Posted on 06/01/2004 1:18:12 PM PDT by Boot Hill
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:42:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON, DC, May. 29 (UPI) -- An investigation into the November 2001 crash of an Airbus A-300-600 in New York has found an unrelated potentially lethal design flaw, the New York Times reports.
The newspaper says the National Transportation Safety Board does not believe that problems with the rudder control system caused the crash of American Airlines Flight 287 [should be: 587]. The plane came down shortly after taking off from Kennedy International Airport en route to the Dominican Republic, killing all 260 people on the plane and five on the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Foggiest writing I've ever seen. It must not take much to get a journalism degree these days. That piece would have failed when I was in college.
bump
Although I can see how the thread story led you to that erroneous conclusion, it is, nonetheless, incorrect.
The NTSB announcement dealt only with the flaw in the velocity response of the actuator control limiter system. Nobody has ever suggested that the velocity response flaw was at fault in the AA-587 crash.
But the NTSB announcement does relate to the AA-587 crash, in that it offers another example of an Airbus design flaws that can lead to (an almost did in a separate incident) the separation of the vertical stabilizer from the aircraft.
While he NTSB has not issued a final conclusion as to the cause of the AA-587 accident, nevertheless, documents the NTSB have publicly posted say that the tail fin tore loose after the pilot moved the rudder sharply back and forth several times.
In other words, while the velocity response fault of the limiter system may not have been the cause of the AA-587 crash, the NTSB will likely conclude that is was another aspect of the limiter system that was at fault.
--Boot Hill
Agreed. UPI story. I suspect a drinking problem, not an education problem.
--Boot Hill
I agree with your statement about metal vs. composites -- Boeing still doesn't have much composite material in primary structures like the vertical tail. However, I think the new 7E7 will have more composites, and probably in some primary structure.
I'm sure that the final NTSB report will cover all of these issues - it should be interesting to see what they say about the material choice.
The vertical stabilizer of Boeing's 777 is composite.
--Boot Hill
Pretty obvious from day one that Airbus tails are junk and maybe even other parts yet to fall off...
One time I sat down and ran the numbers for the force on the vertical stabilizer versus yaw angle for the A-300. The numbers are astronomically high. It seems to me that the tail is adequately designed and built, it is the rudder, or more specifically, the rudder controls, that seem to be the culprit here.
But I think I understand your basic point. When one trusts science more than baseless fear, it becomes abundantly clear that "shoe bombers" didn't have diddly squat to do with this crash.
--Boot Hill
The skins AND the spars? Or only the skins? Big difference, obviously. I don't know if the Airbus spars are composite or not - perhaps none of them are? The spars are primary structure, as are the attach flanges.
You said something about a chunk of titanium in place of the composite in an earlier post. Titanium weighs quite a bit more than aluminum and composite for equivalent loads and temperatures. Titanium is used when you need a high-emperature capability (but not as high as steel) but want to save weight over steel. Aluminum is only 10-15% heavier than carbon-fiber composites for equal loads and temperatures. However, aluminum yields plastically and fails gradually while composites yield quickly and fail quickly - so aluminum as a much better choice for low temperature primary structure.
Speculation. I live in the area. The local news had a van on the scene in no time. The response was still in very early stage. Belle Harbor is a haven for multi-generations of mostly Irish NYPD and FDNY members. A few who were either off duty or retired were interviewed live at the scene. I remember it well. These very reliable types all spoke of seeing flames past the mid section while the plane was in the air.
For days before the Feds were warning us that something big was about to happen. When it did they rushed to tell us it was a design flaw, but they didn't ground the hundreds of other similar planes.
I am no conspiracy theorist but I'll take the word of a retired FDNY Lt. eyewitness on this one.
Greetings and salutations, "cgk" and "bvw".
I'm Osama bin Laden and Boot Hill was kind enough to let me use his computer for a few minutes so that I could publicly take credit for being that mysterious figure on the Grassy Knoll that day in Dallas in 1963. That's right! It was me all along! Just wanted to set the record straight.
Your in eternal Jihad against the infidels...
Osama
Ah, yes. The infamous "gain schedule". Probably went through a washout filter too to keep it from changing too fast.
I've been told by a former F-4 pilot that it had a sorta-similar problem. One axis of flight control (elevator/pitch?) lost a lot of its effectiveness when going supersonic. As a result, the pilot had to really lean into it to control the aircraft, and if the aircraft happened to drop into the transonic/subsonic region while being "vigorously" controlled, it caused a sudden major g-load.
This was an early version of the A-300. It was not "fly by wire".
When the process of crash investigation is opened up to FULL citizen participation -- say via random special jury with some standard of non-political certification (say a techincal degree and no felonies) -- why until then we'll have NO closure on events like these.
Until then the propagandists and professional excusers (aka PR firms) shall have the field like mice in the silo. Enjoy the grain while you may!
And I suppose that BUSH KNEW?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.