bruce88123

I drew no conclusions, I merely posted a single report for those that were interested to read. If you feel a need to insult me, so be it. I searched for info on the other 2 and did not find it, so sue me. I feel there is no need to insult me for merely posting a report. If you are getting hacked off at the others, take it out on them. I have made no comments about you or to you until this post. I will gladly accept an apology for your unnecessary attack upon me.

Bruce

old git

I remember a saying,

"Two nations separated by a common language!" (Referring to USA-UK & English)

I came across some moves which may improve the situation with regard to the English English version of the language.

As Follows:-


Euro-English

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will
be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was
the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English
spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in
plan that would become known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make
the sivil servants jump with joy.

The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k". This should klear up
konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like
fotograf 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to
reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always
ben a deterent to akurate speling.

Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the languag is
disgrasful and it should go away.

By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with
"z" and "w" with "v".

During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou"
and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl.

Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu
understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali kum tru.

Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze
forst plas.

If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl

John L.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

[b]Bruce:

I will make no apology for having drawn a logical conclusion.

I have said more than once we can argue about the report on AA 587, but there is still no answer, or any amount of comment, on the other two rudder failures. Then when you once again post the summary on A 587 as though it answered for the other two as well?

I can only conclude you also are deliberately ignoring the ongoing question of the dangers inherent in the Airbus composites.

If you care to, sir, read [link=http://shortfinal.blogspot.com/2005/03/americas-worst-airline-flying-worlds.html]this report[/link] that poses serious questions about the FAA report on AA 587, and mentions a Transtat Airbus that had the rudder fall off in level cruise flight.

The third incident was a FedEx A-320, also in level cruise when the rudder just... FELL OFF!

Bill.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

John:

Believe it or not that revision of spelling goes back to a story by Dolton Edwards, published in 1946!

It was written in response to some strange wordings in the will of George Bernard Shaw.

See the original [link=http://www.ecphorizer.com/Articles1/meiheminceklasru.html]here[/link].

Still amusing 60 years after first reaing it.

Bill.

deltatech

GRANT ED The 2 rudder problems on B737-200's had nothing to do with structure. You are compairing apples to oranges. Yes two Boeing 737-200's went down before we figured out what was wrong. Just because the 2 Airbusses that had rudders depart didn't crash that doesn't mean that Airbus has better structure. The fact that Boeing does not have control surfaces or major structure falling off means that Boeing has better structure. Lets try to stay on the same page.

bruce88123

Since you are not man enough to admit when you are wrong, let me just point out a few things.
1. Your conclusion is not logical.
2. I made no comment on the other 2 incidents since I have no information on them. I do not comment on things I know nothing about.
3. I'm ignoring nothing. See item 2.
4. I provided a NTSB report, not a FAA report. Different agency. I will read your data later.
5. I work for FedEx and we have never owned or operated an A-320. We operate A-300 and A-310 Airbus aircraft only. There is a possibility that we may have subcontracted to another carrier for a flight but he would not have been on our operating certificate or under our maintenance programs. We have had no serious rudder problems on any of our Airbus aircraft in flight, EVER.
I believe I am done communicating with you since you don't listen to others anyway.
Have a nice life.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

[b]Bruce:

When I am wrong I have no problem admitting it. I have done so more times than I like, but I've done it every time.

NTSB/FAA/CAA/CAB - alphabet soup. Just replace my stated "FAA" with "NTSB," or just "Government." You knew very well what I meant.

So FedEx didn't have it happen to an A-320. I'm sorry as I can be. It did happen to an Airbus operated by FedEx. So it was an A-300 or an A-310. Who cares? It was still an Airbus.

Putting aerodynamic surfaces on a huge lump of fecal matter does not make the thing any less a turd, 'specially when the aerodynamic surfaces fall off.

Some day, if I have nothing better to do, I'll research the FedEx incident and send it to you. In the meantime, your supervisors who say FedEx has never had a rudder incident with an Airbus are either misinformed or lying to you.

Bill.

PS: If you leave the thread I will not mourn. wr.

MTT

My Feedback: (8)

Go to the NTSB website : http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm
They have a searchable database. I you search for incidents involving FEDEX, , for the time period 1985-2005, 4 incidents come up, none related to the rudder in any way....

However, I could find one report of the rudder coming off, march 2005, a canadian-registered A310 : http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...15X01467&key=1

But, the fact that the rudder came off during flight, is in no way an indicator for the general quality of the airframe in question.
The rudder could have separated due to improper maintenance, for example.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Michael:

Quote:

...when a FedEx A300 freight pilot complained about strange "uncommanded inputs" -- rudder movements which the plane was making without his moving his control pedals. In FedEx's own test on the rudder on the ground, engineers claimed its "acuators" -- the hydraulic system which causes the rudder to move -- tore a large hole around its hinges, in exactly the spot where the rudders of both flight 961 and flight 587 parted company from the rest of the aircraft.

This may be the one that was referred to, If so I was in error saying the rudder fell off, it was just about to fall off - the plane landed before complete departure. And apologies for my error.

I suppose, if this is indeed the incident, it didn't make the fed database since it was discovered and repaired in maintenance.

Bill.

GRANT ED

quote]ORIGINAL: deltatech

GRANT ED The 2 rudder problems on B737-200's had nothing to do with structure. You are compairing apples to oranges. Yes two Boeing 737-200's went down before we figured out what was wrong. Just because the 2 Airbusses that had rudders depart didn't crash that doesn't mean that Airbus has better structure. The fact that Boeing does not have control surfaces or major structure falling off means that Boeing has better structure. Lets try to stay on the same page.
[/quote]

Deltatech I realize the 737 rudder problems were system related and not structure related. I was not saying that they were structure related. You say that the fact the control surfaces did not fall off means that boeing has a better structure? Big deal if the design of the control system is so poor that it results in the complete destruction of the aircraft!!
The point I was trying to make was that Boeing have their problems too. They are not immune to accidents.

Bill your posts are ridiculous and full of errors, even you admit you got it wrong with the FEDEX incident. You continually rant on about the ongoing dangers of airbus composites but you have not given any proof. The FAA and NTSB don't see any problems with airbus aircraft but you do. I'll believe the FAA and NSTB thanks. If your going to argue about something at least provide me with some facts and evidence to back it up.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

PROOF???

The rudders falling off are in themselves both the evidence and proof.

Bill.

MTT

My Feedback: (8)

They are neither evidence, nor proof !
I said it earlier, until the reason for the rudder coming off is established, it is no indication for the quality of the airframe
At least not until the reason for the rudder falling off has been established.


Are all DC-10's junk, in your book, because once an engine came off ? (American Airlines, Chicago )
Turned out that there was nothing wrong with the design, but the maintenance personell at AA had used improper maintenance techniques.

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Quote:

They are neither evidence, nor proof !
I said it earlier, until the reason for the rudder coming off is established, it is no indication for the quality of the airframe
At least not until the reason for the rudder falling off has been established.

What utter nonsense.

There is no problem with the airframe, at least until we find out why it comes apart in the air? Then when a cause is determined it will then BECOME a problem?

Did you fail first grade? A reasonably intelligent seven year old can see your argument is specious.

I'm gone. I doubt you will mourn that any more than I would mourn your absence

Bill.

MTT

My Feedback: (8)

No, I didn't.
As a matter of fact I am an aeronautical engineer.

Of course, there might be a problem with the airframe. But you jump to the conclusion that all Airbus aircraft are junk, because the rudder came off, without knowing all the facts. All you have are half-truths and innuendo.

GOOD ! You were not contributing anything substantial anyway.

Finally something we agree on !

old git

Bill,

As an Englishman I feel a degree of proprietorial ownership of the English Mother (******) tongue. It embarrasses me to find I have missed the origin of the idea and need to be guided by one of our transatlantic cousins.

Seriously though I am really glad to find the origin, nothing new under the sun!

My first encounter with S F was in 1951, I still own two paperbacks by "Vargo Statten". I seem to recall that it was the nom de plume of a serious writer who later used his own name, I can't the name.

My SF etc library runs to over 700 volumes, largely paperback. In rather poor condition, turning brown and friable.

I guess an interest in the written/spelled word comes with age.



John L.

HalH

My Feedback: (12)

I just received some pictures of a United A-319 that look exactly like the Jet Blue nose wheel incident. It occured 2 years ago !

William Robison

My Feedback: (3)

Hal's pictures.

No comment needed.