Another Airbus rudder problem??

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 03 Apr 2005, 16:55

In spite of all automation, the auto throttle on Airbuses doesn't move the throttle controls.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 04 Apr 2005, 19:58

Some more light is being shed on Rudder failures

Allied Pilots Association may ask FAA to reopen AA587 Investigation.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longi ... -headlines

regi · Post by **regi** » 04 Apr 2005, 22:08

Hold on hold on guys, wait a second, let us get to the point. Can somebody inform Airbus that they can do without the rudder? It would save a lot of weight on the new A380. And without a rudder, they would easely win the battle with the A350 against the B787.
Probably just a matter of good computers, see B-2 bomber.
That pilot should receive an extra bonus from Airbus for ground breaking design improvements.

teach · Post by **teach** » 04 Apr 2005, 22:13

Some more light is being shed on Rudder failures

Like what? There's nothing in that article we didn't already know. Oh and failure. no -s. AA587's rudder didn't fail. Furthermore, this article also notes what I have said earlier in this thread, i.e. that the circumstances of both events are completely different.

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 04 Apr 2005, 22:27

Thanks, bits44 for the update....

I love the AA reference there, "American acknowledged Friday that its inspections of two Airbus 300-600s found "minor delamination""

Like, just a little pregnant?

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 04 Apr 2005, 22:40

bits44, I had a closer look to the link you provided:
US Read
Very interresting theory!

Thanks!

Seb.

teach · Post by **teach** » 04 Apr 2005, 22:48

I love the AA reference there, "American acknowledged Friday that its inspections of two Airbus 300-600s found "minor delamination""

Like, just a little pregnant?

No, 'minor' as in 'could easily be repaired' and 'not dangerous at this stage, but needed to be repaired'. A bit like the small cracks in the metal that are regularly found during inspections of aircraft: they're not dangerous per se, but need to be repaired in order to prevent them from becoming a real problem.

So, the 'little pregnant' comment was rather a silly one.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 04 Apr 2005, 23:08

HorsePower wrote:bits44, I had a closer look to the link you provided:
US Read
Very interresting theory!

Thanks!

Seb.

It is an interesting read isn't it, there is just to many little unanswered questions, that provide clues to subsequent occurances, and I guess thats why the Pilots Assoc. wants to reopen the investigation into flight 587.

They were unfairly blamed for that crash, and I believe that Transat 303 could easily have been a replay of AA587, pure luck and a little help from the angels of the skys prevented a possible disaster.

This whole scenario is going to played out over a long period, and the more one looks at the facts the more doubts will be raised, should that aircraft be grounded? I believe it should be, others say not. But I ask, knowing the evidence that is now revealed, would you fly on one?

teach · Post by **teach** » 04 Apr 2005, 23:22

They were unfairly blamed for that crash

See what I meant when I referred to 'people who have clearly already come to a conclusion on the cause of something based on their assumptions and prejudices' in my earlier post?

I believe that Transat 303 could easily have been a replay of AA587

*sigh* Pray tell, how, then, do you explain the fact that AA587's vertical stabilizer failed at stresses beyond its ultimate load, while this plane's rudder failed apparently without significant stress at all? How is this possibly a 'replay' when the situations are so incredibly different?

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 05 Apr 2005, 00:02

It seems to me that, any proposition suggesting that composite material delamination is akin to "the small cracks in the metal that are regularly found during inspections of aircraft...not dangerous per se, but need to be repaired in order to prevent them from becoming a real problem" belies a misunderstanding of composite material/construction of this Airbus rudder, and in the meaning of the word delamination itself.

Delamination is a reference to the disintegration/fragmentation/coming apart of the ingredients of these structures.

I'm happy to see that this issue is being kept in the public eye by mainstream media, and I hope it will remain there until a resolution is found.

What heartens me is that, unlike another major aircraft manufacturer which denied the existence of a "rudder problem" for over 30 years, Airbus is publically (at this point) admitting that something is awry, and expressing every interest in determining the cause.

teach · Post by **teach** » 05 Apr 2005, 11:01

Delamination is a reference to the disintegration/fragmentation/coming apart of the ingredients of these structures.

I know perfectly well what delamination is, thank you very much... The point I was trying to make is that BOTH (delamination and the cracks) are issues that can be detected at early stages, through inspections, and can at these stages be fixed easily. It is not irreversible as you suggested earlier with the pregnancy comment.

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 06 Apr 2005, 20:19

"Maintenance records showed...only some minor work on composite material bonding (done)."

then, the rudder falls off???

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/31/news/rudder.html
(NB - 2 pages to this story)

US media have picked up the story today after a US senator called for the re-opening of the AA587 investigation, citing the Air Transat incident.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longi ... -headlines

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 06 Apr 2005, 21:13

Anyone who reads the referenced article will undoubtedly notice that it is the composite material on which the investigators are focussing....

Perhaps, anyone who didn't notice that, should ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE, and not get sidetracked in emotion by my preface to the link!

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 07 Apr 2005, 21:17

Ah, yes....."there are none so blind as those who do not want to see."

White isn't white, black isn't black, and Richard Nixon wasn't a crook, either.

Despite the headline, the article articulates clues which the investigators admit to be pursuing. For anyone who read the article twice, and still managed to ignore its key facts, here's what I read:

"it is possible that some key clue will show up in manufacturing records, maintenance history or in production records of the batch of composite material used to make the rudder..."For now we can say that this was probably not an operational problem," said a source..actively involved in the investigation...The weather was calm at the time of the Air Transat incident, so turbulence could not be a factor...the entire tail section...was removed from the plane and flown ...to Bremen, Germany...Exhaustive tests...will be conducted there..Investigators are looking carefully at the history of the rudder, as well at reports of marks and small holes...are also curious about a small square hole and several smaller holes found in the tail section...Maintenance records showed no significant work had ever been done on the rudder, only some minor work on composite material bonding."

'want it MORE SUCCINCTLY?

-"NOT AN OPERATIONAL PROBLEM"
-"AIR TURBULENCE COULD NOT BE A FACTOR"
-FOCUS IS ON "MANUFACTURING... MAINTENANCE...PRODUCTION RECORDS OF THE...COMPOSITE MATERIAL"

teach · Post by **teach** » 07 Apr 2005, 22:23

Ah, yes....."there are none so blind as those who do not want to see."

...and then there's the armchair investigators who think they know more than the people actually involved in the investigation.

it is possible that some key clue will show up in manufacturing records, maintenance history or in production records of the batch of composite material used to make the rudder..."

How you derive from that that the composite material is THE thing they're focussing on is beyond me. All this sentence says is they're looking at pretty much everything, and aren't ruling out the composite material, which is only normal. I guess it depends on how you read these things.

-If you have an open mind as to what caused this incident, you'll read this as testament that the investigators at this point have no clue, and are exploring all possibilities;
-If you don't have an open mind, and have already made up your mind on the cause of this incident based on the very few facts in the press, you'll read this as 'SEE, it's the composites! I knew it!'

I'll let you pick who's who.

regi · Post by **regi** » 11 Apr 2005, 14:37

about delamination
it is a very serious problem and the major hurdle to use composites in cars.
There are several ways to impregnate carbon fibre/glass / aramid fibre cloth with resins. Just with a spray, in a mold, with a brush, under vacuum in a mold whereby the resin is sucked through the cloth, etcetera.
What carbon fibre concerns, the simpliest way is to apply the resin just on the cloth, just like the old way with polyester resin on glass fibre.
But the real good method is the method whereby the already impregnated carbon fibre part is put in a mold and put in an autoclave to put pressure all around, for several hours, I think at about 100-150 °C.
That means you can just make 1-2 parts a day out of 1 . This is the way some fuselage parts for helicopters and planes (+ formule 1) are made. mold. So not good for mass production cars.
The dimension of the part shrinks considerable, sometimes +50%.
Boeing has the biggest battery of autoclaves in the world. GM has installed on Iceland a battery autclaves using free geological energy to make larger production parts.
The big question is if delamination will occur and where and when. Boeing & Airbus must have done a lot of research the last 20-30 years.
They must be pretty sure about what they are doing. Time will tell. Is the Air Transat story such a time story? Or just a coincidence?
In fact I am a guy out of the metal world. A big forged aluminium block of 2 tonnes used to hold the wings on the body will not delaminate. Neither does titanium. Defaults with metal parts as with castings (porosity, inclusions, shrinkage) can be traced before application. delamination cannot be found because it is not there yet. That is the big difference.

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 13 Apr 2005, 17:58

New species:

airbus tailless

Post by **luchtzak** » 14 Apr 2005, 10:23

Hello all,

I think everyone had the opportunity to show their ideas and knowledges about the Airbus' rudder. But the admins think it's better to close the topic right now before it gets out of control. Page 7 as a nice example.

thanks,

Bart
:rock:

Post by **sn26567** » 18 Apr 2005, 17:53

After careful examination of this thread and deletion of the most excessive messages, I have decided to reopen this thread, at the request of several readers interested in the topic..

Any personal attack will be immediately deleted and its author may face a ban from this forum, either temporary or definitive.

Let's continue the discussion in a civilised way and only on the technical side. And, PLEASE, no A- or B- bashing or A vs B.

Facts only. A fact is more important than a lord mayror.

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 18 Apr 2005, 18:25

:jump2:

KUDOS to the ADMIN team for this very wise decision!

Let's hope that some theories/opinions/propositions/what-if's/ etc. put forward in a climate of respect for others will also be acceptable to this community!

Aviation24.be

Another Airbus rudder problem??

Rudder manufacurer