Outstanding, Thank you for the clarification guys!

So my question is why AA doesn't beat this into the heads of all their pilots now because of that catastrophic incident and massive loss of life... One place the whipsaw effect -might- be useful.

I thought that video was long gone...I'm amazed that it is still being used. Is anything in training said about the rudder commentary in it?

Just something I heard from an AA pilot in my crashpad. But didn't they conclude that those rudder movements would not have been able to be manipulated that much, nor that many times by a pilot in 6.5 seconds?

Nothing.....we just watched the video and there was no discussion about it. I truly could not believe my eyes.

I wonder how much of the deflections was caused by the yaw damp system?

Also for what it's worth, I think I remember hearing the A300's vertical fin is not the same structual piece that the fueselage is...meaning its bolted on as opposed to being an integrated part. Not really sure what the standard is, just pretty sure I remember hearing that recently.

My impression was that this video was trying to emphasize the point that the rudder is a very effective flight control surface, especially at high angle of attack. The reason he was emphasizing this was the 737 hard over rudder deflection on approach in Colorado. I thought his whole point was that the pilot in that situation increased the AOA thereby making the rudder more effective and dooming the flight, where as had he accepted altitude loss, less AOA, and more airspeed, he may have been able to recover.

IMHO I thought it was an interesting discussion about unusual attitudes and how rudder, as a last resort, could be an effective way of recovering an airplane that could not be recovered using aileron only.

I don't think his discussion applies to the wake turbulence situation in this thread, and I don't think he was trying to advocate using rudder in less than very extreme situations, but that it could be very important to understand exactly how rudder use could help or hurt you in these extreme situations.

I think this statement is true in normal situations, but if we don't at least talk about (like in the video) how the rudder effects flight in other situations, then the lack of understanding, that may have contributed to the AB accident, will surely continue.

That was what I thought, as much as they like to pin in on the FO, as well as AA's training, it wasn't ENTIRELY his fault.

And to comment on what another guy posted. Wasn't the vertical stab bolted on with a combination of metal and composite materials. And it was discovered that the metal bolts held up, while the composites failed?

it was a rudder dublet
 

Actually the composite rudder was bolted to the metal plane, but the tail failed exactly at it's design failure point--no malfunctions. This was all in the final report, but this was a case of a rudder dublet, or double the force on the rudder after two rapid applications in opposite directions. You can jamb in a control on a plane at any time in the flight envelope and be fine, but you had better let the plane return to a nuetral state before trying the rudder again immediately in the opposite direction. The aircraft was NEVER designed to take that amount of stress and was the cause of Flight 587's crash.

c17turtle
former AA A-300 FO at NY

For the record, the loss of life was tragic aboard AA 587.

Back to the thread, some of us have seen the American Airlines training video that was mentioned, whereas rudder manipulation is suggested by the instructor to recover from unusal attitudes including high angles of attack. I do not agree with this theory.

The acrobatic video insidiously leads a pilot down a path they shouldn't be lead down. For this reason, the video should not have been used as part of American Airline's training program for new hires.

From watching it, I was lead to believe "use rudder for recovery when the plane is not flying rightside-up" as your last resort. However, nowhere in the video was the advocation of full-scale rudder deflections (doublets) to recover.

When AA 587 entered the wake turbulence, it was not in an unusual attitude. Second the reaction by the flying pilot was not appropriate to the situation. Specifically, the rudder doublets, (to me) were a sign of panic and inexperience not recovery from an unusual attitude. Even if the Airbus was in an unusual attitude, full scale rudder deflections from side to side would only serve to induce yaw occillation(s), not recovery of any sort.

But remember, as initial new hires at AA it is ingrained in their mind...use rudder for recovery. The path was set and the student applied the lesson incorrectly. Therein lies the insidious nature of the acrobatic video. I think the video put into the mind of the F/O, use rudder to recover, but unfortunately it wasn't clear to him as to why. To me, transport-category airliners are designed to be stable. Words like positive dihederal and positive dynamic stability are words thrown around to describe that an airliner really wants to fly straight and true if you let it especially after being upset by wake turbulence.

To come full circle, why release a acrobatic video with insidiously negative procedures when they might be misunderstood by a new hire and unfortunatly create a path to further agravate a flight scenario which could have been resolved by letting the plane do what it was designed to do...dampen the oscillations and return to straight and level flight ?

There was another mention of a American Airline company message regarding recent high altitude stalls (with passengers aboard) on the MD, er, sorry, the Super 80 fleet. Here is an excerpt from the message:

NOTHING COMPENSATES FOR WATCHING YOURAIRSPEED INDICATOR

This is good advice, but does it really fully address the problem ? No.

The message does state that American Airlines is re-calculating their performance charts for the Super 80, but more importantly are they re-training their pilots ? IMHO, stalling an airliner full of passengers on two separate instances during this past July is inexcusable.

Again, what did we learn from this ? The MD80 is not a high altitude airplane like the Boeings, it has no wing. Doesn't matter how fast you're going, if you're too heavy you shouldn't be up there.


American has provided the guidance of watch your airspeed at cruise, but once again this guidance falls short and possibly creates "the insidious path" of-at high altitude, go fast and you won't have any problem.


Airliners aren't meant to be flown acrobatically....

FF