FliFast

Jetblaster,

Good post, clearly you've marked your elitist position on anything and everything. Thanks, we expected nothing less.

I love the fact that you discredit the NTSB and FAA. I guess just a bunch of guys that take the CVR and FDR and make up lies. You've perfectly lived up to your ability to deflect the truth and litter this board with smoke and mirrors and other absolutely priceless rants and raves.

If you really believe the tail fell off the F airplane, next time you're in any Transport category jet with a full load of passengers at 250+ knots...try three successive rudder doublets...full scale deflection-full left then full right. I got the HI6 from VP Kudawa saying not to do it, that's fact, and so is the NTSB report saying that there were three rudder doublets. I guess the NTSB made that up....you asked for facts I provided you with facts. I agree with you accidents are a chain of events. AA 573 took off, got caught in wake, used flight control inputs to escape the wake, and the tail fell off after the 5th full scale rudder deflection. As a private pilot I was taught about wake turbulence avoidance and when I started flying jets, I was told to bascially keep my feet off the rudders inflight except on landing. Let me know how well your next flight goes when you fully deflect the rudder at 250 knots plus.

I won't dive into your militant claims that as pilots we should do something to keep our self-respect. How warm and fuzzy did you feel after the $45 million fine levied against the APA for their sickout. Con Carty was able to beat the APA and you sit on here and rave how all other unions except your own are spineless and have brought down the industry. Absolutely another priceless post.

We all know your type, you will deflect, defame, disguise and do whatever to prove that your are never wrong....A Nordstrom or Saks 5th Avenue to the end.

Have fun responding, I plan on moving on rather then engaging in your Elitist, better than thou postings.

On the same seniority list as you, and among the many friends you have on here, lol.....swimming by yourself lone ranger.

-Flifast-

I'm not sure if you are Fat or Drunk, but we can conclude on the rest.

jetblaster

Still waiting for something--anything--of substance to support your position.

Still waiting for you to reference something--anything--from the NTSB report that proves their conclusion definitively.

Still waiting. And waiting. And waiting for substance from FliFast. (I think this might be a long wait.)

[quote] If you really believe the tail fell off the F airplane, next time you're in any Transport category jet with a full load of passengers at 250+ knots...try three successive rudder doublets...full scale deflection-full left then full right.[\quote]

The only data that shows that the rudder moved in this fashion was severely "filtered" between the sensor and the DFDR. 59 of 60 "data points" per second were "re-created" in models in order to "determine" why the tail cracked into pieces.

Guess who was hired to "re-create" that data?

Airbus.

NTSB Safety Chief Bob Benzon began the hearing (which I attended while you were undoubtedly home playing Halo on your Playstation 2) by saying "because of the filter, we will never know how the flight controls on AA 587 actually moved."

So, if the rudder broke in half and the top half whipped back and forth (the only sensor is on the very bottom) and the lateral movements began, the FO may have put in inputs to counter the lateral moves. Or, the yaw damper could have made the inputs on its own, as has happened dozens of times on A300/A310 aircraft.


[quote] I got the HI6 from VP Kudawa saying not to do it, that's fact,[\quote]


What manner of jackass quotes from Bob Kudwa and holds it up as "fact?"

You just undermined your whole argument in one sentence.


[quote] and so is the NTSB report saying that there were three rudder doublets.[\quote]


No, Flifast; if you had read the report (which you obviously haven't, so I'm not sure why we are even having this "discussion") the NTSB said it was five rudder reversals.


[quote] I guess the NTSB made that up....you asked for facts I provided you with facts.[\quote]


It is a fact that the NTSB issued a final conclusion that the rudder was poorly designed, the rudder pedals were also poorly designed and that the FO probably (although since there are no pressure sensors on the pedals they can never be sure) put in five successive rudder reversals or "alternating sideslips."

Note: nowhere in the Airbus 300 manual did it have a note, warning or caution telling pilots that rudder reversals could cause the plastic, poorly inspected tail to break off.

Note: in the Landing Gear Not Down and Locked Abnormal Checklist, there was specific instruction to pilots to use "alternating sideslips" to shake the gear down. So, Airbus certainly did not know or warn pilots about rudder inputs of any sort.


[quote] I agree with you accidents are a chain of events. AA 573 took off, [\quote]


It was actually AA 587. 265 people were killed. The second-worst accident in US aviation history. Small details, I know, but some of us care about them.


[quote]got caught in wake, used flight control inputs to escape the wake, and the tail fell off after the 5th full scale rudder deflection.[\quote]


That's their story and they are sticking to it.


[quote]As a private pilot I was taught about wake turbulence avoidance and when I started flying jets, I was told to bascially keep my feet off the rudders inflight except on landing. Let me know how well your next flight goes when you fully deflect the rudder at 250 knots plus. [\quote]


Again, you are grasping and really not knowledgeable on the subject. You don't even realize that Boeing stated that a tail of a 767 would not have fallen off under similar stress, let alone that you cannot even get the flight number correct.


[quote]I won't dive into your militant claims that as pilots we should do something to keep our self-respect.[\quote]


Ooops. You just did.

[quote] How warm and fuzzy did you feel after the $45 million fine levied against the APA for their sickout.[\quote]


Does Reno Airlines presently fly all domestic legs formerly flown by AA?

Answer: No.

Mission Accomplished. It was well worth the $20 million APA paid. We ought to do stuff like that more often.


[quote]Con Carty was able to beat the APA[\quote]


First of all, the APA is not difficult to "beat" because the present APA is essentially infiltrated with managers who are frantically attempting to use their union positions to get some sort of management job (just like a dozen former APA officials have done.) Second of all, "beat" is a relative term. In the case of Carty's effort to transition all domestic flying from AA to the former Reno, while it looked like APA got "beat" the fact remains that Carty was not able to do what he tried to do. AMR bought off a judge and APA got whacked int he press, but at the end of the day Reno was not a stand-alone airline-within-an-airline like Carty wanted.

So, if it looked like Carty "won," well, that is what good PR will do for you if you can afford it.


[quote]and you sit on here and rave how all other unions except your own are spineless and have brought down the industry. [\quote]


I never said "my own" union was not spineless. The present APA leadership has six vertebrae, but no whole spine. The fact that our negotiating committee's negotiating experience amounts to the collective of Jacobs and Stowe from TWA is a pure illustration of just how sad the representation we have at APA is.


[quote]We all know your type, you will deflect, defame, disguise and do whatever to prove that your are never wrong....A Nordstrom or Saks 5th Avenue to the end.[\quote]


Still waiting for a substantive response on any point. If you want to discuss intelligently, begin any time.


Jetblaster

B757200ER

Blaster----Boeing builds a better airplane. Didn't alot of LGA-based AA pilots bid 757/767 after that A300 accident?

shackone

Bullsh*t.

Other contracts became more lucrative during that time period. Not less.

What other wages, work rules, and benefits were negatively affected by TWA contract concessions?

FliFast

Shack,

You can hit the guy over the head with a bat, and he'll say..I'm waiting for you to hit me. Add Inert, to his SNB resume.

[quote]As a private pilot I was taught about wake turbulence avoidance and when I started flying jets, I was told to bascially keep my feet off the rudders inflight except on landing. Let me know how well your next flight goes when you fully deflect the rudder at 250 knots plus. [\quote]


Again, you are grasping and really not knowledgeable on the subject.

I don't remember ever over stressing any airplane parts while flying thru wake turbulence...pretty good for a K-Mart pilot.

NTSB Identification: DCA02MA001.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier AMERICAN AIRLINES INC
Accident occurred Monday, November 12, 2001 in Belle Harbor, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/14/2005
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie A300B4-605R, registration: N14053
Injuries: 265 Fatal.
The Board's full report is available at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/publictn.htm.


On November 12, 2001, about 0916:15 eastern standard time, American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus Industrie A300-605R, N14053, crashed into a residential area of Belle Harbor, New York, shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York. Flight 587 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight to Las Americas International Airport, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, with 2 flight crewmembers, 7 flight attendants, and 251 passengers aboard the airplane. The airplane's vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and were found in Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site. The airplane's engines subsequently separated in flight and were found several blocks north and east of the main wreckage site. All 260 people aboard the airplane and 5 people on the ground were killed, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. Flight 587 was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.

I know JB, you'll say I still havent provided you with facts. Everyone is conspiring and it's a coverup....haaaa.

jetblaster

As promised, I'll post another thread on the A300, not for the benefit of gnats like FliFast, but so there can be a true treatment of the facts surrounding Airbus' shortcomings. In the mean time, here is just another instance of a chronic, uncommanded problem with an Airbus product.

Jetblaster

Qatar demands quick A33O fix
By Max Kingsley-Jones

Carrier's confidence in Airbus support 'severely eroded'

Qatar Airways is demanding that Airbus finds a quick solution to a repeated technical problem that has left one of its A330-300s grounded during the airline's peak season.


The flag carrier - which is one of Airbus' largest A330 airline customers with 31 delivered or on order - has ferried the aircraft to the manufacturer's Toulouse plant after it suffered repeated uncommanded deployment of passenger oxygen masks during revenue flights.


According to industry sources, the year-old A330-300 (A7-AED) first suffered the problem while descending through 2,500ft (760m) on approach to Manchester on 8 December. The aircraft spent about 48h on the ground being checked before returning to service.


After a series of regional flights to check for a repeat of the problem, the A330 was forced to return to Doha shortly after departure on 14 December for London Gatwick when it suffered another uncommanded mask deployment.


This second failure prompted Airbus to dispatch a product support representative from Toulouse to assist Qatar Airways in carrying out extensive checks: "Everything that could be changed was changed," says a source.


Airbus believed that it had fixed the problem, but five days later the masks deployed again en route from Manila to Doha, forcing the aircraft to divert to Bangkok.


With the manufacturer at a loss to understand why the problem is recurring, Qatar Airways has flown the aircraft to Toulouse and made it clear that it wants the issue resolved once and for all.


"This repeated problem has severely eroded Qatar Airways' confidence in the aircraft, and in the support which we get from Airbus," says Qatar Airways chief executive Akbar Al Baker.


Airbus confirms: "The Qatar Airways A330 is in Toulouse to get to the root of the intermittent problem and to fix it. It's the first time we've had to deal with such an issue, which has nothing to do with cabin depressurisation."
The manufacturer adds that it is "in daily contact with Qatar Airways management about our progress".


The airline's fleet of 24 A330s forms the backbone of Qatar Airways' long-haul operations, and the grounding comes during one of its busiest times - just after the Asian Games in Doha and during the Christmas and Eid holiday periods.


The airline is understood to have rescheduled light maintenance checks to avoid the need to cancel flights.

jetblaster

Glad you are finally beginning to see the light. Maybe if more guys begin to take the facts of an aircraft accident investigation and the conflicted roles of the parties (which encourages them to cover up or under-weigh certain issues) and enough pressure is applied to make needed changes, we might be able to save some lives.

That is, if you care about lives, Flifast.

Jetblaster

bravo24

And your point is?

While I'm not a fan of the boys in Toulouse, I've seen the same kind of stuff happen to Boeing aircraft as well. Intermittent problems such as this can be notoriously difficult to isolate. And it may not be Airbus' fault - the problem could have been introduced during routine maintenance by the operator.

jetblaster

Oh, certainly, Boeing and other manufacturers have their share; but, the point is that Airbus has chronic problems of this nature and instead of dealing with it responsibly and with a nod toward safety, they are arrogant, deny there is a problem and frankly do not have much respect for safety first. Read the A300 thread I will start tomorrow, you will see plenty of examples of this.

Jetblaster

FliFast

"Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program."

"Airbus .........they are arrogant, deny there is a problem and frankly do not have much respect for safety first." /s/ Jetblaster.

Absolutely priceless..I almost fell out of my chair. Pot calling the kettle black.

What does a story about an A330 having uncommanded O2 masks deploy have to do with an A300-600R tail being ripped off by "rudder petal inputs, system design and elements of American Airlines Pilot training....It's all a conspiracy.....give it up Bud, not one other person supports your silliness or arrogance.

Oh and $45 million fine levied against the APA for breaking the law and your response is "Mission Accomplished". What's next...Did you rob and beat up and old lady for crack money..."Mission Accomplished"...we do should stuff like this more often <break the law>. Just swell.

Lay off the Elite kool-aide.

We are all looking forward to your Airbus posting....Will J.Edgar Hoover be in it ?