Another Airbus rudder problem??
Moderator: Latest news team
The photos of the tail show two hinge fittings with bits of rudder spar attached.itsdoctorv wrote: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.
These hinge fittings are above the large piece of the rudder attached to actuator.
It seems the design should incorporate another hinge fitting or bracket attached near the top of the tail. If this is so, this hinge fitting was pulled loose and went with the rudder when it separated.
Assuming the design called for another hinge bracket at the higher location metal failure at the rear spar of the tail should be evident.
The composite structure then, may or may not be a factor in this case.
-
HorsePower
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 00:00
- Location: France
FAA Orders no lighters and no matches on board.
Matches and lighters banned on EgyptAir flights to and from US soil on mid April (french)
Regards
Seb.
Matches and lighters banned on EgyptAir flights to and from US soil on mid April (french)
Regards
Seb.
-
Alistairbastian
- Posts: 149
- Joined: 01 Dec 2004, 00:00
Airlines Required To Inspect Airbus Rudders
http://www.webpronews.com/business/topb ... dders.html
http://www.axcessnews.com/business_032705a.shtml
http://www.webpronews.com/business/topb ... dders.html http://www.axcessnews.com/business_032705a.shtml
bits44 wrote:Seems more control surface problems have cropped up.
http://ftp.atp.com/ADs/pdf/050704.pdf
And now there holes developing as well, things are going from bad to worse.
-
HorsePower
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 00:00
- Location: France
bits44, assuming you know what you're talking about, can you show me the link between THSA and Air Transat rudder incident?
BTW, the problem encounted on Airbus THSA comes from the grease used. AF had similar problems on B747s landing gears with NYCO GREASE GN 22 (MIL-PRF-81322). I think it's the same grease used on THSA ball nut. The problem is this grease (which was required by both manufacturers) isn't hydro-resistant enough.
NYCO products
Hope this help in your understanding
Regards
Seb.
BTW, the problem encounted on Airbus THSA comes from the grease used. AF had similar problems on B747s landing gears with NYCO GREASE GN 22 (MIL-PRF-81322). I think it's the same grease used on THSA ball nut. The problem is this grease (which was required by both manufacturers) isn't hydro-resistant enough.
NYCO products
Hope this help in your understanding
Regards
Seb.
FAA orders Boeing to replace insulation on 800 planes
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152191,00.html
OMG, it's clear that Boeing has some serious ploblems here. I suggest the planes are grounded and we all stop flying Boeings.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152191,00.html
OMG, it's clear that Boeing has some serious ploblems here. I suggest the planes are grounded and we all stop flying Boeings.
Found this in another forum, posted 22/03:
From Flight International:
Actuator problem ruled out as cause of Air Transat A310 incident, and operators advised to make precautionary checks
Tests on the actuators of the Air Transat Airbus A310-300 rudder that separated over the Caribbean Sea show that there was no counter-action between them, eliminating one possible cause of an incident perplexing the manufacturer and accident investigators. Airbus has advised the operators of about 400 A310s and A300s with similar composite rudders to carry out precautionary visual and tap checks of the control surfaces.
Airbus chief product safety officer John Lauber says when the rudder detached in the cruise at 35,000ft (10,700m) the only symptoms the pilots could detect were that the aircraft began “a gentle Dutch roll” and the autopilot tripped out.
He adds that rudder actuator tests have shown their action was synchronised, and they were undamaged and still in place in the aircraft. The hinges were also still attached to the aircraft. Accident investigator the Transportation Safety Board of Canada says there is no indication that the crew provided any rudder input before the separation.
Late last week the rudder had still not been found. Lauber says it is unclear whether the control surface detached as a single piece or broke up. He says the carbonfibre-reinforced material is denser than water so only sections with a honeycomb-structure core would float.
Airbus says of its advice to operators to carry out rudder checks that it “does not know” how the separation took place, so it was being “abundantly” cautious in advising the inspection.
DAVID LEARMOUNT/LONDON
a "gentle Dutch roll"?........lovely
From Flight International:
Actuator problem ruled out as cause of Air Transat A310 incident, and operators advised to make precautionary checks
Tests on the actuators of the Air Transat Airbus A310-300 rudder that separated over the Caribbean Sea show that there was no counter-action between them, eliminating one possible cause of an incident perplexing the manufacturer and accident investigators. Airbus has advised the operators of about 400 A310s and A300s with similar composite rudders to carry out precautionary visual and tap checks of the control surfaces.
Airbus chief product safety officer John Lauber says when the rudder detached in the cruise at 35,000ft (10,700m) the only symptoms the pilots could detect were that the aircraft began “a gentle Dutch roll” and the autopilot tripped out.
He adds that rudder actuator tests have shown their action was synchronised, and they were undamaged and still in place in the aircraft. The hinges were also still attached to the aircraft. Accident investigator the Transportation Safety Board of Canada says there is no indication that the crew provided any rudder input before the separation.
Late last week the rudder had still not been found. Lauber says it is unclear whether the control surface detached as a single piece or broke up. He says the carbonfibre-reinforced material is denser than water so only sections with a honeycomb-structure core would float.
Airbus says of its advice to operators to carry out rudder checks that it “does not know” how the separation took place, so it was being “abundantly” cautious in advising the inspection.
DAVID LEARMOUNT/LONDON
a "gentle Dutch roll"?........lovely
teach wrote:FAA orders Boeing to replace insulation on 800 planes
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152191,00.html
OMG, it's clear that Boeing has some serious ploblems here. I suggest the planes are grounded and we all stop flying Boeings.
Here's a shocker, all commercial aircraft except lougheed L1011's may have to have the insulation replaced or treated.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_I ... Mylar.html
here is the Boeing article from CNN MOney
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators proposed Friday that airlines replace or modify insulation on 1,600 Boeing Co. planes worldwide because the material does not meet fire-proofing standards.
Aviation authorities suggested that airlines replace or modify cabin insulation due to a fire risk. Both the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing (up $0.46 to $58.92, Research) said the AN-26 fire-retardant coating on the fiberglass insulation blankets, manufactured and installed between 1981 and 1988, do not meet updated fire-proofing standards, .
The plan would require changes over six years on 727 and older model 737, 747, 757 and 767 aircraft. The government's cost estimate ranges from $200 million to $330 million, depending on whether the material is removed and replaced or simply treated with a chemical fire retardant spray proposed by Boeing.
The FAA proposed an airworthiness directive that would cover 800 U.S.-registered planes. Half the planes covered by the Federal Aviation Administration directive are flown by domestic passenger and cargo airlines. International aviation authorities usually adopt FAA directives.
Cash-strapped airlines are choosing more frequently to remove older aircraft with expensive maintenance requirements rather than keep them in service. It is unclear how many of the affected planes, especially those owned by U.S. airlines, will even be flying several years from now.
"Some very hard business decisions will have to be made," said John Hickey, the FAA's director of aircraft certification.
"This will not be an easy task," Hickey added.
Insulation blankets are placed between the exterior aircraft wall and the interior of the fuselage skin to dampen noise and improve climate control.
Some of the insulation, in this case, is placed behind wires and hard-to-access control panels throughout the plane. The FAA recommends work be completed during scheduled maintenance overhauls.
The latest directive is different from an FAA order in 2000 that required the replacement of insulation coated with metalized Mylar on more than 600 U.S. planes made by McDonnell Douglas, which was bought by Boeing in 1997.
But the 2000 order and the proposal on Friday grew out of closer attention to aircraft insulation after a Swissair crash off Nova Scotia in 1998 that killed 229 people. Investigators believe insulation helped spread an electrical fire that brought down the MD-11.
Hickey said the new proposal stemmed from extensive tests and reports of in-flight and ground fires on some Boeing planes. Evidence of fire spread through insulation was discovered in some cases only during routine maintenance.
There were no problems with other types of insulation examined, Hickey said.
Hickey and Boeing said it would take about a year to determine if the spray sealant would be an effective alternative.
"As far as we are concerned, we have tested it and it is our recommended solution. It reduces costs and also is effective in preventing aging and contamination, which affects the fire resistant properties of insulation," said Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier.
Boeing shares rose about 0.,7 percent in active New York Stock Exchange trading.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators proposed Friday that airlines replace or modify insulation on 1,600 Boeing Co. planes worldwide because the material does not meet fire-proofing standards.
Aviation authorities suggested that airlines replace or modify cabin insulation due to a fire risk. Both the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing (up $0.46 to $58.92, Research) said the AN-26 fire-retardant coating on the fiberglass insulation blankets, manufactured and installed between 1981 and 1988, do not meet updated fire-proofing standards, .
The plan would require changes over six years on 727 and older model 737, 747, 757 and 767 aircraft. The government's cost estimate ranges from $200 million to $330 million, depending on whether the material is removed and replaced or simply treated with a chemical fire retardant spray proposed by Boeing.
The FAA proposed an airworthiness directive that would cover 800 U.S.-registered planes. Half the planes covered by the Federal Aviation Administration directive are flown by domestic passenger and cargo airlines. International aviation authorities usually adopt FAA directives.
Cash-strapped airlines are choosing more frequently to remove older aircraft with expensive maintenance requirements rather than keep them in service. It is unclear how many of the affected planes, especially those owned by U.S. airlines, will even be flying several years from now.
"Some very hard business decisions will have to be made," said John Hickey, the FAA's director of aircraft certification.
"This will not be an easy task," Hickey added.
Insulation blankets are placed between the exterior aircraft wall and the interior of the fuselage skin to dampen noise and improve climate control.
Some of the insulation, in this case, is placed behind wires and hard-to-access control panels throughout the plane. The FAA recommends work be completed during scheduled maintenance overhauls.
The latest directive is different from an FAA order in 2000 that required the replacement of insulation coated with metalized Mylar on more than 600 U.S. planes made by McDonnell Douglas, which was bought by Boeing in 1997.
But the 2000 order and the proposal on Friday grew out of closer attention to aircraft insulation after a Swissair crash off Nova Scotia in 1998 that killed 229 people. Investigators believe insulation helped spread an electrical fire that brought down the MD-11.
Hickey said the new proposal stemmed from extensive tests and reports of in-flight and ground fires on some Boeing planes. Evidence of fire spread through insulation was discovered in some cases only during routine maintenance.
There were no problems with other types of insulation examined, Hickey said.
Hickey and Boeing said it would take about a year to determine if the spray sealant would be an effective alternative.
"As far as we are concerned, we have tested it and it is our recommended solution. It reduces costs and also is effective in preventing aging and contamination, which affects the fire resistant properties of insulation," said Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier.
Boeing shares rose about 0.,7 percent in active New York Stock Exchange trading.
[quote="gwillie"]Found this in another forum, posted 22/03:
From Flight International:
.
He adds that rudder actuator tests have shown their action was synchronized, and they were undamaged and still in place in the aircraft. [quote]The hinges were also still attached to the aircraft.
As in an earlier post I still believe that the top hinge is missing from the vertical tail.
I have a photo of the recovered Flight 587 tail and it shows a hinge attached to the tail spar near the to the top of the tail. This shows pieces of the rudder spar attached to this hinge.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/aa587/tailcomp.htm
I feel that is necessary to determine if the hinge is missing or not.
If metal failure at the hinge location of the top hinge is evident, then this would be the first place to inspect all the simular aircraft rudders.
.
a "gentle Dutch roll"?........lovely[/url]
From Flight International:
.
He adds that rudder actuator tests have shown their action was synchronized, and they were undamaged and still in place in the aircraft. [quote]The hinges were also still attached to the aircraft.
As in an earlier post I still believe that the top hinge is missing from the vertical tail.
I have a photo of the recovered Flight 587 tail and it shows a hinge attached to the tail spar near the to the top of the tail. This shows pieces of the rudder spar attached to this hinge.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/aa587/tailcomp.htm
I feel that is necessary to determine if the hinge is missing or not.
If metal failure at the hinge location of the top hinge is evident, then this would be the first place to inspect all the simular aircraft rudders.
.
a "gentle Dutch roll"?........lovely[/url]
Although I'm sure I will be flamed for this, please let me state now that this is a report of facts not speculation, I am a pilot and have been for thirty years, I have some small amount of experience.
I, and many others are deeply concerned about the safety of some Airbus models using composite flight control surfaces, much has been said about the relationship between Air Transat 303 and the American Airlines 587 disaster in New York, and the investigation by the NTSB, there were even accusations that Airbus attempted to influence the outcome of that investigation.
The safety of all concerned is at stake here, this is not about who makes better planes, or where they are made, this is about aviation safety and those who fly on these aircraft, there is enough evidence to cast serious doubt about the integrity of these aircraft, and all of us in the Aviation Industry are very concerned that another fatal disaster could occur at any time.
please read the article carefully, it raises many concerns, and valid arguments abound.
http://www.usread.com/flight587/coverup ... fault.html
The report from Canada's Transportation Safety Board will be viewed with great anticipation, from all concerned. They investigate plane crashes probably better than anyone on the planet, as their investigations of Air India's bombing graphically demonstrate. We all await their conclusions.
I, and many others are deeply concerned about the safety of some Airbus models using composite flight control surfaces, much has been said about the relationship between Air Transat 303 and the American Airlines 587 disaster in New York, and the investigation by the NTSB, there were even accusations that Airbus attempted to influence the outcome of that investigation.
The safety of all concerned is at stake here, this is not about who makes better planes, or where they are made, this is about aviation safety and those who fly on these aircraft, there is enough evidence to cast serious doubt about the integrity of these aircraft, and all of us in the Aviation Industry are very concerned that another fatal disaster could occur at any time.
please read the article carefully, it raises many concerns, and valid arguments abound.
http://www.usread.com/flight587/coverup ... fault.html
The report from Canada's Transportation Safety Board will be viewed with great anticipation, from all concerned. They investigate plane crashes probably better than anyone on the planet, as their investigations of Air India's bombing graphically demonstrate. We all await their conclusions.
Dearest "teach",
May I again remind you that you are interracting, in what was intended to be a forum for mature discussion and dialogue.
I have re-read each of your posts in this string, and
1. I can not find even one contribution of a factual nature
2. I read nothing of a positive critical nature
3. I read nothing of a positive/factual nature put forward by you to challenge anything thusfar posted with which you appear to disagree.
4. I only see you sniping from the sidelines, attempting to obfuscate others' logical propositions, attempting to ridicule others' opinions, juvenile name-calling, your use of vulgar and insulting language, and, generally an obnoxious, puerile behaviour which I find to be directly contrary to the Forum Rules
Perhaps you would do well to read those rules. However, as I doubt that you would (given your previous responses to my other previous, gentler, suggestions) allow me to put the following extract from those rules directly before you:
5. Don’t write messages just to write messages, show your creativity and your opinions in a positive and constructive manner
6. Respect other members....don’t make a fool out of ....members.... Make them feel at home. Don’t insult other people and don’t use hate language.
Some time ago, I received a PM from another participant here, suggesting that you might work for Airbus (given that, you appear personally offended by anything critical of Airbus).....however, my own conclusion (reinforced by your last post) is that your daddy works there.
Having put all of this before you, I have every confidence in the ability of other participants in this thread to see clearly through your "shenanigans", and to see your posts for what they really are.
May I again remind you that you are interracting, in what was intended to be a forum for mature discussion and dialogue.
I have re-read each of your posts in this string, and
1. I can not find even one contribution of a factual nature
2. I read nothing of a positive critical nature
3. I read nothing of a positive/factual nature put forward by you to challenge anything thusfar posted with which you appear to disagree.
4. I only see you sniping from the sidelines, attempting to obfuscate others' logical propositions, attempting to ridicule others' opinions, juvenile name-calling, your use of vulgar and insulting language, and, generally an obnoxious, puerile behaviour which I find to be directly contrary to the Forum Rules
Perhaps you would do well to read those rules. However, as I doubt that you would (given your previous responses to my other previous, gentler, suggestions) allow me to put the following extract from those rules directly before you:
5. Don’t write messages just to write messages, show your creativity and your opinions in a positive and constructive manner
6. Respect other members....don’t make a fool out of ....members.... Make them feel at home. Don’t insult other people and don’t use hate language.
Some time ago, I received a PM from another participant here, suggesting that you might work for Airbus (given that, you appear personally offended by anything critical of Airbus).....however, my own conclusion (reinforced by your last post) is that your daddy works there.
Having put all of this before you, I have every confidence in the ability of other participants in this thread to see clearly through your "shenanigans", and to see your posts for what they really are.
I don't want to get into this dipute here, but I need to add my two cents worth. People on this forum do the same thing with Boeing.All he does here on these forums is bash Airbus and report on possible or factual Boeing orders.
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
No I wasn't referring to you. I am biased, and proudly so. I, unlike most people in this forum, have a sound case for my bias. I simply don't like how much automation is put into Airbus aircraft. That's my personal pilot's preference. We've (the members of this forum) have already debated this so I don't feel like opening the can of worms again, so I'll leave it at that.
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."