Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,161,809 times
Reputation: 8105
Yeah, but in this country the FBI would routinely show up at any disaster and immediately say, "there is no evidence of terrorism" while their ears were still popping from their flight in. Right away, before any investigation. Once they managed to explain away a plane crash in Brooklyn, exactly one year after 911, as turbulence from a plane 10 miles away destroying it!
Yeah, but in this country the FBI would routinely show up at any disaster and immediately say, "there is no evidence of terrorism" while their ears were still popping from their flight in. Right away, before any investigation. Once they managed to explain away a plane crash in Brooklyn, exactly one year after 911, as turbulence from a plane 10 miles away destroying it!
The vortices didn't destroy the airplane (also an Airbus, FWIW, an A300 IIRC). What did was the rapid control movement of the rudder putting stress outside of what the airplane was certified for.
Don't be insulting. ( housewife )
My background?....
I'm watching the news like everybody else. I also did my own research.
So..
A pilot flying a Boeing for instance, can override the auto by pilots by forcefully break the controls.
Airbus however, is the way you described.
Airbus seems to limit their pilots more in extreme situations. For instance, the computer could stop a pilot from certain actions that normally would be less safe, however, it could be necessary in an emergency.
Think of the Airbus flight control computer like ABS on your car.
In your car, you mash the brakes and the ABS computer determines at what rate to decel at in order to give you maximum braking without locking up the wheels and skidding, extending the braking distance. Practically everyone in this day and age would say ABS is a positive and 99.5% of us wouldn't buy a car without it.
That's essentially what the protections in the Airbus logic do. If you want a maximum performance climb, right on the verge of stalling, say in a wind shear or GPWS event, you pull full aft stick and the airplane will give it to you, without stalling.
Of interest is Boeing has also added protections in its newer FBW aircraft and (guessing) will be standard on all new Boeings going forward. It's actually much easier to disable the protections on Airbus aircraft than on Boeings, as in Boeings you have to overcome the (significant) control forces to do so.
Keep in mind just because you don't hear about events in the news doesn't mean things aren't happening. The industry however does a fairly good job of educating internally and fixing any issues should they arise, unlike most corporate environments which push the edge of legality (often hoping not to get caught) and ethical boundaries.
The pilot over used the rudder. The industry learned a lot about that accident, especially regarding maneuvering speeds and how applicable they are to transport category aircraft. Not sure what you're going for here.
So pilot error? He over-used the rudder. Why would he do that? How could he do that?
(See how this works?)
They supposedly found the VCR on the Airbus. "Lots of voices and noise right up to impact", said a CNN reporter.
Here's what happened on the plane that crashed into Queens:
There was a JAL 747 aircraft that took off very shortly before the A300-600 in question. The 747, being as big as it is, leaves a lot of wake turbulence behind it. Analogously, think of the wake a very large yacht or cruise ship might make in relation to a boat about half its size. You could mentally model the "air waves" left behind by the 747 as the same sort of thing, and here comes this much smaller aircraft, the A300-600 in its wake.
When the A300 enters this turbulent air, there was a procedure taught to the pilots by American Airlines (and I'm pretty sure at all the other airlines too) to make inputs to the rudder to help stabilize the aircraft. But, the co-pilot's inputs to the rudder were a little too aggressive which actually caused more turbulence. As the turbulence increased, his inputs to the rudder became even more aggressive. Eventually, there was a period of time in which he was kicking the rudder full deflection left and right in order to try and overcome this turbulence. Essentially, he got locked into an increasing oscillation in which the more he input to the rudder, the more turbulence he was actually inducing, which he apparently tried to then overcome with further rudder inputs, which created more turbulence, which he then tried to overcome with more rudder inputs, ad infinitum...
Eventually, these violent and aggressive inputs caused the entire vertical stabilizer to leave the aircraft. Once that happens, there isn't a whole lot you can do except wait for impact.
To make matters even more unfortunate, this was very shortly after 9/11 and Al-Qaeda were still doing their victory laps. When this accident happened, if I recall correctly, they immediately took credit for it mainly to instill further fear into Americans.
Now, I could certainly understand to someone unfamiliar with aviation why it's a lot easier to believe the terrorist explanation than it is the pilot error (partially because of his training) explanation. I work on the A300-600 as a mechanic and though I wasn't working the A300 when the investigation results came out, there was a massive inspection requirement to check the bolts and other structural components of the vertical stabilizer that we still have to revisit from time to time. I have also seen pictures of the piece of vertical stabilizer and where it broke and it is entirely consistent with extreme side loaded forces.
Actually, the best way to think of it is to unfold a paper clip and use one hand to hold one end of the paper clip still while the other hand wiggles the paper clip. The side with more weight on it (the side that has your hand staying still) will become the side nearest the pivot point and also where the greatest oscillations will occur. That is also where the paper clip will break. That's also where the fin broke off the aircraft in question (very near the base of the vertical stab).
That is ENTIRELY consistent with the results of the investigation and, among other things, entirely inconsistent with a bomb, an explosion, etc...
In fact, we are still in the process of modifying some A300's to put an idiot light in the cockpit to tell the pilot to stop jostling the rudder so much. Basically, if he starts kicking the rudder too much, there is literally a big bright light in front of his face that says "STOP!"
So, no, as much as a good terrorist story would make the Queens crash more fun, explainable, and believable, that's simply not what happened. It was just pure coincidence that it happened shortly after 9/11 and in Queens. Nothing more.
No I really am not following what you are trying to get at.
Calling it a VCR tells me you're in over your head here.
LOL! I didn't catch that. There's an old BetaMax in the back of the airplane they're still looking for too!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
