Air France 447 Crash Theory Now Focused On Tail Snapping Off (Again)

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Business Insider

As soon as the photo appeared of Air France 447's vertical stabilizer floating in the Atlantic, concerns arose that the crash might have been caused by another Airbus plane tail snapping off in mid-air.

If so, this would be the latest in a long string of tail problems for Airbus. And the problems could be extremely expensive to fix.

The crash of an Airbus 300 just after takeoff at JFK in 2001 was the result of the stabilizer snapping off. The NTSB investigation eventually blamed the pilots for overreacting to wake turbulence and hitting the rudder pedals too hard. Pilots have long been skeptical of this conclusion, however, especially as other Airbus rudder problems have occurred over the years (planes suddenly rolling or pitching down as the computers controlling the rudder went haywire and triggered "uncommanded" movements.)

Airbus tails are designed differently than Boeing tails (composites versus metal, etc.), and Airbuses are "fly-by-wire" aircraft that don't have direct hydraulic connections between the cockpit controls and the flaps, rudder, and other flight controls. Some suspect that the AF 447 crash and other Airbus problems may be the result of a computer problem or other design flaw.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-air-france-447-crash-theory-now-focused-on-tail-snapping-off-again-2009-6

---

New York - As they work to unravel the mystery of Air France Flight 447, aviation analysts and pilots are now urging investigators to focus attention on the plane's tail fin, known as the vertical stabilizer, in addition to the design of the Airbus's computerized flight controls.

The vertical stabilizer is one of the largest intact pieces of the plane recovered so far, and the Times of London reported this week that "one of the 24 automatic messages sent from the plane minutes before it disappeared pointed to a problem in the 'rudder limiter,' a mechanism that limits how far the plane's rudder can move."

Aviation analysts note that several Airbus 300 series jets have had tail fin and rudder problems in the past. (The rudder is the flight control on the vertical stabilizer, or tail fin.)

The most recent incident was in 2005, when the rudder suddenly ripped off the stabilizer of an Airbus 310 flying at 35,000 feet from Cuba to Quebec, Canada. That plane managed to land safely.

The most deadly event was the 2001 crash of American Airlines Flight 587, in which 265 people died when the plane's vertical stabilizer tore off soon after takeoff. Investigators blamed that crash on "over use" of the rudder pedal by the co-pilot. But critics note that just prior to take off, that plane also had problems with a computer tied to the rudder. That computer was reset by a technician prior to takeoff.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0619/p02s01-usgn.html

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. Airbus. If it ain't Boeing

I ain't going.

[Submariner]

2. Yeah...I'm not too keen on hurtling through the air inside a chunk of metal

going 600 mph and being controlled by computer chips. I like hard wire cables or a couple of hydraulic systems that can still work when th puter crashes at 40.000 feet.

[Dr.Phool]

4. Microsoft Vista controlling the plane?

[johnfunk]

5. Vista or Windows Mobile 5

Suckitude kills.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Yeah, let's make a joke out of over 200 people dying.

What the hell is wrong with you.

[johnfunk]

19. Nothing.

I'm pointing out that bad code can kill. This issue has been well known for years, and the FAA has beensitting with its thumb up its butt. Suckitude kills, both technological and bureaucratic.

And no, I won't be politically correct like a typical GOPer just to placate whiners like you.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Yes, it's the 90's again.

Windows jokes are the height of comedic genius again. Nicely done.

I'm sure an aircraft built by a consortium of European companies would use a desktop operating system from Microsoft to run any part of the plane. I'd be shocked if even any components in an Airbus aircraft use Windows Embedded.

How any of this shit could be funny is beyond me.

[merwin]

28. A WM plane would fly just fine but need to be rebooted after every flight.

And if you run out of gas mid-flight you can always eject the luggage and get access to spare fuel again.

[merwin]

27. If it was Vista; it would be slower, not accept old people,

require more fuel, but would be more stable.

Vista is a beast, but is stable as hell. The number of OS caused crashes are tiny compared to previous OS's. The main cause of crashes in Vista is actually video drivers, which MS has no control over.

[merwin]

26. Boeing is going to fly-by-wire as well. You won't have a choice soon.

what they need is a minimal backup system like nasa uses that the pilot can engage to get manual control of the aircraft with no computer intervention.

That is the real problem... Airbus lets the computer override the pilot. If the pilot has to fight against a malfunctioning computer system trying to control the plane, then he will not be able to do his job in an emergency.

[itsrobert]

3. No Airbus for me either.

Give me a reliable Boeing Aircraft.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

21. now boarding at a field in Colorado

Your Boeing aircraft awaits,



When planes crash, the type of plane is virtually never a factor

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

25. No, but the control a skilled pilot can

exert certainly is.

I know the Hudson River landing was in an airbus. There are many pilots who believe it would have been needed without the wonky FBW crap in an Airbus.

edited to make sense

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

34. that doesn't even make sense,

but I am going to assume you are saying without FBW the plane could have made an ordinary landing?

Landing in the Hudson was a result of the glide ratio, the crew was not confident they had the altitude or airspeed to make it back to LGA or an alternate airport. Are you saying a 737 flying dead stick but with the benefit of conventional controls would have had the altitude and airspeed to pull it off?

Really?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

35. No, I am saying that the computer

failed at a critical time in the flight, causing the emergency

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

20. you do that...

[conspirator]

29. I would fly in an A340. It has 4 engines. But an A330 no way nt

[regnaD kciN]

6. Don't want to be picky, but...

Airbus tails are designed differently than Boeing tails (composites versus metal, etc.)

...the upcoming Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" will be entirely made out of composites instead of metal.

[IDFbunny]

7. 787 will be fly-by-wire with hydrolic backup, like the 777

First flight should be in two weeks......finally.

[kay1864]

9. Are you sure about the hydraulic backup?

The Aviation Today article I found made no mention of hydraulics, only FBW: http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/commercial/Boeing-787-Integrations-Next-Step_932.html

[IDFbunny]

13. It has three hydraulic systems.

Three 500 kW generators. The fundamental difference is that a Boeing pilot can override the computer by forcing the controls a little harder. The Airbus pilot cant override the computer, the idea being the plane was meant to be idiot proof. But what if the computer is the idiot? Faulty air speed sensor reading may have disoriented on a couple of occasions which worries some pilots.

[Psephos]

8. It's not the material that's becoming suspect, but the engineering

There are right and wrong ways to design rudder anchorages in both metal and composite. You can be sure Airbus tested the hell out of all the known unknowns, but it is extraordinarily difficult to eliminate the Black Swan problem in new designs (the "unknown unknowns").

By the way, new generation jet fighters are made with plenty of composites, including flight control surfaces.

[pnwmom]

12. Metal corrodes, these composites don't. But it appears that the material probably

wasn't the cause of the problem, even if the tail is involved.

[winyanstaz]

11. I still say check the names on the passenger list....

Did anyone on the plane have enemies in high places?

[90-percent]

14. airbus earlier incident

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxP8LwSArYA

A lack of imagination is the root cause of 9-11, according to the 9-11 Commission.

Looks like the computer programmers that made the code to run this particular Airbus also suffered from a "lack of imagination"!

I am very very leery of Airbus planes!

-90% Jimmy

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

22. the pilot tried to fly against the flight envelope protection

the computer performed perfectly and landed the plane,

[HughMoran]

15. Uggh

Makes me want to avoid this plane :(

[suffragette]

16. Don't these lines point to the past problems being the computer

rather than the tail itself?

"...planes suddenly rolling or pitching down as the computers controlling the rudder went haywire and triggered "uncommanded" movements.

"...that plane also had problems with a computer tied to the rudder"

[Baclava]

17. Might/maybe/could have = same ol' speculation

Time is ticking for the "black boxes". Could be the only chance at hard evidence.


"Investigators are looking at the possible role of airspeed sensors known as pitot tubes, among other factors, but Arslanian cautioned reporters not to speculate about what happened.

It is far too early to imagine scenarios one way or another," he said.

The exact location of the crash is not known because the plane was not within any controller's radar when it disappeared, the flight data and cockpit voice recorders have not been recovered, and ocean currents have moved the bodies and debris that have been found.

"The mountainous ocean floor in the search area ranges from 3,280 to 15,091 feet, BEA officials said, making the search for the recorders -- and the rest of the plane's debris -- difficult. It is as if it fell in the Andes," the BEA's Ferrante said."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/17/air.france.crash/index.html

[Vinca]

18. I may be ignorant about the operation of airplanes, but

if tails are snapping off isn't that a reason to ground this particular Airbus until they figure out why?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

23. USAir 427 is still unsolved - better ground all those 737's just to be safe

[itsrobert]

30. 737'S have a long history of safe operation

You're comparing Apples with Oranges.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

32. So does the Airbus A330/A340 family

this being the first fatal accident of any kind for the A330/A340 family in 16 years of service

[conspirator]

39. With 16 years they are babies compared with the 737, and they have already 9 accidents nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

40. There have been more than 70 fatal 737 crashes

Very few airplane crashes have anything to do with the airliner involved. Pilots fuck up in all sorts of flying machines, bad weather impacts all sorts of flying machines and terrorists are happy to destroy all sorts of flying machines. For example the first officer who crashed American Airlines 587 (the crash Airbus haters love to bring up) would have crashed any number of planes indiscriminately stomping on the rudder peddles at that airspeed.

This is the only loss of an Airbus A330/A340 airliner in which there has been loss of life, three of the Airbus A330/A340 hull losses were in a terrorist attack. One was lost in testing, one crashed in Toronto due to pilot error and an all round shitty runway with a ravine at the end of it - with no loss of life, one was destroyed in an airport fire and one was damaged beyond repair by a chemical spill in the cargo hold.

All Airbus airliners have an exceptional safety record, indeed no modern commercial airliner built anywhere has a poor one.

[conspirator]

41. It's true airbuses are very safe

But by comparison boeings seem to be much more stable technology

[RamboLiberal]

36. NTSB did solve the problem with US Air 427-and rudder redesigned

After the longest investigation in aviation history—more than four and a half years—the concluding statement said:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the USAir flight 427 accident was a loss of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder surface to its blowdown limit. The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots as a result of a jam of the main rudder power control unit servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position and overtravel of the primary slide.

The NTSB concluded that similar rudder problems caused the previously mysterious 3 March 1991 crash of United Airlines Flight 585, and the 9 June 1996 incident involving Eastwind Airlines Flight 517, both of which were Boeing 737s. As a result of the investigation, pilots were warned of and trained how to deal with insufficient aileron authority at an airspeed at or less than 190 knots (218 mph, 354 km/h), formerly the usual approach speed for a B737. Four additional channels of information—pilot rudder pedal commands—were incorporated into flight data recorders, while Boeing redesigned the rudder system on 737s and retrofitted existing craft until the affected systems could be replaced. The United States Congress also required airlines to deal more sensitively with the families of crash victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427

Haven't heard of any crashes of 737's caused by that problem since the fix.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

38. they found a problem, they didn't prove the cause of the crash

The NTSB found a problem with the rudder in the 737 "Classic" series (300, 400 and 500) but the NTSB still couldn't explain the initial failure or why the plane did a barrel roll and crashed nose first into the ground.

Boeing maintains there was no defect in the rudder control unit of USAir 427 and no evidence of a uncommanded full rudder deflection - Boeing protested the NTSB hypothesis to that effect.

[AngryAmish]

42. Boeing may maintain there was no rudder defect, but they settled all the lawsuits

Boeing knows there was a problem and fixed it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Scary stuff.

[high density]

31. Lots of unhelpful speculation

There is no way to know when the vertical stabilizer broke off at this point.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Don't go bringing common sense into this.

These air disasters are joyous occasions where people get to lampoon things they don't understand, and armchair quarterback the investigators.