.......
As I said B4, run along son.

 

[mdf]

I think you guys are missing the point

The guy who was flying is not around to defend himself. This whole thing smells bad to me. Things just don't add up, and it could have been any one of us. Under the situation it should not be acceptable that a rudder could come off in the first place. I hope someone gets to the bottom of this thing. I feel for the guy, and his family.

 

[AA717driver]

mdf--The whole point is that no one will ever get to the bottom of it. The crew, the plane and the report has been buried by the NTSB and FAA.

They had an airplane come apart under them in a clear blue sky. It just happened at exactly the wrong time in history. TC

 

[RP 04]

So did the FO push the rudder pedals, or not?

 

[Dangerkitty]

"Why dont we compare W2's instead. Up to the challenge?" Pea brain.......
As I said B4, run along son.

Must be skeered.

 

[ils2minimums]

So did the FO push the rudder pedals, or not?

Due to the filter on the DFDR, we will never know. Did the pedals move as a result of the rudder movement, or FO inputs? Unfortunately, it'll take another similar accident before the answer will get a closer look from the government.

 

[aa73]

Due to the filter on the DFDR, we will never know. Did the pedals move as a result of the rudder movement, or FO inputs? Unfortunately, it'll take another similar accident before the answer will get a closer look from the government.

Exactly.... and like I said earlier, it is much easier to blame the pilot and his airline than an airplane manufacturer that supplies a big chunk of the US airline fleet. We will most likely never know.... so therefore, duh, pilot error.

73

 

[b19]

eeeet snapped beekoz eeeet eeeze plaztique

Silly Americans with your overbuilt planes.

 

[b19]

I just can't believe the pilot swung the rudder multiple times, why? It goes against a career of flying and training, maybe there was one agressive input, but not multiple inputs, it just doesn't make sense. They are not here to defend themselves and we shouldn't be so quick to condem, it just doesn't make sense. How easy would it have been to blame the pilots on the first one or two 737's?

 

[pipe]

A note about the NTSB animations link in a post above. Those animations are based on a DFDR whose data was deemed ineffectual until it was reconstructed by two teams from, of all places, Airbus.

It is entirely possible that Airbus didn't look at things in a particularly objective fashion.

It reminds me a little of a company that discovered that they broke the DC-10's engine retainer pin - and then subsequently shredded the report.

PIPE

 

[igneousy2]

This would not be the first time the frenchies have been involved in a cover up.

Read:

http://www.amazon.com/Unheeded-Warning-Inside-American-Flight/dp/0070219516

Unheeded Warning documents the investigation of AE 4184 in Roslawn, Indiana. One part of the book claims that the State Department reversed an FAA grounding of the ATR. Yes...the State Department. Read this and you will never take an ATR into known icing again.



Later,

 

[Huck]

I cannot believe that more was not made of this:

According to the NTSB, N14053’s maintenance log revealed that during a preflight check on the morning of the accident, "the yaw damper and a pitch trim control would not engage ... The computer controlling these functions was reset."

- Aviation Today

Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist here, but guess what Egypt Air, AA 587 and the Alaska MD-80 with the bad jackscrew all have in common? They all had trouble with autopilot and/or yaw damper systems either not engaging or failing self-test immediately prior to their accidents.....

 

[Dangerkitty]

This would not be the first time the frenchies have been involved in a cover up.

Read:

http://www.amazon.com/Unheeded-Warning-Inside-American-Flight/dp/0070219516

Unheeded Warning documents the investigation of AE 4184 in Roslawn, Indiana. One part of the book claims that the State Department reversed an FAA grounding of the ATR. Yes...the State Department. Read this and you will never take an ATR into known icing again.



Later,

I guess holding for about 45 minutes in heavy icing with the flaps down had nothing to do with it.