AA in talks with Airbus
06-27-2011 | 08:46 PM
#81
Indian Takeout Driver
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
From: FAR part 347 (91+121+135)
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
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
Sad that we must learn new procedures as a result of such a horrific accident.
06-27-2011 | 11:18 PM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: 777 Left
I think we agree that the 321 is a dog. We further agree that AA and Airbus doesn't have a great relationship and we agree that while the report of 587 blames th FO, there is much to point at on the 300's design and the AA training.
Given all of this, do we really believe AA is sincere in looking to the 320neo or are they just using the pressure to push Boing n a 737neo/new airframe?
My bet is that AA stays Boeing or a long time.....
Given all of this, do we really believe AA is sincere in looking to the 320neo or are they just using the pressure to push Boing n a 737neo/new airframe?
My bet is that AA stays Boeing or a long time.....
06-28-2011 | 03:55 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: ERJ Right Seat
06-28-2011 | 06:50 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,418
Likes: 120
From: Window seat
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.
BTW... NTSB faulted the FO and the training.
Wanna bet? Read the TSB report at the end - A319 1.14 inches of rudder travel. This is too important not to know if you're flying these a/c.
Read APA's submission to the final report -
http://web.mac.com/aviapod/aviapod/E...submission.pdf
If the link doesn't work google - 'apa submission ntsb Aa 587 crash'
Rudder travel can be as low as 1.0 inch in jet a/c at high speed. The rudder travel you have on the ground may not be the rudder travel above certain speeds. And even if the rudder travel is the same on the ground and in flight the reaction may be(will be) significantly different at speed or altitude. That is the KEY issues that pilots need to learn from this accident.
The only airliner jets, that I can recall, that have the 3.8 to 4.0 travel both on the ground and in flight are the 757/767/777(and probably the 787). All the others have the older style rudder limiter design and rudder travel is typically between 1 - 2 inches above approach speeds. APA's submission on page 10 goes into the sensitivity of various a/c's rudder designs.
Report on an A320 wake turbulence encounter over Canada showed that high speed/altitude control issues still aren't fully understood. The tail was subjected to 121% and 129% of it's load limit. PF got 90 degrees out of whack with the a/c(PIO). Six rudder reversals!!!
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 2008 - A08W0007
06-28-2011 | 08:08 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 9
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.
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.
06-28-2011 | 08:22 AM
#86
Indian Takeout Driver
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
From: FAR part 347 (91+121+135)
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.
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.
06-29-2011 | 04:16 PM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
From: L Side
06-29-2011 | 08:14 PM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
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.
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.
As for the VP of flight, not going by his rumor, but by what reuters has just reported.I.E. large possible airbus order. Sounds to me like you are fustrated with stagnation as many are. no need to be a hater. look at my handle, not exactly been fun for me or 2000 + other guys. be pessimist or optimist your choice. just don't be hating. once again this is all prefaced with IMO.
06-30-2011 | 09:21 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
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. 
Actually, it's the Japanes who are the smart ones. All the CEO's at firms like Toyota and Honda are engineers. The Ceo's in the USA are financiers. Threrein lies our problem. American CEO's come in, stay a few years, and leave with a huge sum of $$$$.
JJ
07-19-2011 | 11:46 AM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
From: L Side
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
