Airplane Maker Airbus Industrie Blames American Airlines for 2001 NYC Crash That Killed 265

AP via Tampa Bay Online ^ | 3/20/03 | AP

[Diddle E. Squat]

NEW YORK (AP) - Airplane maker Airbus Industrie blamed American Airlines in court papers for "improper" flight operations that it said caused Flight 587 to crash in 2001, killing 265 people. The papers, filed this month in federal court in Manhattan, said the airline "failed to operate the aircraft in the manner that was foreseeable and normal or intended by Airbus."

"Nothing Airbus did or failed to do caused the accident or any harm or injury to the plaintiffs," the court papers say, referring to the victims of the crash.

An Airbus A300-600 crashed on Nov. 12, 2001, minutes after taking off for the Dominican Republic, killing all 260 people aboard and five people on the ground in Queens.

More than 200 legal suits from victims' families have since been filed against American and Airbus.

American Airlines spokesman John Hotard told the New York Post, which reported on the court papers Thursday, that Airbus' position was "ridiculous."

The National Transportation Safety Board is still examining why the plane's rudder suddenly began swerving violently, causing the tail fin to break off and the plane to crash.

At a Washington hearing last year, the NTSB presented evidence suggesting the co-pilot moved the rudder back and forth after encountering turbulence from a jet five miles ahead. But it is also investigating whether there was a problem with the rudder itself.

It said it may reach some conclusions by this spring.

[safisoft]

Boeing makes their planes with the vertical stabilizer firmly attached to the aft bulkhead with a strong spar. The French, on the other hand, built their Airbus with no such spar -- the entire vertical stabilizer attaches via 6 bolts on the top of the fuselage, making for a much weaker joint. The $64 question is why did those joints fail?

With all the anti-French sentiment out there, I suppose it would be more fun to read the frog-bashing, but quite honestly, this is not an Airbus-only problem. The fact is that the First Officer operated the rudders in such a violent fashion in recovering from the wake of the preceding aircraft, that NO modern jet aircraft would have faired well.

When the aircraft encountered a wake from the previous aircraft, the first officer overrode the yaw damping and pushed the rudder full to one side - immediately, he pushed it the OPPOSITE direction. You ask, it obeys and 3,000 PSI was immediately applied to a rudder the size of a wing of a small corporate jet. The forces on that vertical stabilizer were enormous.

Within about 6 months ALL airline pilots throughout the industry were warned about such odd rudder inputs, and in fact the FAA suggested that the airlines begin RE-training pilots (all pilots should KNOW better) on the dangers of rudder hard overs - especially pilot-induced. I work for an airline that has BOTH Boeings and Airbus. After US Airways #427 (Boeing 737 in which the rudder UNCOMMANDED went into a hard over and loss of aircraft), we had a sobering reminder of what a Boeing looks like impacting the ground at 350 knots going straight down.

Sorry, I have over 10,000 hours in Boeings, and over a 1,000 hours in Airbus - your claim is unjustified. Also, Airbus is over 40% made by Spanish and British.

[safisoft]

A BOEING could do Aileron rolls!

Sure. Read my post above. US Airways #427 crashed in Pittsburgh - in similar circumstances, but in that case the pilots did nothing to cause it.

USAir #427 was a Boeing 737-300. The aircraft leveled off at 6,000 and encountered the wake turbulence of a preceding Delta craft. The autopilot was on and the yaw damper functioning. The slight air disturbance caused the rudder shuttle valve to drive the rudder violently into a left yaw to full travel. As any jet airman knows yaw = roll - within a few seconds the aircraft had rolled INVERTED and then 80 degrees NOSE DOWN. Within 10 seconds the aircraft hit the ground going 350 kts killing all aboard instantly. The wreckage was confined to an area the size of the aircraft wingspan. NTSB ruled the cause of the crash a Boeing design flaw, and the rudder shuttle valve manfacturer (third party) also at fault.

Fast forward to 2001. American Airbus aircraft encounters wake turbulence from a prceding aircraft. The aircraft was NOT on autopilot and the First Officer makes a abrupt rudder input to counter act the yaw - with an immediate OPPOSITE rudder input - driving tremendous forces through the entire aircraft.

Now, based upon those 2 stories, which aircaft would you rather fly in - the one that rolls on its back ON ITS OWN and kills everyone, or the one that breaks apart because someone at the controls does not operate it consistent with basic rules of jet airmanship?

[JETDRVR]

Thats telling em!
Funny how it allways can be attributed to ....."Pilot error"