Another Airbus rudder problem??

teach · Post by **teach** » 12 Mar 2005, 18:58

95% of the rudder ripped away

I've seen the pictures in the mean time. And that only strengthens my belief that there is no relation to AA 587. Why? In this incident, part of the RUDDER 'fell off'. With AA587 is was the entire vertical stabilizer. Different places at which they failed, different parts even.

I know what caused the failure. I know how to prevent composite rudders from breaking away from this ship.

Why not share it with the rest of us?

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 12 Mar 2005, 19:11

Perhaps someone forgot to tight some fasteners of the rudder (see the 2 upper hinges)??
When was the last D-check of the aircraft?
When was the last time someone worked at the rudder?

Regards

Seb.

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 12 Mar 2005, 19:49

TEACH:
May I again humbly remind you of your own words: "it's funny to see people jumping to conclusions..."

Now, have a look here

http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/factsheets/ ... _0210b.htm

and READ THIS SECTION:

Feb. 15, 2002: FAA Notice to Operators

The FAA issued a notice to its aviation safety inspectors providing information for air carriers regarding operational use of the rudders and the subsequent effects on the vertical stabilizer.

KEYWORDS: SUBSEQUENT EFFECTS

So, could we say that, just MAYBE there exists some similarity between the two events?

teach · Post by **teach** » 12 Mar 2005, 22:00

Now, have a look here

I am well aware of this, thank you.

air carriers regarding operational use of the rudders and the subsequent effects on the vertical stabilizer.

..exactly! The, and I quote, "effects on the VERTICAL STABILIZER". Not on the rudder. In this case, it was the RUDDER that fell of, not, and I repeat, the VERTICAL STABILIZER.

Repeated full rudder input could cause the verticla stabilizer to snap off. Nothing was said about the rudder snapping off. In this regard, they are entirely different parts.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 12 Mar 2005, 22:40

I see a relation to AA 587:

Evaluating the effects of violently swinging the rudder back and forth between full left and full right is not really part of the certification process. Therefore, 'funny' things could happen if you do it, things like parts breaking off. In the case of AA 587 the whole tail fell off. Maybe this Air Transat flight was lucky, and some mechanical weakness caused the rudder to break off before the rest came off.

On the other hand, if nobody was messing with the rudder, then there is no relation between the two incidents.

Remembering Air Transat's incident with the hydraulic pipe causing a fuel leak, I would not be entirely surpised if someone had attached the rudder from a slightly different model Airbus to the vertical stabilizer....

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 13 Mar 2005, 01:32

Apparently some of you are somewhat confused about the definitions used regarding this occurence:

1. A Vertical stabilizer is the vertical tail fin, it has no moving parts.

2. A rudder is the device attached to the rear edge of the vertical stabilizer, it is hinged and is controlled by either hydraulics or a jack screw.

Most aircraft can fly with great difficulty using less than the complete rudder,
however the loss of the tail fin will result in a severe yaw situation, and usually results in the loss of the aircraft.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 13 Mar 2005, 04:55

This article casts a very very dark cloud over the A310

It would seem obvious this aircraft should be grounded pending all investigations.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internat ... 74,00.html

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 13 Mar 2005, 05:03

The rudder is mainly used for two things: compensating for the effects of using other control surfaces, and flying sideways (relative to the air mass you're flying through). You might want to do the latter if you're either trying to get down faster, or you're trying to land with crosswind.

teach · Post by **teach** » 13 Mar 2005, 12:53

This article casts a very very dark cloud over the A310

The article is sensationalist. It only portrays one side of the story, and can hardly be called objective. It's an opinion piece and only 'casts a dark cloud over the A310' to those not familiar with The Guardian...

It would seem obvious this aircraft should be grounded pending all investigations.

Bullshit. Should all 737s have been grounded for the rudder hardovers? Should all 747s have been grounded for exploding fuel tanks? Should all 767s have been grounded for thrust reversers deploying in flight?

In all three of these cases there were far more indications of specific problems with these planes than there are now. So why should these planes be grounded when the others were not?

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 13 Mar 2005, 13:44

"The article is sensationalist. It only portrays one side of the story, and can hardly be called objective. It's an opinion piece and only 'casts a dark cloud over the A310' to those not familiar with The Guardian... "

If one is going to offer such criticisms, one really needs to provide some justification, without which such an outburst might appear just a trifle arrogant. For instance, for those of us "not familiar with the Guardian", we might be more amenable to that point of view, should an example of a previous 'sensationalist, unobjective, one-sided story' from The Guardian have been provided.

And, "Bullshit"?

This is a forum for civilized discussion, where, I feel, individuals should feel free to post ideas/questions/"maybes" without any intimidation whatsoever.

Now, WHAT PART OF THE ABOVE does any contributor to this thread not understand?

teach · Post by **teach** » 13 Mar 2005, 14:21

If one is going to offer such criticisms, one really needs to provide some justification, without which such an outburst might appear just a trifle arrogant.

It is well known that the Guardian is, how should I put it, not exactly known for its pro-Europe stance. Furthermore, if you had read the article, you would've seen that it is not exactly offering an objective stance, but is rather looking for all possible ways to cast doubt over the A310.

For instance, for those of us "not familiar with the Guardian", we might be more amenable to that point of view, should an example of a previous 'sensationalist, unobjective, one-sided story' from The Guardian have been provided.

Just off the top of my head, an other article on Airbus comes to mind, where they talked about possible corruption over the SN Airbus deal. The way the article was written was ridiculous. Some people reading it were CONVINCED afterwards that there was corruption involved, even though no facts were known at the time, and all that just by the way the article was written.

This is a forum for civilized discussion, where, I feel, individuals should feel free to post ideas/questions/"maybes" without any intimidation whatsoever

Oh please. If you already feel intimidated by such a simple and commonly used expression, I guess that says more about you than it does about me...

Also, 'one' might consider getting off 'one's' high horse...

Edit: Here's a nice little link to an article on The Guardian's 'objectivity' on another subject...
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles ... rdian$.asp

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 13 Mar 2005, 14:53

I will cease and desist from this "sidebar" activity with one final statement:

I, being neither weak-kneed nor overly-sensitive, find TEACH's outbursts in this forum very offensive, intolerant and, therefore, out-of-place in a DISCUSSION forum.

End.

More pictures of (the ACTUAL TOPIC HERE) Air Transat's rudderless plane:

http://www.aero-news.net/news/commair.c ... 62075041#d

teach · Post by **teach** » 13 Mar 2005, 15:35

I, being neither weak-kneed nor overly-sensitive, find TEACH's outbursts in this forum very offensive, intolerant and, therefore, out-of-place in a DISCUSSION forum.

And I find the accusatory tone with which some people here, including you, are speaking on this subject without knowing the full facts equally offensive. Even the title is misleading and indicative of the fact that you seem to have problems differentiating between a rudder and a vertical stabilizer. The only reason for my 'outbursts' is the 'oh my god it's AA587 all over again' attitude of some here.

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 13 Mar 2005, 17:27

An interesting article on the use of composites in aviation:

http://www.aviationtoday.com/reports/iceberg.htm

Of particular interest:
"...in a presentation to the March 2001 convention of the Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering, C.E. Harris and M.J. Shuart of NASA’s Langley Research Center cited a lingering lack of maturity in some areas of "composite structural design and manufacturing technology....Furthermore, composite components and structures fail very differently from traditional metal structures". ...Compared with most metal components, failure tends to be sudden rather than gradual."

And, as for Air Transat's 2-hour inspections:
"As for the visual inspection that was in this case ultimately required? Researchers at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s Materials and Manufacturing Directorate comment that "substandard fabrication procedures, environmental exposure and handling, or service damage can all have a negative impact on the mechanical integrity of these structures without affecting their visual appearance.""

Personally, I'm glad it's the Cdn TSB doing the investigation this time (vs the US NTSB) - at least the Airbus lobby factor will be minimized - maybe???

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 13 Mar 2005, 18:39

The main problem with composites is that they probably require a set of procedures and tools to properly check their structural integrity which is probably quite different from those needed for metal structures. If composites tend to fail suddenly, without visible advance warnings, then they need to be checked using a different method.

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 13 Mar 2005, 18:45

To clear up any confusion, Flying Magazine January '05 issue) had an article pertaining to the whole issue of maneuvering speed and AA587. Apparently, the pilots were "unaware" that the maneuvering speed of an aircraft pertains only to wing loading and not to vertical or horizontal stabilizer surfaces. In short, the way I was taught (and the way most pilots interpret it) when the airplane is at or below maneuvering speed the plane will stall before any structural failure occurs meaning that you could induce full control application and the airplane will stall first. Obviously this isn't true (refer to AA587 accident analysis and how the airplane WAS below maneuvering speed). I don't think we can blame Airbus for the AA587 crash, but we should look at how the pilots controlled the airplane and what they thought the airplane could do below maneuvering speed. Since maneuvering speed only really pertains to wing loading and not horizontal/vertical stabilizer surfaces, I don't think we can consider this to be an "Airbus rudder problem". Going from full rudder deflection in one direction to the other in full deflection imposes a HUGE load on the whole vertical stabilizer surface, and even if you are below maneuvering speed, any aircraft (not just Airbus airplanes) will probably encounter structural stress if not failure. Also, I don't know if this makes any difference, but American flies A300-600's not A310s. I don't know if that makes any difference at all, but I thought I'd point it out.

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 14 Mar 2005, 16:24

Responding to the previous post re AA587, specifically 'blaming' or not 'blaming" Airbus (the company) (Knight255's post), the US NTSB final accident report cites the design of the Airbus rudder system which allowed potentially destructive rudder inputs by P/F as a contributing factor to the loss of the aircraft. A second contributing factor was incorrect pilot training on rudder input (really, misuse of the rudder), as referenced in Knight255's post. The primary cause was, of course, the radical overuse of rudder input which overstressed the vertical stabilizer mounts/fasteners causing the entire stabilizer/rudder assembly to separate from the fuselage, resulting in loss of control. (whew)

So, was the loss of AA587 Airbus' fault? Was 'it" an "Airbus Rudder Problem"? The US NTSB declared: YES, IN PART.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.htm

The investigation revealed the existence of an internal 1997 Airbus memo which warned of the discovery of a flaw in the controlling software of the rudder system which allowed potentially destructive rudder inputs. Airbus chose to IGNORE that discovery, and take absolutely no action to correct it.

See:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n6276318

Exerpt:
Of perhaps greater concern to board members was the perception that Airbus had not shared all it knew about fin loads during the May 1997 stall/upset of Flight 903, another A300-600 (see ASW, Oct. 25). As in the Flight 587 accident, the Flight 903 incident involved rudder reversals, but NTSB officials investigating that event were not made aware of the high loads put on the fin. Sources say as much as 1.9 of load limit may have been achieved, nearly that of the 1.93 of limit load experienced on the Flight 587 accident aircraft.

In the 1997 upset, the rudder deflected some 63 percent beyond the RTL (rudder travel limiter) at 250 knots airspeed (where the Flight 587 accident airplane experienced structural failure of the fin four years later). A June 16, 1997, Airbus internal memorandum expressed considerable concern over the high loads:

"The reason is that the load due to sideslip ... and the load due to rudder deflection will work in the same direction and must be added up. Rudder movement from left limit to right limit will produce loads on [the] fin/rear fuselage above ultimate design load."

"These high amounts and [their] combination are not covered by Loads Design Maneuvers according to JAR/FAR 25 [the European and U.S. certification standards]."

This was one of the memoranda that prompted Airbus to urge American Airlines to inspect the fin and report the findings. However, in its Aug. 12, 1998, submission to the NTSB on the Flight 903 investigation, Airbus did not mention the RTL exceedances or that ultimate load might have been reached on the fin.

One final note re Knight255's post- yes, the A300 and the A310 use the identical rudder system (software, controls and components).

So, back to the top of the page...YES, I BELIEVE THE LOSS OF AIR TRANSAT'S RUDDER IS "ANOTHER AIRBUS RUDDER PROBLEM".

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 14 Mar 2005, 17:39

Oops on my previous post!!

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 15 Mar 2005, 04:05

A Directive has been ordered by Airbus for inspection of rudder assemblys on A310, A300 aircraft.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=canada

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 15 Mar 2005, 14:44

Initial examination of the flight recorder has revealed that there was no movement of the rudder during the period prior to seperation.
Investigators are now having the entire vertical stabilizer removed from the aircraft for examination and testing.

Aviation24.be

Another Airbus rudder problem??

Critical News re Airbus Rudder Failure

Airbus to order inspection directive