Here's why AA aircraft taxi so slow....
12-19-2006, 04:25 PM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 135
And...also know that the lead council of the lawsuits has asked for exactly the documentation that shows that in the early 1990s the certification standards for tolerance of turbulence changed...to "from 20,000 feet and above"...to "from sea level up."
When this threshold changed, according to the source, some guys with integrity at Airbus realized that the A300-600R tail did not meet the new criteria (lower, denser air, more loading etc.) So...according to the source, they brought this up to management...and, of course the answer, according to the source, was to "fudge."
According to the sources--and, due to Airbus' aggression against the leaks within their company that are apparently the original source, this information can only come out in litigation discovery (as Airbus would ruin the lives and families of the leaks if they are ever discovered...)--Airbus has not denied that these documents exist and dumped over 1.5 million pages of discovery on the litigation team (apparently attempting to bury the sought-after documents.) It is not yet known whether the documents are included in the "dump". However, the first four Airbus employees were deposed by the litigation lawyers about three weeks ago...before the judge abruptly stopped the depositions and called all litigants back to NY for another Airbus checkbook offer in his chambers.
So...I guess we'll see...
Jetblaster
Last edited by jetblaster; 12-19-2006 at 04:48 PM.
12-19-2006, 05:45 PM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 394
I wish you would...just answer my question instead of trying to cover it up with all that BS about the Airbus. My question wasn't about the Airbus.
Avoiding answering a question by asking another is one of the more common and ineffective Internet forum dodges.
You made a specific statement about rudder use while inverted. That's the explanation I'm asking about.
Are you going to back up your words or not?
You made a specific statement about rudder use while inverted. That's the explanation I'm asking about.
Are you going to back up your words or not?
12-21-2006, 06:27 PM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 135
Shackone,
Again...do some homework.
And, if you are so pre-occupied with the narrowly-focused area of rudder use, then just explain the proper way that ex-TWA pilots use rudder. Then we will all know the right way to do it.
I found another link:
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...atalflaws.html
Happy Holidays!
Jetblaster
Again...do some homework.
And, if you are so pre-occupied with the narrowly-focused area of rudder use, then just explain the proper way that ex-TWA pilots use rudder. Then we will all know the right way to do it.
I found another link:
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...atalflaws.html
Happy Holidays!
Jetblaster
12-21-2006, 06:56 PM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 394
After some consideration, I have realized that if repeated requests for Jetblaster to answer a simple question brought no results, taunting him would likely fair no better.
Last edited by shackone; 12-21-2006 at 09:33 PM.
12-22-2006, 06:48 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 394
Maybe not.
The taxi speed question is really one of company procedure or pilot attitude. While the discussion has gone off into other areas, this departure still deals with procedure and attitudes.
The AA587 accident seems to center on attitude and procedure...or a massive conspiracy to shift blame (if Jetblaster is to be believed).
The conspiracy angle is one I cannot comment on...but I have to admit a certain amount of support for such ideas inasmuch as I'm a former TWA pilot...and many of us have never been satisfied with the outcome of the TWA800 investigation.
But the procedural aspect of the AA587 accident does interest me. I have a very definite memory of the unusual attitude recovery briefing we all got. I'm now aware that this was known as the AAMP...and that this program was mentioned in the NTSB final report as having contributed to the accident. How much of a contribution we may never know, but my memory of that briefing is that I was very surprised by the emphasis put on rudder use, an emphasis that I personally found excessive. I specifically recall being put off by the briefer's use of high performance military fighter type references in his discussion.
Here is a link that includes a discussion of the AAMP. It is excerpted pages from the AAMP training document.
http://http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/20...its/240003.pdf
This material caught my eye because it represents exactly the kind of info that I remember from the briefing I attended. Specifically, I found the references to high AOA rudder maneuvering and the reference to 'corner speed' to be of note.
These topics are familiar to those of us who have flown swept wing fighters. In some fighters and in some parts of the flight envelope, the rudder can be a powerful flight control surface...far more so than is typically found in civil aircraft flight envelopes. In fact, in some of these fighters, the rudder becomes the primary flight control for bank inputs and the ailerons are deliberately held neutral.
The idea of a 'corner speed' is IMO an odd thing to teach airline pilots. I have never encountered this term outside of fighter flying...and even in fighters, my guess is that many pilots don't understand the term. Simply put, corner speed (or velocity as it is known in the military) is the minimum speed that maximum (placard) g can be pulled. It is not usually a sustained number, but is an instantaneous point on the flight envelope. This speed varies with configuration, weight, and altitude. Corner speed by definition occurs relatively low in the aircraft speed range (again depending on flap configuration).
The picture of corner speed in that AAMP document relates corner speed to turn radius...in this case, a turn radius that would avoid ground impact. The idea implied by the picture is that there is a speed corresponding to 2 g's that will provide the minimum turn radius...apparently the implication is that the pilot should slow down (or speed up) to this speed when altitude loss is critical.
I don't have a serious quibble with the academics of this...but I do have a concern that this type of discussion is way over the top when it comes to airline flying. Why was this type of emphasis put into the AAMP?
My guess is that the answer goes straight to the heart of any question regarding 'attitude'.
Apparently, I was not alone in my concerns. Jetblaster piqued my interest in source investigation...and I found this...a letter from an AA Captain warning of the inherent dangers in the AAMP. In part, he said:
""I have grave concerns about some flawed aero-dynamic theory and flying techniques that have been presented in AAMP [Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program]...
... "In no uncertain terms pilots are told to use rudders as the primary means of roll control in unusual attitude recoveries.
"This is not only wrong, it is exceptionally dangerous."
http://http://findarticles.com/p/art...18/ai_n6284080
That's pretty direct, don't you think?
One other thing that I noticed in that AAMP info was the discussion of the recovery from a nose low inverted attitude. In the procedure for recovery, the AAMP states that back pressure should be added once the bank angle has been reduced to 60 degrees. I think this is a potentially dangerous statement to make.
Aircraft have two types of g limits...symmetric (which we all are familiar with) and asymmetric (which we may not be familiar with). Asymmetric g limits are typically less than the symmetric limits.
What is asymmetric g? Simply put, it's the g loading on the airplane anytime the pilot is pulling and rolling at the same time. This maneuver places a greater aerodynamic stress on the airplane than does symmetric g.
AvWeb has an excellent article on unusual attitude recoveries that addresses asymmetric g. In it, the article says:
"Why wait until upright before beginning the dive recovery? Because simultaneous application of aileron and elevator results in "asymmetric" loading or "Gs" and can produce very high, local stresses at the root of the wing with the downward-deflected aileron (the upward moving wing)."
http://http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/190089-1.html
Were AA pilots inadvertently taught to potentially over-g their aircraft as a result of this AAMP procedure? We'll likely never know.
Now...on a separate note, I'd sure like Jetblaster to comment on the one question I've been asking him...his explanation of how to use rudder when inverted. Why he continues to dodge that question is a mystery.
The taxi speed question is really one of company procedure or pilot attitude. While the discussion has gone off into other areas, this departure still deals with procedure and attitudes.
The AA587 accident seems to center on attitude and procedure...or a massive conspiracy to shift blame (if Jetblaster is to be believed).
The conspiracy angle is one I cannot comment on...but I have to admit a certain amount of support for such ideas inasmuch as I'm a former TWA pilot...and many of us have never been satisfied with the outcome of the TWA800 investigation.
But the procedural aspect of the AA587 accident does interest me. I have a very definite memory of the unusual attitude recovery briefing we all got. I'm now aware that this was known as the AAMP...and that this program was mentioned in the NTSB final report as having contributed to the accident. How much of a contribution we may never know, but my memory of that briefing is that I was very surprised by the emphasis put on rudder use, an emphasis that I personally found excessive. I specifically recall being put off by the briefer's use of high performance military fighter type references in his discussion.
Here is a link that includes a discussion of the AAMP. It is excerpted pages from the AAMP training document.
http://http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/20...its/240003.pdf
This material caught my eye because it represents exactly the kind of info that I remember from the briefing I attended. Specifically, I found the references to high AOA rudder maneuvering and the reference to 'corner speed' to be of note.
These topics are familiar to those of us who have flown swept wing fighters. In some fighters and in some parts of the flight envelope, the rudder can be a powerful flight control surface...far more so than is typically found in civil aircraft flight envelopes. In fact, in some of these fighters, the rudder becomes the primary flight control for bank inputs and the ailerons are deliberately held neutral.
The idea of a 'corner speed' is IMO an odd thing to teach airline pilots. I have never encountered this term outside of fighter flying...and even in fighters, my guess is that many pilots don't understand the term. Simply put, corner speed (or velocity as it is known in the military) is the minimum speed that maximum (placard) g can be pulled. It is not usually a sustained number, but is an instantaneous point on the flight envelope. This speed varies with configuration, weight, and altitude. Corner speed by definition occurs relatively low in the aircraft speed range (again depending on flap configuration).
The picture of corner speed in that AAMP document relates corner speed to turn radius...in this case, a turn radius that would avoid ground impact. The idea implied by the picture is that there is a speed corresponding to 2 g's that will provide the minimum turn radius...apparently the implication is that the pilot should slow down (or speed up) to this speed when altitude loss is critical.
I don't have a serious quibble with the academics of this...but I do have a concern that this type of discussion is way over the top when it comes to airline flying. Why was this type of emphasis put into the AAMP?
My guess is that the answer goes straight to the heart of any question regarding 'attitude'.
Apparently, I was not alone in my concerns. Jetblaster piqued my interest in source investigation...and I found this...a letter from an AA Captain warning of the inherent dangers in the AAMP. In part, he said:
""I have grave concerns about some flawed aero-dynamic theory and flying techniques that have been presented in AAMP [Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program]...
... "In no uncertain terms pilots are told to use rudders as the primary means of roll control in unusual attitude recoveries.
"This is not only wrong, it is exceptionally dangerous."
http://http://findarticles.com/p/art...18/ai_n6284080
That's pretty direct, don't you think?
One other thing that I noticed in that AAMP info was the discussion of the recovery from a nose low inverted attitude. In the procedure for recovery, the AAMP states that back pressure should be added once the bank angle has been reduced to 60 degrees. I think this is a potentially dangerous statement to make.
Aircraft have two types of g limits...symmetric (which we all are familiar with) and asymmetric (which we may not be familiar with). Asymmetric g limits are typically less than the symmetric limits.
What is asymmetric g? Simply put, it's the g loading on the airplane anytime the pilot is pulling and rolling at the same time. This maneuver places a greater aerodynamic stress on the airplane than does symmetric g.
AvWeb has an excellent article on unusual attitude recoveries that addresses asymmetric g. In it, the article says:
"Why wait until upright before beginning the dive recovery? Because simultaneous application of aileron and elevator results in "asymmetric" loading or "Gs" and can produce very high, local stresses at the root of the wing with the downward-deflected aileron (the upward moving wing)."
http://http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/190089-1.html
Were AA pilots inadvertently taught to potentially over-g their aircraft as a result of this AAMP procedure? We'll likely never know.
Now...on a separate note, I'd sure like Jetblaster to comment on the one question I've been asking him...his explanation of how to use rudder when inverted. Why he continues to dodge that question is a mystery.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Imeneo
Engineers & Technicians
33
01-13-2007 08:44 AM
