November 2001 Queens Crash update

[YankssRule]

I caught this on the "other" board..please don't be made about me posting it. I was just talking about this the other night, so I thought I was post what was said.

Update on A-300 crash in Queens NY November 2001
------------------------------------------------------------
In today's online New York Times, it is stated that Airbus wrotee a memo in June of 1997 explicitly describing as a hazard the maneuver that caused the November 2001 crash of an American Airlines plane in Queens, but the memo was kept within the company.

The memo is now being cited by American and the pilots' union in an effort to put part of the blame on Airbus.

Pilots were not warned, until after the crash, never to use the rudder in alternating directions.

Janet :coffee

[EditorASC]

If there were any links to the source of that information, in that post, I would sure appreciate knowing what they are..............

[YankssRule]

Sorry ASC..No links where posted..just that statement.

Janet

[xiknal]

here's a link! this one originated with the Dallas Morning News:

www.twincities.com/mld/tw...975.htm?1c (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/9893975.htm?1c)

[Passenger Mark]

Janet,

Absolutely no problem posting it here. These types of questions should be discusssed.

Why would you think I would be mad?:\

Besides... I don't get mad... not in my nature... I GET EVEN! :eek

Seriously, thanks for bringing it up,

Mark

[EditorASC]

Thanks much for that link, xiknal. Here is an article, from the Times Online, published on May 28, 2003:

"LONDON — Airbus, the European aircraft-maker, denied allegations yesterday that it had concealed information that could have averted the 2001 disaster in which an airliner crashed in New York after losing its tail fin.


(ASO)
The charge, reported by the USA Today newspaper, has fanned a quarrel with huge financial stakes. It has been simmering since American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus A300-600, bound for Santo Domingo, plunged into houses in Belle Harbor, Queens, in November 2001. All 260 on board were killed, along with five on the ground.

With compensation claims of $100 million (£60 million) riding on the findings of the National Transportation Safety Board expected within months, American Airlines and Airbus have been sparring over responsibility. The airline said that Airbus had failed to tell it that repeated aggressive rudder movements could overload the structure and tear off the whole tail of its airliner. Airbus is pointing the finger at pilot error.

The dispute focuses on how much Airbus knew about rudder damage suffered by one of its airliners, also operated by American Airlines, in a similar incident off Florida in 1997. Investigators into the 2001 crash were surprised last November when Airbus disclosed information on potentially disastrous aspects of the 1997 incident, which had not been previously reported.

In the 1997 incident, the American Airlines Flight 903 from Boston to Miami stalled and dived 3,000ft before recovering control. Sharp movements of the rudder, used to help to regain control, damaged the structure. The pilots were blamed by the safety board for initiating the stall by flying too slowly.

Bernard Loeb, a former safety board aviation chief, told the newspaper: “When I heard (about what Airbus knew) it made me sick. People are kicking themselves.”

Carol Carmody, who chaired the agency when Airbus disclosed its information, said that the board had missed an opportunity to take action before the 2001 crash.

Airbus said yesterday that it had passed on everything that it knew about the 1997 incident as soon as it could.

The investigation into Flight 587 has so far found that Sten Molin, 34, the First Officer, alternated the rudder pedals, swinging the tail surface backwards and forwards, in order to recover from an encounter with heavy turbulence as the aircraft swung out over New York’s Jamaica Bay.

The turbulence had been caused by a Japan Air Lines jumbo jet that had left Kennedy Airport ahead of the Airbus.

At first, suspicion focused on the carbon composite material that Airbus uses for parts of its airliner tails. Engineers reported, however, that there was no structural flaw. The tail fin had withstood all the stress that it was supposed to under the design rules. The tail had been ripped off by forces that far exceeded the maximum allowed for the structure.

Until recently, pilots had been taught that deflecting control surfaces to the maximum was acceptable provided that they were flying below a certain speed, known as manoeuvring speed. Flight 587 was flying at 255 knots, below this speed.

Incidents involving Boeings as well as Airbuses have led airlines to advise caution on the use of rudders, which control yaw, or side-to-side movement.

After the 1997 incident, Airbus had advised the safety board that “rudder reversals can lead to structural loads that exceed the design of the fin.” The advice was not, however, given high priority because the gravity of the 1997 incident was not known.

Airbus blamed American Airlines for witholding information from the airliner’s flight data recorder.

BAE Systems, which owns 20 per cent of the aircraft- maker, was referring all calls to Airbus yesterday. The UK company used to make wings for Airbus, but under the aircraft company’s reorganisation in 2000 it relinquished all control over its manufacturing facilities in Britain."

[YankssRule]

ASC -

Do they plan on trying to fix this problem w/ the rudders? Either I missed that part if it was stated, or they just didn't say thing about it.

Janet

[EditorASC]

My understanding now is that the plane met the FAA requirements for structural integrity of the vertical stabilizer and rudder. However, the NTSB accident report is due out in just a few weeks from now and I am sure that issue will be thoroughly discussed.

In my opinion, it would be possible for a pilot to cause the same kind of failure on any airliner, if he activated the rudder rapidly back and forth in the same manner as the 587 First Officer did. If I am wrong about that, the NTSB report will shoot me down, but I doubt that will be the case.

If Airbus did indeed cover up a known defect in design, it will be a repeat of what happened in the crash of the AMR-Eagle ATR 72, in October, 1994.

:fuming