eagleson2004123@yahoo.com wrote:
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message news:<417ED7C0.391AB58E@attbi.com>...
> > news wrote:
> > >
> > > NTSB staff: Co-pilot error caused 2001 crash
> > > Accident in Queens, New York, claimed lives of 265 people
> > >
> > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 587 caused
> > > the November 2001 crash in Queens, New York, that claimed the lives of
> > > 265 people, the staff of the nation's airline safety agency reported
> > > Tuesday.
> > >
> > > Investigator Robert Benzon of the National Transportation Safety Board
> > > staff said the co-pilot's response to turbulence, just seconds after
> > > the Airbus A300-600 plane took off from New York's John F. Kennedy
> > > International Airport, was "unnecessary and aggressive."
> >
> > So what is the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) response to this
> > determination of probable cause?
> >
> > I'll bet a lot of pilots will take exception to this finding.
>
> An aircraft can be destroyed by overcontrol. That is a design
> criteria in large aircraft. They are under G rated.
>
> And there the story just starts. The exact cause of the break-up
> requires the designer to answer the question of proper rudder usage.
>
> The radio said, over usage of the rudder caused the breakup.!!!!!!!
>
> And so the turbulence that required the rudder control is to
> blame. A failed design.
Airbus say that turbulence can and should be countered using aileron, not rudder.
The 'improper use' of rudder in this instance wasn't the fact that it was fully deflected (
which is required to be safe in order for the aircraft design to be certified ) but that it was
repeated deflected in opposite directions.
It's not a design failure. The design met the certification requirements.
Graham
|