RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> Full Scale planes, cars, helis, boats >> Airplanes - Full Scale >> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK !
Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/24/2005 9:44:22 PM   
Flyfalcons



Posts: 6100
Joined: 7/27/2002
From: Bonney Lake, WA, USA
Status: offline 		I wonder if the Air Transat guys were stomping on the rudder. My guess is no.

_____________________________

Ryan Winslow

Cub flying - the new EXTREME SPORT!!! (evarrr)

(in reply to FLYBOY)
       Post #: 76

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/24/2005 10:15:31 PM   
William Robison



Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Say what you will about Boeing McDonnel/Douglas, when they have a problem they correct it.

And their inspection procedures are more than looking to see if the rudder is still there.

Thranslating Airbus' procedure for checking their rudders into everyday English, if the rudder hasn't fallen off it's fine. If the rudder has fallen off, fix it.

No Airbus for me, thank you.

Bill.

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to Flyfalcons)
       Post #: 77

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/25/2005 5:59:56 AM   
MarkNovack



Posts: 1546
Joined: 2/9/2002
From: Nameche, BELGIUM
Status: offline 		What airliner (not airline) has the worst safety record according to statistics? How many times did it crash to achieve that terrible status? Why is that statistic not representative of the type's potential? Why are raw statistics generally not representative...why must adjustments be made? Lets see how factual you are. I don't feel as though I'm hijacking this thread, that has already been done. Why not extend this subject and start throwing around facts instead of suposition? Then we can really scare the poo out of folks.


Mark

(in reply to William Robison)
       Post #: 78

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/25/2005 3:26:45 PM   
Johng



Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/24/2002
From: Deland, FL, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: William Robison

I was not there, so I can't comment from direct observation. If the FDR recorded full excursions on the rudder, then it was probably doing it. But no ATR is going to "Do the mambo" on the rudder pedals without some other fault.


I guess then, that ATP's(ATR?) will lie, but won't over control? There are other flight crew who testify that the guy was wild with the rudder control in earlier situations, but got away with it. There is also testimony about the guy being over sensitive to turbulence, breaking off an approach above 3000 feet because of turbulence that caused a bank of less than 30 degrees. Either the guy had some history of this behaviour, or these other ATP's were making stuff up.

It's all in the actual NTSB report, available at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf

If you selectively discount various components of reality you can come up with different conclusions, but the report lays it out there plain & simple. The statement that an ATP would never do such things is directly discounted by pilots that flew with him.

As for the source at the Shortfinal web site, the guy is either intentionally misleading or ignorant. He plays quick & loose with the facts about upset training and the taught use of the rudder.

You can't deny the pics of a plane loosing it's rudder, but then if that had happened on flight 587, the tail probably would've stayed on and the plane probably would have made it back. No fan of Airbus, but all models have had parts fall off, some of them big. Some of them crash-causers.

My appologies for earlier comments about having posted here already. We already hashed this issue out in another A380 thread.

_____________________________

John

(in reply to William Robison)
       Post #: 79

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/25/2005 4:29:44 PM   
Flyboy Dave



Posts: 13359
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: San Bernardino County, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Why would the planes computers allow over control (movement) of the plane
control surfaces in the first place? One would think that these perimeters would
be built into the plane for safety reasons from the get-go....

....doing the Mambo on the rudders petals in flight should do nothing to the plane.

Perhaps the design engineers didn't figure idiot pilots into the equation.

FBD.

_____________________________

An engineer says.... "That won''t work".
A mechanic says..."Oh yeah, watch this".
"Old Age, and Treachery will overcome youth and skill".
Revver Bro #4.

(in reply to Johng)
       Post #: 80

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/26/2005 6:10:16 AM   
William Robison



Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline 		I suppose you are all aware that yet another Airbus rudder fell off on the 13th of his month. The plane was in level flight, the pilot was not giving any rudder input at the time. Just cruising at altitude, and the rudder fell off.

hey did manage to get the plane down without any injuries.

I hate to think what would have happened if they'd had a cross wind, or gusts on landing.

Bill.

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to Flyboy Dave)
       Post #: 81

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/28/2005 4:34:51 AM   
GRANT ED



Posts: 2495
Joined: 4/13/2003
From: Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
Status: online 		William.
As I stated earlier the tail of the A300 meets all strength requirements. It was due to the repeated rudder inputs of the pilots that the tail failed. As John said earlier there is more than one factor involved.
"Yet another Airbus rudder fell off" Well that makes one that I can think of. It's hardly raining rudders from the skies. What was the cause? I bet no one here knows. It could be an error in maintanence and have nothing to do with the design of the aircraft, so to blame Airbus for that is crazy without knowing the facts.

_____________________________

He who dies with the most toys wins.

(in reply to William Robison)
       Post #: 82

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/28/2005 4:54:24 AM   
William Robison



Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline 		The one on the 13th of this month was the third rudder to fall off an A3xx. FedEx had one, there was the crash in New York that was blamed on the pilot, and this one that just happened.

The FDRs on the FedEx and Transtat planes showed no improper operation at all, and the maintenance inspections require only an external visual check. The rudder may be ready to fail, but there is only the eyeball check. Delamination of a composite does not always show on the external surface.

The accident report on flight 587 that killed everyone aboard is being questioned. Questioned by the FAA I'll add, it might be reopened.

Bill.

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to GRANT ED)
       Post #: 83

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/28/2005 3:54:30 PM   
FLYBOY



Posts: 8687
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: Missoula, MT, USA
Status: offline 		Kind of funny, I was talking to Mike Melville (scaled composites) a few months ago about this. He stated that if they wouldn't have mounted the rudder the way they did, with bolts, that they wouldn't be having this problem. they needed to run the spars down through the bottom of the fuse and hold it in place with bid. Instead, they bend the cloth at a 90 degree angle, and bolt it on, and they break. (this is the short version of how he said it needs to be mounted)

Seems like a simple solution, but scaled has never lost a bird and they don't bolt on a glass part like those rudders are bolted on.

_____________________________

Fly it till the wings come off.

(in reply to William Robison)
       Post #: 84

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/29/2005 12:25:25 AM   
Backwing



Posts: 513
Joined: 2/18/2003
From: Kennewick, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Apparently, the AirBus 380 is grossly over weight so they had to either
eliminate the swimming pool or add more thrust. The reports say there
is more room for fuel, so the entire 25 passenger load will need not be
concerned.


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

Sleep tandem... Fly solo.

(in reply to FLYBOY)
       Post #: 85

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 3/29/2005 6:09:46 AM   
DT56


 

Posts: 156
Joined: 3/15/2005
From: Lucedale, MS, USA
Status: offline 		Fly by wire tech is great, if you have an ejection seat for a backup!!!

(in reply to Strykaas)
       Post #: 86

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 4/4/2005 10:59:37 PM   
robert


 

Posts: 2443
Joined: 3/2/2002
From: private, IRELAND
Status: offline 		This thread is hilarious.


[QUOTE]Say what you will about Boeing McDonnel/Douglas, when they have a problem they correct it.

And their inspection procedures are more than looking to see if the rudder is still there.

Thranslating Airbus' procedure for checking their rudders into everyday English, if the rudder hasn't fallen off it's fine. If the rudder has fallen off, fix it. [/QUOTE]

What about the bulkhead on the Jal 747? A simple inspection would have had saved alot of lives.
Fact is that the Jal case was brought up several times in this thread, and yet some people appear to be choosing not to pay attention to it, and being selective in what they write to present only one side of the story. Comments like the above are typical cases of selective beliefs. There is no factual evidence to support them and are so blatently one sided that they cannot possibly be taken seriously. How someone can feel qualified to make such comments about something which they clearly have no idea about is beyond me. If there were clear facts to go along with that ´statement´, then perhaps it could be taken seriously. Reading stuff like that or why all the streets in Paris are like this and that makes it quite obvious that you cannot find proper facts for what you are arguing for and so you choose fictional and irrelevant statements to try and make a point.
This whole thread is a simple case of utter jealousy. The end of the glorious 747, queen of the skies is near, and some people are too grumpy in protecting what they have been spoon fed over the years that they cannot accept the same damn thing but made in another damn country.

And for the record I don´t ´support´ Airbus over Boeing. I think that they are both as bad as each other, and both appear to care more about making big money for the top people in the company than making proper passenger planes, and all the corruption scandles that keep on coming out on both sides of the camp, as well as horror stories from both manufacturers to prove it.

I know that replies like this are irrelevant and that there are alot of good balanced replies from people like Flyboy and Grant ed. Posts like some of the above though cannot be accepted as fact, when they clearly lack it.

(in reply to DT56)
       Post #: 87

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 4/4/2005 11:10:53 PM   
William Robison



Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Robert:

Casting aspersions is easy, trying to be amusing with them is another thing.

Fact: The entire inspection of the composite components fo the Airbus planes is a visual check for external cracks. No X-ray, no ultrasound, nothing but a visual check.

Don't you think that last is a lot funnier than checking to see if it has fallen off?

Just because a procedure is paraphnrased for humor, and yes, a slam at Airbus, it is no less true.

You sir, should check the maintenance inspection requirements before you claim one is not so.

Bill.

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to robert)
       Post #: 88

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 4/4/2005 11:19:31 PM   
William Robison



Posts: 20269
Joined: 11/10/2002
From: Mary Esther, Florida, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Robert:

Sorry. I forgot your mention of the JAL cargo door. As you said, a visual check would have prevented the crash. Somehow, I can't fault Boeing for not latching the door properly. Just seems to me the person who last opened it should be a little bit more at fault. You will allow me to point out that when the weakness was discovered it was immediately corrected.

If you want to talk about the B-73 that shed its skin - that was an early failure of "Modern" construction. The skin was glued on, the glue failed. This problem also was immediately addressed.

May I remind you that the Airbus composite components are glued together? Now that there have been three failures, when is Airbus going to follow Boeing's lead and correct an obvious problem? Or is the FAA going to blame the next pilot too?

Bill.

_____________________________

Real Airplanes have Two Engines
AMA 25139 - More than 40 years.

(in reply to William Robison)
       Post #: 89

RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! - 4/5/2005 7:43:13 AM   
GRANT ED