A330 crash
Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:59 pm
Let me preface this by saying that I received this e-mail today and do not have a clue as to it's authenticity or accuracy. However, thee have been some media reports of similar pitot icing incidents and maybe this is one of them.
Well, I'm sure you have all heard of the Air France accident. I fly the same plane, the A330.
Yesterday while coming up from Hong Kong to Tokyo, a 1700nm 4hr. flight, we experienced the same problems Air France had while flying thru bad weather.
I have a link to the failures that occurred on AF 447. My list is almost the same.
http://www.eurocockpit.com/images/acars447.php
The problem I suspect is the pitot tubes ice over and you loose your airspeed indication along with the auto pilot, auto throttles and rudder limit protection. The rudder limit protection keeps you from over stressing the rudder at high speed.
Synopsis;
Tuesday 23, 2009 10am enroute HKG to NRT. Entering Nara Japan airspace.
FL390 mostly clear with occasional isolated areas of rain, clouds tops about FL410.
Outside air temperature was -50C TAT -21C (your not supposed to get liquid water at these temps). We did.
As we were following other aircraft along our route. We approached a large area of rain below us. Tilting the weather radar down we could see the heavy rain below, displayed in red. At our altitude the radar indicated green or light precipitation, most likely ice crystals we thought.
Entering the cloud tops we experienced just light to moderate turbulence. (The winds were around 30kts at altitude.) After about 15 sec. we encountered moderate rain. We thought it odd to have rain streaming up the windshield at this altitude and the sound of the plane getting pelted like an aluminum garage door. It got very warm and humid in the cockpit all of a sudden.
Five seconds later the Captains, First Officers, and standby airspeed indicators rolled back to 60kts. The auto pilot and auto throttles disengaged. The Master Warning and Master Caution flashed, and the sounds of chirps and clicks letting us know these things were happening.
Jerry Staab, the Capt. hand flew the plane on the shortest vector out of the rain. The airspeed indicators briefly came back but failed again. The failure lasted for THREE minutes. We flew the recommended 83%N1 power setting. When the airspeed indicators came back. we were within 5 knots of our desired speed. Everything returned to normal except for the computer logic controlling the plane. (We were in alternate law for the rest of the flight.)
We had good conditions for the failure; daylight, we were rested, relatively small area, and light turbulence. I think it could have been much worse. Jerry did a great job fly and staying cool. We did our procedures called dispatch and maintenance on the SAT COM and landed in Narita. That's it.
Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:10 am
I think this is maybe Exhibit #1 as to why you HAVE to have a human pilot in the aircraft.
Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:57 am
Enemy Ace wrote:I think this is maybe Exhibit #1 as to why you HAVE to have a human pilot in the aircraft.
An anonymous quote?
Seems ~somewhat~ ironic don't you think?
Just a thought.
Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:30 pm
Here is something interesting which I found on another aviation forum on the internet:
This is an account of a discussion I had recently with a maintenance professional
who salvages airliner airframes for a living. He has been at it for a while, dba BMI
Salvage at Opa Locka Airport in Florida. In the process of stripping parts, he sees
things few others are able to see. His observations confirm prior assessments of
Airbus structural deficiencies within our flight test and aero structures communities
by those who have seen the closely held reports of A3XX-series vertical fin failures.
His observations:
"I have scrapped just about every type of transport aircraft from A-310,
A-320, B-747, 727, 737, 707, DC-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, MD-80, L-188, L1011
and various Martin, Convair and KC-97 aircraft.
Over a hundred of them.
Airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far as
airframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize composite
materials.
I have one A310 vertical fin on the premises from a demonstration I just
performed. It was pathetic to see the composite structure shatter as it did,
something a Boeing product will not do.
The vertical fin along with the composite hinges on rudder and elevators is
the worst example of structural use of composites I have ever seen and I am
not surprised by the current pictures of rescue crews recovering the
complete Vertical fin and rudder assembly at some distance from the crash
site.
The Airbus line has a history of both multiple rudder losses and a vertical
fin and rudder separation from the airframe as was the case in NY with AA.
As an old non-radar equipped DC4 pilot who flew through many a thunderstorm
in Africa along the equator, I am quite familiar with their ferocity. It is not
difficult to understand how such a storm might have stressed an aircraft
structure to failure at its weakest point, and especially so in the presence of
instrumentation problems.
I replied with this:
"I'm watching very carefully the orchestration of the inquiry by French
officials and Airbus. I think I can smell a concerted effort to steer
discussion away from structural issues and onto sensors, etc. Now Air
France, at the behest of their pilots' union, is replacing all the air data
sensors on the Airbus fleet, which creates a distraction and shifts the
media's focus away from the real problem.
It's difficult to delve into the structural issue without wading into the
Boeing vs. Airbus swamp, where any observation is instantly tainted by its
origin. Americans noting any Airbus structural issues (A380 early failure
of wing in static test; loss of vertical surfaces in Canadian fleet prior to
AA A300, e.g.) will be attacked by the other side as partisan, biased, etc. "
His follow-up:
One gets a really unique insight into structural issues when one has
first-hand experience in the dismantling process.
I am an A&P, FEJ and an ATP with 7000 flight hours and I was absolutely
stunned, flabbergasted when I realized that the majority of internal
airframe structural supports on the A 310 which appear to be aluminum are
actually rolled composite material with aluminum rod ends. They shattered.
Three years ago we had a storm come through, with gusts up to 60-70 kts.,
catching several A320s tied down on the line, out in the open.
The A320 elevators and rudder hinges whose actuators had been
removed shattered and the rudder and elevators came off.
Upon closer inspection I realized that not only were the rear spars
composite but so were the hinges. While Boeing also uses composite
material in its airfoil structures, the actual attach fittings for the elevators,
rudder, vertical and horizontal stabilizers are all of machined aluminum."
This is an account of a discussion I had recently with a maintenance professional
who salvages airliner airframes for a living. He has been at it for a while, dba BMI
Salvage at Opa Locka Airport in Florida. In the process of stripping parts, he sees
things few others are able to see. His observations confirm prior assessments of
Airbus structural deficiencies within our flight test and aero structures communities
by those who have seen the closely held reports of A3XX-series vertical fin failures.
His observations:
"I have scrapped just about every type of transport aircraft from A-310,
A-320, B-747, 727, 737, 707, DC-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, MD-80, L-188, L1011
and various Martin, Convair and KC-97 aircraft.
Over a hundred of them.
Airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far as
airframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize composite
materials.
I have one A310 vertical fin on the premises from a demonstration I just
performed. It was pathetic to see the composite structure shatter as it did,
something a Boeing product will not do.
The vertical fin along with the composite hinges on rudder and elevators is
the worst example of structural use of composites I have ever seen and I am
not surprised by the current pictures of rescue crews recovering the
complete Vertical fin and rudder assembly at some distance from the crash
site.
The Airbus line has a history of both multiple rudder losses and a vertical
fin and rudder separation from the airframe as was the case in NY with AA.
As an old non-radar equipped DC4 pilot who flew through many a thunderstorm
in Africa along the equator, I am quite familiar with their ferocity. It is not
difficult to understand how such a storm might have stressed an aircraft
structure to failure at its weakest point, and especially so in the presence of
instrumentation problems.
I replied with this:
"I'm watching very carefully the orchestration of the inquiry by French
officials and Airbus. I think I can smell a concerted effort to steer
discussion away from structural issues and onto sensors, etc. Now Air
France, at the behest of their pilots' union, is replacing all the air data
sensors on the Airbus fleet, which creates a distraction and shifts the
media's focus away from the real problem.
It's difficult to delve into the structural issue without wading into the
Boeing vs. Airbus swamp, where any observation is instantly tainted by its
origin. Americans noting any Airbus structural issues (A380 early failure
of wing in static test; loss of vertical surfaces in Canadian fleet prior to
AA A300, e.g.) will be attacked by the other side as partisan, biased, etc. "
His follow-up:
One gets a really unique insight into structural issues when one has
first-hand experience in the dismantling process.
I am an A&P, FEJ and an ATP with 7000 flight hours and I was absolutely
stunned, flabbergasted when I realized that the majority of internal
airframe structural supports on the A 310 which appear to be aluminum are
actually rolled composite material with aluminum rod ends. They shattered.
Three years ago we had a storm come through, with gusts up to 60-70 kts.,
catching several A320s tied down on the line, out in the open.
The A320 elevators and rudder hinges whose actuators had been
removed shattered and the rudder and elevators came off.
Upon closer inspection I realized that not only were the rear spars
composite but so were the hinges. While Boeing also uses composite
material in its airfoil structures, the actual attach fittings for the elevators,
rudder, vertical and horizontal stabilizers are all of machined aluminum."
Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Airbus may be asked to ground all of their long range airliners:
http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentB ... 38b1276b2&
http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentB ... 38b1276b2&
Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:59 am
I'm not one to jump to the defense of Airbus, but if you remove the actuators, what acts as a control lock? I've seen pleny of general aviation aircraft with control surfaces ripped off by the wind too.warbird1 wrote:The A320 elevators and rudder hinges whose actuators had been removed shattered and the rudder and elevators came off.
Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:08 am
Not at all. My company would not allow me to put my name to anything like this without going through our "external communications department" first. In fact, we get warned repeatedly about making statements on blogs and discussion groups that might reflect negatively on our company or give out competition sensitive or intellectual property/proprietary data. No airline would knowingly allow their pilots to talk smack about the aircraft said airline operates. Not very good for the public's perception of that airline's safety...JDK wrote:An anonymous quote?
Seems ~somewhat~ ironic don't you think?
Just a thought.
Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:08 am
Er, tell us something we aren't all well aware of, bdk. 
It was just an observation about the irony of a poster stating the need for a pink interface - which had no face.
If that doesn't raise a wry smile, then just move along, too low key, nothing to see here...
It was just an observation about the irony of a poster stating the need for a pink interface - which had no face.
If that doesn't raise a wry smile, then just move along, too low key, nothing to see here...
Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:27 pm
I'm sorry, I thought you were commenting on the anonymousness of my original posting as referenced in the second posting.
Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:59 pm
The intact vertical stabilizer certainly reminded me of the American Airlines one they pulled out of Rockaway Bay back in 2001.
Very suspicious indeed!
Very suspicious indeed!
Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:43 pm
the330thbg wrote:The intact vertical stabilizer certainly reminded me of the American Airlines one they pulled out of Rockaway Bay back in 2001.
Very suspicious indeed!
The rate of fin survival in airliner crashes - beyond make or date - is high. On the downside it's a problem for th airlines to have their logo so visible in an accident, on the upside, best place to travel.
Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:50 am
understood.., riding in the tail or inside a 'black box' would definately boost survivability factor.
The point I was trying to make is the 'snap' points where the AF and AA Airbus tails came off is almost identical. This is at the carbon fibre connection and is a proven weak point.
The point I was trying to make is the 'snap' points where the AF and AA Airbus tails came off is almost identical. This is at the carbon fibre connection and is a proven weak point.