2004-10-28 14:27:11.257936+00 by Dan Lyke 6 comments
The NTSB has blamed the copilot for the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in November, 2001, concluding that he overstressed the tail on the Airbus A300. I'm a little shakey, but I thought the A300-600 was fly-by-wire, so why did that interface allow for overstressing the airframe with control movements?
[ related topics: User Interface Aviation ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2004-10-28 15:07:22.945802+00 by: ziffle [edit history]
I doubt they are telling us the truth. TWA 800 had too many witnesses too. And so on. It rankles me they continue to lie.
#Comment Re: made: 2004-10-28 17:39:10.582236+00 by: TheSHAD0W [edit history]
From a friend, via ICQ:
the rudder on an airbus .. at least the older ones. is NOT fly by wire like the rest of the jet
i think it's crap tho. .. a pilot should be able to do full deflection without having the FUCKING TAIL RIP OFF
...
i dont' think the pilot is at fault at all.. .. I keep hearing it got into an oscillation.
i think the stupid tail got into resonance. and broke apart
#Comment Re: made: 2004-10-28 19:33:44.972473+00 by: petronius
I've heard this argument before. Should fly-by-wire forbid manuevers outside a per-determined envelope, or is the pilot indeed the pilot? Tp take a silly example, my automatic trunk opener will not work under any circumstances unless the car is in PARK. Do airliners take this responsibility?
I do agree that the tail should be stronger. Sue the French, forthwith!
#Comment Re: made: 2004-10-28 23:55:28.201713+00 by: Larry Burton
. a pilot should be able to do full deflection without having the FUCKING TAIL RIP OFF
Yeah, and a driver ought to be able to make a sharp turn at speed in an SUV without the thing flipping over on its roof. The pilot was responding to turbulence that was already stressing the plane to some extent, possibly violently. Some manuevers you don't do in certain circumstances or something bad could happen. I think this was one of those times.
#Comment Re: made: 2004-10-29 08:35:30.50434+00 by: Bruce ONeel
An A300 is not a FBW. The A318/319/320/321 series and the A330/340 series are fbw. The A300 and later A310 was the first model Airbus designed and it is basically the precursor to the A330.
#Comment Re: made: 2004-10-30 14:27:34.288164+00 by: Dan Lyke
Aha. Okay, yeah, a little digging around finds that an A300-600R was a testbed for fly-by-wire, which is where I got the impression, but y'all are correct.