Another Airbus rudder problem??

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 18 Mar 2005, 18:15

The question of composites is now coming to "mainstream" media:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_314487.html

teach · Post by **teach** » 18 Mar 2005, 19:01

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’.

You have GOT to be kidding me. So you are now saying (see if I get this one right) that you see similarities in both accidents simply because AA587's rudder separated from the stabilizer AFTER the former had fallen off the plane?????????? I repeat: you have GOT to be kidding me.
If that is what you base your comparison between these two events on, you're wasting everybody's time here.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 18 Mar 2005, 19:21

Apparently this problem with rudders and vertical stabilizers has been a serious concern for some time, now with the effects of time they seem to be cropping up.

Why is only being addressed now?
Air Transat was so lucky to have survived the loss of the rudder, this could have been another Disaster.

http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=AIRBUS ... org&rnum=3

teach · Post by **teach** » 18 Mar 2005, 19:45

Apparently this problem with rudders and vertical stabilizers has been a serious concern for some time,

No need to be such a drama queen... What you linked to is normal service AD, issued back in 1998. Dozens of these are issued each year, for every type of plane.

Why is only being addressed now?

Um, once again, your link is to a service AD from 1998. That's seven years ago. Not exactly 'just now'...

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 18 Mar 2005, 20:08

I'm sorry, but I can't resist this any longer...at the risk of being royally flamed/booted out/whatever other "final solution" may be inflicted on me,

TEACH RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 18 Mar 2005, 20:12

On a rational note (if I'm not dead by now), in my last post, where I spoke about (my theory of) AA587's rudder detaching from the stabilizer “in flight”, I neglected to add:

In earlier posts in this thread,
Itsdoctorv wrote: “AA587 pretty much showed that the rudder is so well attached that the tail assembly will fail first in case too big an aerodynamic load is created by large and opposite rudder displacements. My guess would be that some part of the rudder attachement structure failed, because it had some defect (from manufacture or fatigue).”

and Earthman wrote:
It seems to me that if something like that just falls off, it's some kind of maintenance problem.

and Teach wrote:
...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.

So, the AA587 investigation may, have shown (involuntarily) that aerodynamic forces could not only have sheared off the stabilizer, but also separated stabilizer from rudder.

Perhaps current “maintenance” of aviation composite components needs to be re-visited and, tests, other than visual, need to be incorporated into these regimens.

Given that our cumulative experience with aviation composites is enormously less than with metals/alloys, it may be we are slowly discovering that the “safe” life of current aviation composite materials is less than what we expect - perhaps the existing parameters of “ageing aircraft” needs to be re-evaluated.

Am I concerned about (what TEACH brought up) “plastic planes”?

NOPE
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research ... b52h-5.jpg

“In flight with extensive (!) tail damage - B-52H-170-BW S/N 61-0023 From a famous series of photographs taken after severe turbulence sheared off most of the vertical stabilizer. The aircraft had been specially instrumented for air turbulence research after some operational B-52s were lost. The tail was lost after a severe and sustained burst (+5 seconds) of clear air turbulence violently buffeted the aircraft. The Boeing test crew (Pilot - Chuck Fisher & Copilot - Dick Curry) nursed to aircraft to Blytheville AFB, Arkansas and landed safely....The dotted line shows the normal outline of the vertical stabilizer and rudder.”

ALL WE NEED ARE GOOD PILOTS!

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 18 Mar 2005, 21:19

I remember also a F-117A who broke a part of the wing due to excess of load. The aircraft was unrecoverable and the pilot has no choice but to eject. Finally, the F-117 crashed into a house (fortunately empty).

Regards

Seb.

teach · Post by **teach** » 18 Mar 2005, 22:44

I'm sorry, but I can't resist this any longer...at the risk of being royally flamed/booted out/whatever other "final solution" may be inflicted on me,

TEACH RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Drugs are bad for you, children...

Gwillie, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to prove by continuing to 'adjust' your theories, but I'll give it one more shot...

So, the AA587 investigation may, have shown (involuntarily) that aerodynamic forces could not only have sheared off the stabilizer, but also separated stabilizer from rudder.

Given the fact that, from what we know now, the Air Transat's rudder was NOT subjected to extreme aerodynamic forces, I'd say this point is rather irrelevant to the discussion...

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 19 Mar 2005, 05:04

teach wrote:
Apparently this problem with rudders and vertical stabilizers has been a serious concern for some time,

No need to be such a drama queen... What you linked to is normal service AD, issued back in 1998. Dozens of these are issued each year, for every type of plane.

Why is only being addressed now?

Um, once again, your link is to a service AD from 1998. That's seven years ago. Not exactly 'just now'...

No kidding Batman! what was your first clue?

The Airworthiness Directive in 1998 addressed a specific problem, which was Rudder servo's and unordered rudder movement. ( mmmmm there could be a clue here?) Do you think maybe the rudder might have moved itself causing an overload of the vertical stabilizer? American Airlines pilots who commanded this type filed almost a hundred reports of rudder problems, including exactly what the NTSB ordered in their AD. (another clue) The Point is this a serious unresolved problem, Airbus has got to fix it NOW, the design and material used in the rudder assembly is inherently flawed, Commercial travellers are avoiding this plane like the plague, and as was previously reported, pilots with seniority are transferring to other aircraft..

So here's a NTSB report that occured since the 1998 AD was issued, you'll note the common problems with rudder inputs and failures. An interesting read.

https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/nas ... VAR=rudder

itsdoctorv · Post by **itsdoctorv** » 19 Mar 2005, 11:25

So here's a NTSB report that occured since the 1998 AD was issued, you'll note the common problems with rudder inputs and failures. An interesting read.

Thanks for that, it was indeed an interesting read. Three things though:
1) The problem was found to be with a solenoid in the rudder actuator, which does not really mean that "the rudder assembly is inherently flawed".
2) I have not heard of any uncontrolled yawing in the case of the Air Transat plane. Just a sudden 'loud bang', followed by contol problems (once they had lost the rudder, presumably)
3) In the NTSB report that talks about the 1998 AD, the uncontrolled rudder movements occured when the pilots had disconnected the autopilot, but the solenoid fault meant that the rudder was still under the control of the flight computer. In other words, the planes computer was probably fighting what the pilots were doing, resulting in the oscillations. With the Air Transat plane, they were at cruise altitude, with the autopilot ON. This does not mean that it's impossible that the rudder actuator did something weird, but we need to keep this in mind.

NOW, the design and material used in the rudder assembly is inherently flawed, Commercial travellers are avoiding this plane like the plague, and as was previously reported, pilots with seniority are transferring to other aircraft..

Do you have some links where I could read more about this? Thanks!

teach · Post by **teach** » 19 Mar 2005, 13:16

No kidding Batman! what was your first clue?

I should be asking YOU that question. YOU are the one who claimed this AD:

a) dealt with a shocking problem with unimaginable consequences;
b) it was only being addressed NOW (your words!!)

Do you think maybe the rudder might have moved itself causing an overload of the vertical stabilizer?

I'd rather believe the NTSB, so no. ALL the evidence suggests the PILOTS COMMANDED THE RUDDER MOVEMENTS.

Airbus has got to fix it NOW, the design and material used in the rudder assembly is inherently flawed,

Since you obviously choose to believe conspiracy theories and rumors before facts, let me once more remind you of the fact that there was nothing wrong with the material used on AA587's verticla stabilizer, and that it performed exactly as it should have. I know that that is not what you want to hear, and maybe it's not spectacular enough for you, but those are the facts. Live with them.

Commercial travellers are avoiding this plane like the plague,

LOL! You just have to love that one! 95% of travellers have no friggin clue what plane they're on, let alone that they care. And of the few that do, most have more common sense than what you try to portray here. I repeat, you need to stop being such a drama queen...

pilots with seniority are transferring to other aircraft..

That was right after the accident, and ONLY at AA. Hardly an objective group, since they're the ones who received the wrong training.

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 19 Mar 2005, 14:11

About AA587 (NYC-12NOV2001):

Critical evidence, such as the Air Traffic Control communications by the pilot himself and what those transmissions tell us about the condition of the aircraft. This evidence, and all our findings, support the counter-thesis that the tail departing the aircraft was not the cause of the crash, and the tail in fact departed later in the crash sequence. Match all this up with no less than 39 witness accounts of strange goings-on (loud noises, explosion, fire, smoke) before the tail fell off––and it’s very easy to conclude something is very wrong.

Regards

Seb.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 19 Mar 2005, 14:34

itsdoctorv wrote:
So here's a NTSB report that occured since the 1998 AD was issued, you'll note the common problems with rudder inputs and failures. An interesting read.

Thanks for that, it was indeed an interesting read. Three things though:
1) The problem was found to be with a solenoid in the rudder actuator, which does not really mean that "the rudder assembly is inherently flawed".
2) I have not heard of any uncontrolled yawing in the case of the Air Transat plane. Just a sudden 'loud bang', followed by control problems (once they had lost the rudder, presumably)
3) In the NTSB report that talks about the 1998 AD, the uncontrolled rudder movements occured when the pilots had disconnected the autopilot, but the solenoid fault meant that the rudder was still under the control of the flight computer. In other words, the planes computer was probably fighting what the pilots were doing, resulting in the oscillations. With the Air Transat plane, they were at cruise altitude, with the autopilot ON. This does not mean that it's impossible that the rudder actuator did something weird, but we need to keep this in mind.

NOW, the design and material used in the rudder assembly is inherently flawed, Commercial travellers are avoiding this plane like the plague, and as was previously reported, pilots with seniority are transferring to other aircraft..

Do you have some links where I could read more about this? Thanks!

This is just one of approximately 145 reported incidents of rudder malfunction on this aircraft, if you have the time and the inclination, you can log into the NTSB site and read them all. It might also be noted that these NTSB reports do not include all non U.S. occurences, but in some cases they supply links to the Investigating countries reports.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2004/A_04_44_45.pdf

Here's one from Canada's TSB concerning the Air Transat 303 occurence.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applicatio ... 05-048.HTM

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 19 Mar 2005, 16:31

Thanks, bits44 for those links!

I've been waiting & looking for the AD from Airbus since the promised date of the 16th

Now, the question is: how can we get the real goods on what these inspections reveal?

-anybody know any "insiders"?

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 19 Mar 2005, 16:47

About AA587 crash (NYC-12NOV2001):

Since Mr Abderraouf Jdey never been an Airbus engineer, I don't think Airbus is involved in the AA587 crash occured on november 12th 2001 (between september 11th 2001 and december 22th 2001).
http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/jdey.htm

Regards

Seb.

EDIT: typo

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 19 Mar 2005, 21:13

MORE "plastic planes": (!)

http://www.abaris.com/Downloads/NL6-full.pdf

A number of this company's newsletters have aviation-related content - here's the site

http://www.abaris.com/newsletter.htm

i have my head down....has the screaming started yet?

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 21 Mar 2005, 14:37

France Issues Emergency AD On Airbus Rudders

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/11_12a/br ... 391-1.html

(ref: bits44's previous post)

Last week, Forbes, too, took note...

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/200 ... 86186.html

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 21 Mar 2005, 23:12

The NTSB and FAA are both following the Canadian investigation to see if it might have any bearing on the crash of an American Airlines A300 in New York in 2001. In that accident, the whole tail separated after what the NTSB determined were excessive rudder movements by the flying pilot.

Sorry not, it was a shoe bomber...

gwillie, we are not blind, thank you

!

Regards

Seb.

itsdoctorv · Post by **itsdoctorv** » 22 Mar 2005, 10:43

Yesterday's copy of Flight International says that so far they have not found anything wrong with the actuators or the hinges of the rudder on the Air Transat plane. And no pilot-related rudder movement either. Basically, in their own words, the investigators still have no idea! They have not found the rudder, or rudder bits, either.

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 22 Mar 2005, 15:12

INVESTIGATION EXPANDS

Yesterday France and Canada issued NEW AD's, extending the rudder inspections TO NOW INCLUDE A330'S AND 340'S

Why?

"The CFRP rudder PN fitted on the A310 aircraft involved in the reported event is also installed on certain A340 and A330 aircraft."