|
vlizard -> RE: INCREDIBLE PLANE ! LOOK ! (10/22/2005 4:58:00 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Johng
quote:
ORIGINAL: William Robison
Grant:
For the most part I can't disagree, but
quote:
...the tail on the A300. Well actually the failure was due to the pilots overloading the tail due to repeated rudder inputs.
is so much bull.
If a control surface can be broken or destroyed in normal flight regimes it is faulty.
"Repeated rudder inouts?" Are they supposed to count, and only kick the rudder pedals 15 times in a flight? Maybe 20? The FAA would never allow such a limitation,
I have no idea who put the pressure on who in this investigation to call it pilot error, but was it really pilot error? No. Not when the vertical fin breaks off in the climb out.
Bill.
Sorry Bill, I think you a quite wrong. Apply the same thinking to elevator, on any plane. You say "normal flight regimes" , well get that puppy in cruise flight and pull yoke full back, and assuming you are still conscious, push it full forward as fast as you can. Get out the abbacus , cause you will be counting the parts that fall off. The guy that broke that plane was stomping pedals like there were roaches under them, without good reason. He was going from left stop to right stop at a speed such that the plane was swinging to full yaw one way, just when he was applying full rudder the opposite way, creating higher forces than anyone anticipated. And it wasn't at all necessary. And while it wasn't in cruise flight, it was doing around 200 kts, in much thicker air than typical cruise, so the dynamic pressure (equivalent airspeed) was in the same league.
No plane, no part of any plane is beyond over-stressing, from Cessna to Lockheed, without having a FBW to take control away from the pilot. Your comment "If a control surface can be broken or destroyed in normal flight regimes it is faulty." cannot be lived up to by any manufacturer. That's like the old - make the planes out of the stuff they make the black box out of. You could, but you wouldn't have a very good plane. Same with this issue.
As I said before in this thread, 3 parties share responsibilities for that crash. The pilot for doing the mambo on the pedals, the airline for incomplete upset training, and Airbus for making the rudder much easier to move with a smaller travel than other models of the A300. But mostly the pilot for doing things to the airplane that made other pilots wonder what he was thinking. What wasn't a problem is the strength of the vertical surface. It withstood force equivalent to hanging two max gross semi trucks from the side of it.
But that Airbus that flew into the trees was a poor flight control design. If the airplane can get into a mode where it won't obey the pilot, it needs to have a little robot that taps the pilot on the shoulder and tells him what the plane it doing.
Sir u could not break the rudder on a friggin jenny at climb speed full left or right in any Cessna I've been in will hardly cause a bend. No aircraft that I can recall has had a yaw controlling surface fall of at anything less than max cruise. Just to be sure I've checked the ntsb and related sites and I can't find any NEWER registered AC that has lost a vertical control surface at any alt at any speed remotely close the the AIRJUNKS period.
|
|
|
|
