PDA

View Full Version : Scarebus 1 Safety 0



tdponder
05-23-2002, 12:53 PM
IF WE CAN'T FIND A SOLUTION, LET'S REDEFINE THE PROBLEM!

There is a very disconcerting movement afoot to quietly change the
rules of flying after nearly 100 years. If successful, it will make life so
much easier for certain entities --- entities like the NTSB, FAA and
manufacturers of large aircraft. Actually it isn't just to make
life easier: billions of dollars are involved.

The FAA now says there is no need to ground the Airbus and says
also that no link has been found between material in the tail fin and
the N.Y. crash.

Perhaps not, but there is one indisputable very large link --- the tail went for
a swim in Jamaica Bay and the aircraft crashed and burned in a
nearby neighborhood with the loss of all aboard and five people killed
on the ground. I call that "a link!"

Notable: A substantial number of American Airline pilots who fly these things
have called for their grounding, but the government isn't listening.

THE REALLY SCARY PART IS YET TO COME

Boeing, at the request of the FAA, has issued a statement redefining
pilot procedures that have successfully been in effect for nearly a
hundred years. Isn't that incredible?

Get this;

From Boeing:

"The bulletin stresses that rudder input 'as a means to maneuver in
roll' -- often taught as part of military or general aviation pilot training
-- 'typically does not apply' to large transport aircraft
operations. 'The rudder in a large transport airplane is typically
used for trim, engine failure, and crosswind takeoff and landing. Only
under an extreme condition, such as loss of a flap, mid air collision,
or where an airplane has pitched to a very high pitch attitude and a
pushover or thrust change has already been unsuccessful,
should careful rudder input in the direction of the desired roll
be considered,' Boeing said. A rudder input is never the preferred
initial response for events such as a wake vortex encounter,
windshear encounter, or to reduce bank angle preceding an
imminent stall recovery'. "

Well now, THAT certainly takes care of the Airbus crash --- Obvious to
Boeing only now, the pilots used their rudder below design maneuvering
speed and caused the tail to decide to leave the aircraft to go for a swim.
It's time to break out the Champagne in France because design
maneuvering speed no longer applies to transport aircraft!

You can bet your last dollar that I certainly would use rudder in the event
of wake turbulence in order to keep from putting a couple hundred
paying passengers on their backs! And, I would expect the aircraft
to hold together during the recovery process! Anything else is nothing
less than male bovine excrement.

To continue:
"Boeing also cautioned that 'sequential full or nearly full authority
rudder reversals may not be within the structural design limits of the
airplane, even if the airspeed is below the design maneuvering
speed,' noting that no Boeing procedures 'require this type of pilot
input.' Besides over-stressing a vertical fin, rudder reversals can put
'excessive structural loads' on other parts of an airplane,
such as engine struts."

GeeJessieLee!
Now we have not only negated forever the FAA's own definition of
"Design Maneuvering Speed" but we also have absolved all those
crashes and upsets on Boeing 737s that Boeing earlier reluctantly
admitted was indeed, no fooling, a design problem. Not any more.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE IS MERELY AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE RULES

Here is another example of a rule change:

The bastard helicoper-yes-no-airplane V22 Osprey program has been
in deep trouble with a number of soldier-killing crashes. So, now the
rules are being changed by the Navy so that ... "No longer does the craft
have to be able to land without power when it's in helicopter mode."

What? Do you realize that means the Osprey is now safe to crash!
"Say you lost an engine, Marine 1234? Okay, you are cleared to crash in
your present location!"

DON'T LET THIS CONTINUE

Every pilot in America --- from the student pilot to the Airline Transport
Pilot --- should be offended by these blatant attempts to change the
nature of flying. Don't you just love the phrase, " ... military or general
aviation pilot training -- 'typically does not apply' to large transport
aircraft operations?"

Excuse me, but It has typically applied for decades. But now all is
different? Every hear of the tail section of a DC3, 5, 6 or 7 falling off
in midflight?

Is the basic Flight Instructor now doing his student a disservice by using
Dutch Rolls to teach him coordinated use of controls?

Has anyone ever ripped the tail section off a Cessna while instructing
control coordination techniques? No, because the Cessna is designed
and constructed to perform in a normal matter. Why suddenly are Transport
Aircraft immune from previous design minima? Because they keep
crashing?

As a pilot, please make your views know now. It IS Important.
Every Email or letter counts!

T. D. Ponder
Airline Transport Pilot
716 40th Place
Birmingham, AL
205 785-1615
tdponder@juno.com

http://www.angelfire.com/al/TDsFunpage/index.html

Contacts:

Email:

Your Congressmen
http://www.mrsmith.com/index2.html

Snail Mail:

NTSB
NTSB Headquarters
490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20594
(202) 314-6000

FAA

Federal Aviation Administration
Aviation Safety Hotline, ASY-300
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591

Scotty G
05-24-2002, 06:05 PM
Mr. Ponder,

I'd like to post some thoughts on your post. I think you've made a ggo point about some of these items.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by tdponder
[B]

"Notable: A substantial number of American Airline pilots who fly these things have called for their grounding, but the government isn't listening."


While I agree that the NTSB and FAA are imperfect entities, there may also be a cultural problem with AA's training and attitude towards how to fly an airplane. Absent of this, maybe certain techniques used by that flight crew can be called into question. You have to ask yourself, "How many of these pilots calling for a grounding still report to work every day?" The answer: all of them. Where's the problem?


"It's time to break out the Champagne in France because design
maneuvering speed no longer applies to transport aircraft!"


"Va," or design manuvering speed doesn't apply to Transport Cat aircraft as it does to light aircraft. "Manuvering Speed" in a transport aircraft varies with weight. We have speed cards for this on the flight deck. Think of it like this: for whatever weight you are at; there is a manuvering speed.


"You can bet your last dollar that I certainly would use rudder in the event of wake turbulence in order to keep from putting a couple hundred paying passengers on their backs! And, I would expect the aircraft to hold together during the recovery process! Anything else is nothing less than male bovine excrement. "

I'll agree with this to a point. Most aviators worth their pay wouldn't be slapping the rudder left and right with vigor to regain controlled flight. What did the AA crew in question do? (I don't know...) I would like to think that flight crews would use whatever coordinated control inputs are necessary to recover the aircraft. (For those that don't know, most transport jets use spoilers to aid in roll control; this adds a considerable amount of drag and would/might inhibit a timely upset recovery.)


"Boeing also cautioned that 'sequential full or nearly full authority
rudder reversals may not be within the structural design limits of the airplane, even if the airspeed is below the design maneuvering speed,' noting that no Boeing procedures 'require this type of pilot input.' Besides over-stressing a vertical fin, rudder reversals can put 'excessive structural loads' on other parts of an airplane, such as engine struts."

I couldn't agree more. But also point out that Airbus does not call for that technique either. We're talking about common sense.


"Every pilot in America --- from the student pilot to the Airline Transport Pilot --- should be offended by these blatant attempts to change the nature of flying. Don't you just love the phrase, " ... military or general aviation pilot training -- 'typically does not apply' to large transport aircraft operations?"


Well, I'd like to clarify how I feel about it. Many, if not all piloting techniqes do apply - directly - to transport aircraft operations. But there are caveats... You simply cannot throw a 737, MD-80 or A-310 around the sky. The dynamic pressures on these aircraft, even at .5 Mach, are tremendous. 250 knots and .5 mach are sedate speeds, but local airflow and altitude/TAS curves are not finite quantities. You just can't toss an Airbus around with rudder reversals and not expect something to break. That vertical stab and rudder are HUGE, and the loads generated by them are equivalent.

"Excuse me, but It has typically applied for decades. But now all is different? Every hear of the tail section of a DC3, 5, 6 or 7 falling off in midflight?"

Apples and oranges... The aircraft you have listed, to be sure, have had inflight airframe failures. But remember design and manufacturing techniques are vastly different for those aircraft and modern jets. The airspeed ranges are also vastly different. We're talking the difference between props and jets.


"Has anyone ever ripped the tail section off a Cessna while instructing control coordination techniques? No, because the Cessna is designed and constructed to perform in a normal matter. Why suddenly are Transport Aircraft immune from previous design minima? Because they keep crashing?"


Can you say, unequivacobly, that this has never happened? I don't think you can. Cessna's are designed to operate within their limitations, as airliners are. But does common sense tell you to do full rudder reversals in an airliner? I hope not...

My replies aren't intended to be argumentative, just bringing up some different points...

Respectfully,

Scotty G

tdponder
05-24-2002, 07:06 PM
Scotty,

Some of your points are well taken ... but ...
there is no proof that the AA pilots engaged in
rudder reversal inputs.

There was a problem on preflight with the yaw
dampner and a computer had to be reset by the
ground crew.

Could not it have been the computer/ yaw dampner
that caused the rudder reversals that were recorded
on the DFDR rather than pilot input?

T. D. Ponder

Scotty G
05-25-2002, 05:05 AM
Mr. Ponder,

With what I know about Airbuses, I'd have to say that it is extremely unlikely that a torqued computer made uncommanded flight control inputs. That's akin to a car named Carrie coming alive and going after you.

There is proof. There is always proof. Be it what the airplane did on its own, or what the flight crew told it to do...

I was priviledged to see some data from that investigation. It's quite surprising. Even to me... I won't make any comments as the investigation is not complete. Overall, the NTSB does outstanding work, and 99% of the time, can find some amount of fault within the FAA.

Scotty G

tdponder
05-25-2002, 07:21 AM
Scotty G,

You wrote:
Overall, the NTSB does outstanding work, and 99% of the time, can find some amount of fault within the FAA.

I agree with that assessment. I'm just not comfortable on this one. Boeing tried to have us all believe the pilots were to blame for the 737 crashes/upsets, but it didn't wash. Time will tell on this one.

Scotty G
05-25-2002, 09:08 AM
Ahhh.... Now your posts makes more sense to me. I didn't glean that, so now I understand better. We have the same sheet of music.

I, too, agree that the uncommanded rudder upsets in the 737's are not pilot induced.

Scotty G

Scotty G
05-25-2002, 02:44 PM
Mark,

It's funny... I try to back up whatever comments I make with facts. In aviation, finding a true fact is difficult. So when people say that the NTSB has sided with a manufacturer or a company or whatever, I am skeptical. By and large, from what I have seen, the NTSB might be the most impartial government agenecy in the history of mankind. (I'm sure this isn't the case all the time, but just my viewpoint...)

As for manuvering... At least in the Airbus with flight envelope protections... You probably won't break anything. (We;re talking pitch and roll...) The flight control models are G limited and AOA (Angle of Attack) limited. You cannot roll or loop the A320, A330, A340 series. I am not sure about the older A300/A310's...

But that does not mean that I can't kick a rudder and reverse it so hard the rudder or vertical tail fails. That probably doesn't fall under a flight control (yaw) protection.

I heard a lot of guys say they are going to float the airplane in event of another terrorist action. I have very mixed feelings about this. In a Boeing or a Mc-D aircraft, you can put it in any attitude you want. At the minimun, you are going to hurt or kill a number of people inside.

How many airline drivers have unusual attitude training? How many have full-on aerobatic training? The numbers (not a lot) are few. Imagine seeing the horizon "up there" for the first time because of something *you* did... The biggest instinct is to pull on the stick - something that aids what the nose of the airplane is already trying to do: pitch towards the ground. Now you have a swept wing jet, with power on, pitching straight down. Not good.

As for jinking the aircraft to disable a Tango... Ever had a 500 pound cart land on you? How about another person getting floated and then land on you? Some of these guys (pilots) sounded like they were going to do their best Sean Tucker routine. That strikes me as a bit extreme. One stick rap or mild rudder rap would be all that is necessary to thrown somebody off their feet.

If that situation occurs, hopefully there would be some restraint in technique so the airframe doesn't fail and a high number or innocent civilians don't get hurt or killed.

I agree with your statement about "one bullet" through the cabin is better than breaking a whole aircraft. That is dead on. Even a sudden decompression would be mild compared to jinking the aircraft and throwing everybody - and everything - around inside the cabin.

Don't *even* get me started on the politicians!!! :p

Scotty G

tdponder
05-25-2002, 02:58 PM
You make an excellent case for arming pilots. Thanks!

daveflyshi
05-27-2002, 10:29 AM
Scotty, T. D., et al,

I have to agree with much of what has been said on the eratic maneuvers with airliners. I am flying the CRJ, and have flown with many Captains who have told the flight attendants that if there is a problem in the back and they become aware of it, to "hold on." I really have an issue with it, for many of the same reasons you mentioned. While I have around 100 hours of aerobatics in my background, I am not flying a 300 horsepower purpose built aerobatic machine when I carry passengers. Should the airplane be able to handle the maneuvers? Well, yes, but like you already mentioned, if it is below Va. However, when are we ever cruising around at Va? Even in the high 30s, the airspeed at cruise is higher than any Va on the speed cards. Our turbulence penetration speed is lower than cruise generally, but is that low enough to eratically maneuver the airplane without damaging it, or perhaps destroying it? I do not think so. While I would personally not be opposed to carrying a weapon, I understand that there are some who would be, and I think they have a right to not carry. Are armed pilots the answer, I don't know. But paying people 80-100K to fly around all day is not the answer either. The military would be better off providing the manpower, under a new MOS. That would cover all the training, pay and such, and keep the costs considerably lower. If they can let the special forces guys wear whatever hairstyles and facial hair they need to perform the job, then why can't they have air marshall jobs with similar dress codes?

While I am not opposed to using the necessary control inputs to attempt to save my passengers lives, I am opposed to people maneuvering their aircraft without giving due consideration to the potential outcome. I have had some training in unusual attitudes and recoveries, but still would be hesitant to attempt any extreme measures in an airliner. There are a lot of options which are widely available, and could be executed with a lot less airframe impact. Anyone thought about emergency depressurization? East of the Mississippi, there are airports most planes can land at within 60 miles of there position. How quickly can you get down? I know that in the airplane I fly, and Emergency Descent (praciticed at least once a year in the sim) produces 6000' or better. Would that maneuver achieve the desired affect? I think it very well could.

I hope we never see an event which would require the crew to have to respond. I do hope that people are considering all the issues before they get in the airplane, and that should a situation ever arise, that the get the plane on the ground safely. The key is safely.

Fly well,

dave h

AAFO_WSagar
05-27-2002, 10:41 AM
This has really been a good thread, because I think at least three of you participating in it are active ATP's working the line. I certainly don't know the answer as well as you guys would but I still think it was a huge mistake for Pres Bush to make the public announcement that pilots would by no means be carrying weapons.

Did he really have to say that? In my way of thinking, I'd rather have Achmed thinking maybe he did have a weapon up there. I'd like the guy to be thinking that all sorts of trouble await him behind that door.. And upon saying that... I remember that there are more than a few things up there that would serve to stop someone pretty quickly, if not so much as a gun would.. or as cleanly...

I return to the half buried axe syndrome....

Keep up the good work guys!

Wayne

AAFO_WSagar
06-16-2002, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by AAFO_DABEAR

I'm not a pilot, but a passenger in these things, and this statement concerns me. Pilots, who are presently being denied guns in the cockpit to defend against hijackers and terrorists, report they're going to pull some pretty hairy maneuvers to throw the hijackers off their feet and onto the ceilings. Will the aircraft be able to stand the maneuvers?

My preference is that these idiots in govenment give the pilots what ever they want in the cockpit...bazookas if necessary...a bullet through the fuselage is better than complete structural failure any day.

Also, regarding the NTSB...pretty accurate about their finding fault with the FAA 99% of the times. Unfortunately, I've seen them side with a manufacturer and the FAA on two occasions when they shouldn't have, and place the blame on the pilots of that PSA jet for "failure to see and be seen" when an FAA facility only called out one aircraft as traffic, and one of their own Safety Board members felt that it was pretty clear there were two aircraft in the area...

It's Mercer at Van Nuys, Northwest at Detroit, and Valuejet in Florida, that make me think the NTSB is starting to go the way of the FAA...

And now there's already talk of a fuel tank explosion aboard the China Airlines 747 that crashed into the sea between Taiwan and Hong Kong. What of TWA 800? A lot of people still blame that accident on a missile...government cover-up or electrical wiring and fuel vapors? I have my doubts about the government, and with good reason...

My .02 cents...

Mark, my man,
Lemme offer some thoughts. Of all of the pilots you know, how many would you "trust" with a gun in the cockpit? Let's think about this.

Secondly, it's pretty easy to sit in your easy-chair and say what you would do in the event a potential hijacker was in your cockpit. Kinda like Saturday afternoon quaterbacking, ain't it. But. that's another subject.


You asked., "Will the aircraft be able to stand the maneuver?" What maneuver? The pilots don't even know what maneuvers they would do. So, it's kinda hard to second guess it, isn't it?

Okay.

"..a bullet through the fuselage is better than complete structural failure any day." Are we sure? Could a bullet through the fuselage cause structural failure? Maybe.


Also, on the PSA deal where the Board Members said "it was pretty clear there were two aircraft in the area..." Pretty clear to whom?

To him sitting in his easy chair? Or pretty clear to the pilots?

Was he in the airplane when it happened? Just curious.

Let's see, what next? NTSB going the way of the FAA. Do you really believe that?

That's my .02 cents worth. Whattya think?

Steve

AAFO_WSagar
06-16-2002, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by AAFO_DABEAR

I'm not a pilot, but a passenger in these things, and this statement concerns me. Pilots, who are presently being denied guns in the cockpit to defend against hijackers and terrorists, report they're going to pull some pretty hairy maneuvers to throw the hijackers off their feet and onto the ceilings. Will the aircraft be able to stand the maneuvers?

My preference is that these idiots in govenment give the pilots what ever they want in the cockpit...bazookas if necessary...a bullet through the fuselage is better than complete structural failure any day.

Also, regarding the NTSB...pretty accurate about their finding fault with the FAA 99% of the times. Unfortunately, I've seen them side with a manufacturer and the FAA on two occasions when they shouldn't have, and place the blame on the pilots of that PSA jet for "failure to see and be seen" when an FAA facility only called out one aircraft as traffic, and one of their own Safety Board members felt that it was pretty clear there were two aircraft in the area...

It's Mercer at Van Nuys, Northwest at Detroit, and Valuejet in Florida, that make me think the NTSB is starting to go the way of the FAA...

And now there's already talk of a fuel tank explosion aboard the China Airlines 747 that crashed into the sea between Taiwan and Hong Kong. What of TWA 800? A lot of people still blame that accident on a missile...government cover-up or electrical wiring and fuel vapors? I have my doubts about the government, and with good reason...

My .02 cents...

Mark, my man,
Lemme offer some thoughts. Of all of the pilots you know, how many would you "trust" with a gun in the cockpit? Let's think about this.

Secondly, it's pretty easy to sit in your easy-chair and say what you would do in the event a potential hijacker was in your cockpit. Kinda like Saturday afternoon quaterbacking, ain't it. But. that's another subject.


You asked., "Will the aircraft be able to stand the maneuver?" What maneuver? The pilots don't even know what maneuvers they would do. So, it's kinda hard to second guess it, isn't it?

Okay.

"..a bullet through the fuselage is better than complete structural failure any day." Are we sure? Could a bullet through the fuselage cause structural failure? Maybe.


Also, on the PSA deal where the Board Members said "it was pretty clear there were two aircraft in the area..." Pretty clear to whom?

To him sitting in his easy chair? Or pretty clear to the pilots?

Was he in the airplane when it happened? Just curious.

Let's see, what next? NTSB going the way of the FAA. Do you really believe that?

That's my .02 cents worth. Whattya think?

Steve

Unregistered
06-21-2002, 11:49 AM
Gents,

Please enlighten the uninformed, are airliners typically flown with little or no rudder inputs? Is it all left to spoilers and ailerons? Are there typical or routine situations in which rudder is used or are the pedals something you just use as a foot rest. ...Just wondering. Thanks.

daveflyshi
06-21-2002, 03:09 PM
Yes, rudder are used, but not as much as in let's say, any propeller driven airplane. Scotty or others will have to tell you about how much you use them on a plane with wing mounted jets. I fly fuselage mounted jets, and the take off roll is rudder just like in any other plane. The more of a cross wind, the more rudder you use. Like wise, the more crosswind on landing, the more rudder required. However, with the swept wing jet, you will not put the rudder in on landing until you are in the flair. You just keep the crab in until ground effect. You also use the rudders for most steering on the ground, unless it is a hard turn, then the tiller comes to play.

Now, if you were to loose one, then the rudder is critical. Let's take a V1 cut for example (Many debates lately as to what exactly V1 is, but for making the explanation simple, V1 is decision speed. Prior to V1, if it breaks, then you "have enough room to stop on the runway." After V1, you are flying!). If you do not get the airplane coordinated, then you are going over. No matter how much aileron you add, you will not right yourself until you get coordinated. So the old keep the ball centered thing is true. Once AP is engaged, I will normally take my feet off the pedals, but always have them in a position to get to the rudders if one should go. If the plane is flying sideways, then I simply adjust the rudder trim until the ball is centered.

Why would I need the rudders for a foot rest, when the panel works just great?

dave

Scotty G
06-21-2002, 04:28 PM
I pretty much agree with Dave's comments. I tend to try and use the rudder a bit more than what he said in a crosswind - for a few reasons...

1. I'll bleed out the crab in a crosswind around 100 AGL - the A320 goes into Direct (flight control) Law at 100 AGL in the landing configuration. I like to have things (runway centerline, decent rate, wing down into the wind) squared away as the flight control laws change. (By the way... I'm kinda a tailwheel guy, too...)

2. It's more comfortable for the passengers when I get everything set up and just make small corrections during the last 100 feet of the approach.

During climb, cruise and decent, the rudder pedals generally serve as a footrest. V1 Cuts are an entirely different animal...

Scotty G