Originally Posted by TQ Nola (Post 1014940)

Thank you for the clarification.

As far as the scheme Airbus used to limit rudder travel with increasing speed, suffice it to say that for the A300 it was NOT the way Boeing did it or even Airbus (apparently) did it on other models. They didn't use a so-called ratio limiter; what they did was mechanically limit the pedal throw at higher speeds.

For example, a 2 inch throw on the ground in a Boeing might move the rudder 30 degrees, but in flight only 2. But in the A300, a 2 inch throw on the ground might equal 30 degrees, but in the air you were mechanically prevented from moving the pedals that far. IOW, if you are used to the Boeing way of doing things, that 2 inch pedal throw at high speed results in a minuscule movement of the rudder, whereas the 2 inch throw (it's actually a little less, btw) will give you FULL deflection in the A300, something that is clearly radically different in philosophy and needed to be addressed completely, the pros and cons of each system notwithstanding.

As it was, Airbus poorly informed training of the difference, it wasn't emphasized in any way, and therefore completely misunderstood in application. I personally think it would've taken a miracle for Sten to operate the machine the way it needed to be operated at that time to insure survival.

There but for the grace of God go several of us

Originally Posted by FastDEW (Post 1014958)

My bet is that AA stays Boeing or a long time.....

Originally Posted by CE750 (Post 1014927)

so you're trying to tell me the A300/310 has a total of 2" rudder peddle travel between 0 and full deflection? Seriously? Either you're dead wrong (my guess), or it is a very bad design indeed... I doubt it would pass FAA certification with a 2" travel.... I can tell you for sure the A320 is a LOT more than 2"..

BTW... NTSB faulted the FO and the training.

Originally Posted by aa73 (Post 1015073)

The most important thing we can learn from 587 - besides the importance of rudder load limiters - is that the NTSB's final ruling is never immune to outside political influences.

Translated:

Despite the fact that F/O Molin was completely unaware of the monster he was dealing with - AA's AAMP program provided a very nice and convenient outlet for the NTSB to use in pinning him the blame and protecting a very large and important aircraft manufacturer that provides a huge supply of aircraft to the world.

Originally Posted by Wheels up (Post 1013759)

BS. If management is "chomping at the bit" to get a contract they sure have a funny way of showing it. Even after this weak union leadership took most issues off the table, they've only made a small amount of progress and haven't even broached pay or scope. Scheduling is a long way from agreement as well.

I do not expect even a first TA this year.

Stop believing all the planted rumors and feel-good BS being planted by the VP of flight. That guy shot every bit of his credibility last winter with the same bull.

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot (Post 1012777)

Nothing like keeping more Europeans employed. And then we wonder why unemployment is so high in the USA. This, in my opinion, is just as bad as cabotage. Dell lost me as a repeat customer because I got tired of talking to someone in India every time I had a problem. We continue to be our own worst enemy. Maybe we should look to Europe for our CEO's. At least they don't soak the company for millions in bonuses and pay every year. :rolleyes: