Another Airbus rudder problem??

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 15 Mar 2005, 19:09

Found:

Occurrence No. : A05F0047 Occurrence Type: ACCIDENT
Class : CLASS 2 Reportable Type:
Date : 06-03-2005 Time : 07:15 UTC
Region of Responsibility : HEAD OFFICE
Location : VARADERO (MUVR), CUBA

Aircraft Information:

Registration : C-GPAT Operator : AIR TRANSAT
Manufacturer : AIRBUS Operator Type: COMMERCIAL
Model : A310-300 CARs Info: 705 - AIRLINER
Injuries: Fatal : 0 Serious : 0 Minor : 0 None : 268 Unknown : 0

Occurrence Summary :

A05F0047: Air Transat 961, an Airbus A310-300, registration C-GPAT, serial # 597, departed Varadero, Cuba for Quebec (Quebec). While in the early enroute phase of the flight, aircraft control problems were encountered. The flight then returned to Varadero, and On arrival at Varadero, it was discovered that the aircraft rudder was missing. The TSB sent 2 investigators to Cuba, accompanied by a Transport Canada Technical Advisor. It appears that the occurrence commenced over international waters. In accordance with Annex 13, Canada, as the State of Registry, will be investigating. Cuba has offered assistance.
.......................................................................................................

Re: bits44's earlier post today, I also found this:

FROM : AIRBUS CUSTOMER SERVICES TOULOUSE TX530526F

TO : ALL
A300/A310/A300-600/A319/A320/A321/A330/A340/A318/A340-500/A340-600 OPERATORS

OPERATOR INFORMATION TELEX - OPERATOR INFORMATION TELEX

Subject : Incident - Loss of Rudder Surface In-Flight

OIT classification : Information

Aircraft affected : A310

OUR REF.: SE 999.0017/05/AB dated 08 March 2005

1. Purpose :

The purpose of this OIT is to provide operators with first
details about the loss of a rudder surface during flight and to
give information on the actions taken by Airbus.

2. Event description :

An operator has reported the following incident on an A310-308.
On Sunday 6th March 2005, after departure from Varadero (Cuba),
in cruise at 35000 feet, the crew reported that a loud bang was
heard. The pilot took manual control and returned to land safely
at Varadero.

Visual inspection after landing revealed that a large part of
the rudder surface was missing. A portion of the rudder
structure remained attached between the lower hinge and the
three servo-control attachment points.

There were no injuries reported to passengers, crew or on the
ground.

3. Status :

At this time very few details and no detailed inspection reports
have been received. The event will be subject to a formal
investigation involving the Canadian and French Investigating
Boards. Airbus has sent a team of specialists to Varadero to
assist the authorities with their investigation.

4. Further action :

Based on the information we will receive, appropriate action
plan will be defined and operators informed accordingly.

5. Follow-up :

Follow-up of this OIT will be provided when further details
become available, or in any case not later than 16th March 2005.
......................................................................................................

At the risk of being flamed for posting something that 'somebody heard from somebody else who it from....etc., here's something else found on another "professional" forum. So, for whatever it's worth:

"The Air Transat rudder event occurred when the aircraft was in cruise flight at FL350. There was a strong initial yaw motion. A flight attendant standing in the flight deck was thrown to one side. The event was not precipitated by pilot input and was not reacted to (no counter input)."

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 15 Mar 2005, 22:56

Damn cubans stole the rudder!

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 16 Mar 2005, 03:06

Finally, some "mainstream" media coverage!

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... 50315.html

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 16 Mar 2005, 03:59

and (AP feed)
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 8793972154

Advisor · Post by **Advisor** » 16 Mar 2005, 11:25

Today in CNBC TV18 in India it was reported that Airbus has asked all airlines to check and report rudder problems.

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 16 Mar 2005, 22:00

So, are visual inspections & tap audio analysis enough?

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Cont ... b14dd5daa4&

In the AA587 investigation, the rudder was subjected to 5 different non-destructive test methods: x-ray radiography, Lamb wave imaging, thermography (CT), ultrasonic inspection and computer-aided tap testing.

I'll try to sort out some of the findings from the different tests (from the AA587 NTSB final report), but if anyone's interested, see pp 61-64...there's also a reference to a Materials Lab Factual Report #02-082 which seems to be missing from the "Exhibits from the Public Docket" section.

Airbus was supposed to advise aircraft operators of recommended inspections by March 16.

griptite · Post by **griptite** » 16 Mar 2005, 23:05

bits44 wrote: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.

Let's assume that there was no rudder movement before rudder separation. Then after separation rudder inputs were applied. Would the Flight Recorder record those movements even though 95% of the rudder is missing. (It appeared that the hydraulics are intact).

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 16 Mar 2005, 23:39

Read this carefully

The similarities to the Air Transat rudder separation are too similar to ignore,
draw your own conclusions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml

teach · Post by **teach** » 17 Mar 2005, 13:31

The similarities to the Air Transat rudder separation are too similar to ignore,
draw your own conclusions.

Which similarities are you talking about? Besides the fact that both lost a part (a different one at it) I don't see any. Let's compare them:

-AA587 entered an emergency situation (entered the wake turbulence of the 747), the Air Transat Plane did not;
-AA587's pilot violently moved the rudder full left to full right repeatedly, Air Transat's did not (NO rudder movement before separation);
-AA587's vertical stabilizer separated beyond its ultimate design loads, in other words, it performed as it was designed. Air Transat's RUDDER separated, after a pretty much stress-free condition (no rudder movement, so no big loads).

So, again, I ask you: What similarities do you see, besides both losing a part?

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 17 Mar 2005, 17:20

I guess the similarities that I see are:

1. The rudder detached from the stabilizer IN BOTH EVENTS
2. There are VISUAL SIMILARITIES in the APPEARANCE of EACH AIRCRAFT’S STABILIZERS AND RUDDERS, POST INCIDENT.

I think it’s important at this juncture that we not correlate the two incidents AS TO CAUSE - obviously we have the NTSB findings re causes of AA587 - let’s not ‘jump the gun’ re causative factors for the loss of AT plane’s rudder. So far the reports are that there was no similar radical rudder movements ON THIS FLIGHT. But, hey, C-GPAT first flew 24/09/91, and, I dare say, nobody on this forum knows what has occurred (or has NOT occurred, e.g. inspection/ maintenance, occurrences, composite ageing) to that plane in the intervening 14 ½ years.

This thread started out focussed on the loss of an AIRBUS RUDDER, not on the loss of AA587. I would like to see it retain that focus.

rob464 · Post by **rob464** » 17 Mar 2005, 18:25

and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from Airbus.
For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

If memory serves me correctly, the pedal deflection on AA587 to achieve full rudder deflection was only around two or three inches. That seems like pretty goofy design to me. I understand UPS wants to get rid of their A300s. Apparently, they're not very happy with them.

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 17 Mar 2005, 18:53

where there's smoke........there's (at least) smoldering....

look (and at the date)

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... disbonding

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 17 Mar 2005, 19:26

griptite wrote:
bits44 wrote: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.
Let's assume that there was no rudder movement before rudder separation. Then after separation rudder inputs were applied. Would the Flight Recorder record those movements even though 95% of the rudder is missing. (It appeared that the hydraulics are intact).

It should, however I never asked about that during my discussion. that will no doubt come out in the CTSB report.

teach · Post by **teach** » 17 Mar 2005, 23:22

1. The rudder detached from the stabilizer IN BOTH EVENTS

First time I've ever heard that. The rudder separated from the vertical stabilizer on AA587 before the stabilizer fell off??? I've never read that. Would you mind providing a source that supports that? It doesn't seem logical to me, as the stress that cause the stabilizer to snap off was caused by the rudder. If the rudder had separated, that stress would have disappeared, meaning the stabilizer would have stayed on.

This thread started out focussed on the loss of an AIRBUS RUDDER, not on the loss of AA587.

Let's be honest, you already hinted to AA587 with your thread title, so you shouldn't be surprised about AA587 being discussed...

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 18 Mar 2005, 00:14

Suggest everyone read these documents

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_I ... andoit.htm

http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/library ... 4-5032.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf
this is the final NTSB report very lengthy but interesting.

teach · Post by **teach** » 18 Mar 2005, 10:12

The ntsb report does not say that the rudder separated from the vertical stabilizer before it fell off. So my earlier question remains: What similarities are there between this incident and AA587?

itsdoctorv · Post by **itsdoctorv** » 18 Mar 2005, 10:49

gwillie wrote:I guess the similarities that I see are:

1. The rudder detached from the stabilizer IN BOTH EVENTS

OK, that's it, we should start a separate thread called "thread about the Air Transat incident for people who not only read the AA587 report, but also know the difference between a rudder and a vertical stablizer". There's been too many posts of people mixing the two, despite attempts by knowledgeable others to explain the difference!

griptite wrote: Let's assume that there was no rudder movement before rudder separation. Then after separation rudder inputs were applied. Would the Flight Recorder record those movements even though 95% of the rudder is missing. (It appeared that the hydraulics are intact).

The FDR will record both the movement of the rudder actuators (not the movement of the rudder itself) and the input from the autopilot and yaw damper. So to answer your question, you would know whether the rudder pedals were moved because the actuator recording would show movement, whereas the autopilot (or yaw damper) recording would show nothing (thus it has to be the pilots).

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 18 Mar 2005, 17:58

Re: TEACH’s posts (2nd and 4th previous posts), note that I DID NOT SUGGEST (nor even IMPLY) ANY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS in the AA 587 incident....in SIMPLE words, I did NOT say that, ‘FIRST the rudder separated, SECOND the stabilizer detached’.

I DID SAY: “The rudder detached from the stabilizer IN BOTH EVENTS”. (AA & AT)

So, in evaluating TEACH’s reply, I think it is he who brought SEQUENCE into issue....”First time I’ve ever heard that.” Yeah, well, ME TOO!

As TEACH says in his next post (2nd post above), “The ntsb report does not say that the rudder separated from the vertical stabilizer before it fell off”. I agree, or, at least, I could not find any such statement in the report.

Notwithstanding that the NTSB did not specifically state any SEPARATION SEQUENCING occurred, it is of interest that, document NTSB # 168195 Structures Factual Report (found in Public Docket section), indicates that, while the MOST OF the recovered stabilizer and rudder pieces (not all pieces were found anywhere) were found in Jamaica Bay (stabilizer and rudder fragments very close together), “The leading edge (rudder) between hinges 1 and 2 had multiple fractures resulting in the separation of one section of the leading edge. This section was recovered at Beach 116th street and Beach Channel Drive.” (p19).....so...I do think (while I never said/suggested it in any previous post) that stabilizer and rudder did separate in mid-air, at a height which allowed the leading edge piece to continue travelling in over land and coming to rest close to the impact area of the tail section. ( “The aft fuselage structure from a position just forward of the forward vertical fin main attach points, frame 76, to the tailcone along with both the right and left hand horizontal stabilizer and elevator structures were located in the front yard of 259 Beach street on the southwest side of Beach 131st street. The aft fuselage structure was situated right side up heading southeast, aft to front, along 131st street”)

The FAA wasn’t concerned/focussed on stabilizer-redder separation, but did focus on the cause of the uncontrollable vertical plunge - the loss of the stabilizer.

Second point I want to make: I have no problem “discussing” AA587 features, but I do have a problem with (at this stage of the investigation) statements like “thus absolutely no connection to AA587" (TEACH’s 1st post, #5 in this thread). We can’t compare CAUSES yet, we don’t have a determined cause for the AT incident. We only have some evidentiary facts of a (yes) RUDDER PROBLEM in both occurrences.

A318 · Post by **A318** » 18 Mar 2005, 18:05

Okay, let's say it could be a failure in the composite material, why isn't there a problem with other types of Airbus planes flying around?
I suppose that Airbus uses the same kind of composite now as they used for the A300 and the A310.
If composite turns out to be sensitive for the big changes in temperature, why are there no problem with the stealths which are also made from composite material?
If composite material is so sensitive, why is Boeing building their 787 (7E7) now also from composite material?
To be short, I have my doubts about a construction failure due to the use of composite materials.
On the other hand I have to admit it is very strange to see another stabilizer problem with the same type of airplane.
I would like to see all A300's and A310's grounded until full inspections have been finished.

Greetz,

Erwin

itsdoctorv · Post by **itsdoctorv** » 18 Mar 2005, 18:13

As TEACH says in his next post (2nd post above), “The ntsb report does not say that the rudder separated from the vertical stabilizer before it fell off”. I agree, or, at least, I could not find any such statement in the report.

.
So your entire argument rests on the fact that they found pieces of the rudder separated from the rest of the tail assembly after the AA587 crash. It's a bit like finding the windscreen wipers of a car on the other side of the motorway after a car crash, and saying that the windscreen wipers might be responsible for the crash

When the fin of AA587 got ripped away from the rest of the plane, anything could have happened to the rudder...
I'm sorry, but since the NTSB report DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE RUDDER FAILING PRIOR TO THE FIN FALLING OFF, you just can't link the two accidents. Well, not yet, we'll see when the report comes out for TA.

Aviation24.be

Another Airbus rudder problem??

Flight recorder and rudder movement

Re: Flight recorder and rudder movement