Posted on 03/25/2005 11:35:26 AM PST by COEXERJ145
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. aviation regulators on Friday ordered detailed rudder inspections and repairs, if necessary, of certain Airbus planes after the rudder of a Canadian passenger jet nearly fell off this month. The Federal Aviation Administration wants operators of the 112 European-made Airbus A310s and A300s registered to U.S. carriers to complete detailed rudder inspections within three months. The planes are flown primarily in the United States by cargo giant FedEx Corp. . American Airlines also operates some A300s.
The tests include visual checks and a tap test, which is an audio analysis.
FedEx said it expected to complete inspections of its nearly 100 planes within the required time. "To date, we have seen no indication of any irregularities in our aircraft," the company said in a statement. Officials at American could not immediately be reached for comment.
French aviation regulators, in concert with the world's largest commercial plane manufacturer, issued a similar directive last week covering nearly 400 planes, including those flown by American and FedEx. The inspections are usually performed every few years.
The FAA order, which was expected after the European action, instructs operators to look for any separation or other damage to the rudder, which is made from layers of carbon-reinforced composite materials.
The directive stems from a March 6 in-flight incident in which a Canadian charter A310 lost part of its rudder. The Air Transat flight from Cuba to Quebec City with 270 people aboard returned safely to Cuba. Canadian authorities are investigating.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board is also monitoring the investigation.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I will take all I can to survive!
The issue is not 'skin', there are composites all over the place in most aircraft and they are not a threat. The issue here are attachment points and possibly elements in the controls that undergo high stresses throughout the flight. Admittedly, commercial aircraft don't get into dog fights or carrier landings so they are designed way below military stress requirements - but airbust seems to have cut a few too many corners in their design. Real issue is likely to be that the only solution would be a scrap heap because they'd never be able to afford retrofit even if they could design one.
All in all I miss MacDac's more costly, heavy, and somewhat over designed series, too bad we are down to a single maker with a single state-sponsored foreign competitor.
Airspeed had little to do with it. The forces exerted on the aircraft in the 587 case had to do with sideslip forces more than 2X the design limits on the vertical stabilizer. The first officer had at least two previous incidents of overzealous response to wake turbulence.
In the 587 incident, during the first, minor bump from the 747 wake, he moved the control wheel of the aircraft more than 30 degrees in each direction. This type of action, considering the amount of wake encountered, was dangerous and excessive.
In response to the second encounter, a few seconds later in the flight, he executed 5 cyclic rudder pedal inputs. That's nuts. He snapped the tail off.
If you want aircraft that would not snap the tail off under those circumstances, you'll need to be willing to spend about 100x what you currently pay for a ticket. I was watching A-10 straffing runs at an ANG range in Michigan when a pilot snapped both wings off coming out of a run too aggressively. Physics are physics.
How can you catagorize failure of this material as a maintenence or pilot issue?
The design is obviously a POS.
And I don't recall aluminum structural failure on any craft as young as these.
Jet Blue and America West are also flying a lot of Airbuses. Not sure if they are this model or not.
"had to do with sideslip forces more than 2X the design limits on the vertical stabilizer. "
Say what?
Since when do side slip forces come anywhere near the airspeed forces that the rudder always encounters.
And if so, why was it that only the rudder failed?
And re: the "5 cyclic rudder inputs" that were nuts, what about cyclic air forces that occur naturally in normal harmonic buffeting?
The only U.S. airlines flying the A300 are American, FedEx, UPS, DHL, and probably a few more with some small cargo carriers.
He must have been WAY beyond the max manuevering speed.
I think the airbus needs to add a pilot override button that will override the computer pilot override for extreme situations where making a hard manuever is absolutely critical. As far as I know, the Boeing do not have such a pilot override function.
Further, I read that this pilot-override feature is put in place because of the design of the craft itself. It cannot handle stress as well as a Boeing and thus, the restrictions are put in place. Not sure how accurate this info is, but it's what I read on a airplane blog a couple weeks ago.
Thanks for the info.
The rudder did not fail, the vertical stabilizer failed at the attachment points. The rudder worked fine, right up until the stabilizer snapped off. His actions worked it back and forth like Uri Geller working a spoon on the Tonight Show.
Wearing of parachutes is not unheard-of.
I don't think the large passenger-category aircraft (FAR Part 121? 135?) have to pass such a test, but at only 240 knots the rudder should "stall" before the pilot can kick it hard enough to snap it off.
thanks..wont be going thru there!! Jax to Newark to Madrid.
You just increased your chances of an on-time departure by 1,000%.
LOL
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.