RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more] >> [Full Scale planes, cars, helis, boats] >> Airplanes - Full Scale



Message

Flyfalcons -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (3/24/2005 9:44:22 PM)

I wonder if the Air Transat guys were stomping on the rudder. My guess is no.



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

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.



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

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



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


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.



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

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. [:o]

FBD.



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

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.



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

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.



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

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.



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

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.



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

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.



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

Fly by wire tech is great, if you have an ejection seat for a backup!!!



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

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.



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

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.



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

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.



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

William

"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. "

You are talking about the wrong accident with regard to the JAL accident. The one Robert is talking about was a rear pressure bulkhead failure
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=08121985®=JA8119&airline=Japan+Air+Lines

I am assuming the one you are talking about was the front cargo door failure for United airlines which was not corrected for some years. Both 747's
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=02241989®=N4713U&airline=United+Airlines

"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."

I'm sorry but who are you to say that Airbus don't know what they are doing?? Its very easy to be an armchair aeronautical engineer and say 'I don't know but it just does not seem right'.

"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. "

To say this is somewhat missleading. The skin was definatly rivited on with glue inbetween the joints. The main load bearing attachment was the rivits, not the glue. The failure was due to a high cycle fatigue crack of the metal skin. Also that particular aircraft was the second highest cycle 737 in the world. The highest being another in the Aloha fleet.
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=04281988®=N73711&airline=Aloha+Airlines

"May I remind you that the Airbus composite components are glued together?"

Umm so what?? How else do you join composite structures?? I suppose Boeing are going to rivit together the 787 with it's ENTIRELY COMPOSITE FUSELAGE!!! One a side note the 787 is going to have the highest % of composite in its structure of any airliner by quite a large margin, but I don't hear anyone complaining about boeing using composite. I'm also willing to bet that the main inspection procedure for the 787 is, shock horror. Visual inspection, but thats boeing so its ok [8|]
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q1/nr_050111g.html

"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?"

Sorry but what obvious problem?? If there was an obvious problem the FAA would have grounded all airbusses.
3 failures that are not linked and not even proven to be related. I hardly think there is an "obvious problem"



robert -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (4/5/2005 1:00:44 PM)

I am aware of Airbus´s inspections and while not qualified to have an opinion on it, I do hope that they know what they are doing. The Jal case (as Grant Ed said) was not a cargo door but rather the bulkhead that failed after the plane was repaired for a tail scrape I believe. An improper amount of fasteners were used, and as I said in my early post, I think the poor chap who did the work killed himself. [:o]
What I did not agree with was your reply as a whole. Grant Ed already pointed out some details about the composites, but for example youu claim that Boieng and MD fix their problems completely but Airbus don´t. You stumbled along an incident of a cargo door coming off a 747. I remember quite well that after the investigation, Boeing were cleared. I remember reading however that there were questions raised about the design of the door shutting mechanism which Boeing knew about but kept silent. It was only brought out to the open because some of the families of the victims tried to find out what happened. You can look here if you want. You say that Boieng acted upon the problem immediately after finding out? It turns out that they didn´t.

http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/240289.htm


Another interesting bit about that is similar to Airbus inspections is the 767 that deployed the reverser in flight. The crew did not act when given the message that it could deploy because teh manual said that they should take no action. Just like the composites worry me, so did that.

You see Boeing and Aribus are the same. If you look here http://clem.mscd.edu/~serranof/online/commonfiles/airlinedisasters.xls you will see alot of manufacturers have had problems with failures of one kind or another, engines fell off three different 747s, at least one of which was due to the pins not meeting fail safe requirements and thus the plane crashed into an apartement building. Meanwhile with the 3 rudder issues with A300´s (1 of which I tend to agree was probably pilot error, but thats my opinion), the rudders met all safety requirements. The cargo doors on 747s and DC 10´s, and software problems on Airbus´s.
Of course the tragic part is the outcome. [:o]



William Robison -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (4/5/2005 5:29:58 PM)

robert:

quote:

...engines fell off three different 747s, at least one of which was due to the pins not meeting fail safe requirements and thus the plane crashed into an apartement building.

I think you mean an MD plane in these instances, not Boeing.

Bill.



robert -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (4/5/2005 5:39:55 PM)

Nope, all 747´s. http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/747.htm



Strykaas -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (4/10/2005 12:06:55 PM)

An interesting fact: Dick Marchi, working for ACI (Airports Council International, North America), stated that A380s require shorter runways than B747-400 !

- B747-400 : take-off run 3.530 meters
- A380 : take-off run 2.990 meters

He also pointed out that aiports mods are not that expensive, given that weight per A380 wheel is smaller than b747's.

However, such bridges will have to be reinforced (A380s 30% heavier than b747s).



randall1959 -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (4/10/2005 5:59:18 PM)

A great deal if aircraft accidents are mostly errors on the part of maintenance crews or pilot error. I think all the aircraft companies make mistakes at times in designs also. It's not limited to any one particular mfgr.
Sometimes things happen that no manual or slide rule or computer ever thought of. You can't possibly plan or design for everything. All those things don't usually take the human equation into consideration, other than as a means to flip switches and aim the darned things in the right direction.
The only thing that seperates aircraft accidents is the loss of life. It's usually much larger than most other form of transportation. After all, buses wreck all the time but they usually don't carry 500 screaming passengers to their firey deaths.
I'm just wondering what these airliners are going to look like in ten years. I forsee a day when airtravel will become so expensive that we actually go back to some sort of lighter than air travel.
Then we'll be arguing the virtues of Goodyear vs Zeppelin..........[8|]



FLYBOY -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (4/11/2005 3:15:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: randall1959

I forsee a day when airtravel will become so expensive that we actually go back to some sort of lighter than air travel.
Then we'll be arguing the virtues of Goodyear vs Zeppelin..........[8|]


Never happen. [;)]



robert -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (4/11/2005 10:27:09 PM)

Flyboy´s right. Ryanair said that eventually flights will be free. The money´s in car hire and in hotels that are linked with the airline. Don´t know how long or if it will ever happen though.



mikewilson -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (4/12/2005 11:51:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: robert
Flyboy´s right. Ryanair said that eventually flights will be free. The money´s in car hire and in hotels that are linked with the airline. Don´t know how long or if it will ever happen though.


Ryanair is just soooo believable. How are they going to be free in the land of the $10 gallon? And US gallons are smaller than ours. Fuel costs are going to go through the roof in the next few years and powered flight with heavier than air vehicles is going to be one of the casualties.

mike



GRANT ED -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (4/12/2005 1:18:28 PM)

There will always be heavier than air travel. I'm willing to bet someone will come up with an alternate power source for airliners before we start booking for out three week ship journey across the atlantic.



FLYBOY -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (4/12/2005 3:25:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GRANT ED

There will always be heavier than air travel. I'm willing to bet someone will come up with an alternate power source for airliners before we start booking for out three week ship journey across the atlantic.



Ever seen how much fuel a ship uses? I think they need alternate sources of power too. [8D]



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   next >   >>  

Valid CSS!




SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.
0.5