I've seen reports on this, the first officer who was flying the plane had been taught to make hard back and forth rudder movements when caught in wakes. He had been warned by several other pilots that he had flown with not to do that but he continued to do so anyway. His hard back and forth movements caused it to put more stress than it was designed for due to being in the wake of the other plane. If the first officer would not have made the hard inputs the plane would have been fine. But by doing that he passed the structural limits and it broke off.
@@211212112full deflection of the rudder at the speed they were going put over 203,000 lbs of force on the rudder, over twice its design limit. Maybe just don't have idiots fly or make TH-cam comments instead? Somehow it wasn't a problem for any other pilot.
@@211212112 Engineers investigated ways to reinforce the vertical stabilizer after this accident but determined it wouldn’t make a difference. Every fast, repetitive pedal motion multiplied the amount of pressure being applied to the stabilizer, meaning either way it would fail. This is a one off anyways. Large planes can actually take a lot of abuse, just look at FedEx Flight 705 and what the pilot did with a (super shitty) MD DC-10 plane to stop a hijacker.
That’s why in this case, the pilot Sten does hold accountability over the issue. If the problem had been brought up previously he should’ve heeded those warnings. It wasn’t like this was a 1 off thing, but that he had a history of doing that
@@AwesomeAngryBiker cry me a river you twit. You have nothing else to do other than troll the Internet and make comments on posts that don't involve you. Get a life.
Well, actually needed the travel of the foot paddles for maximum travel of the stabilizer is reduced in flight on this type of aircrafts. They guessed that this might be a contributing factor
This isn’t a re-creation, this is real blackbox data that came from the airplane. It saves pretty much everything about the plane like it’s rotation, position, altitude, and everything like that. This is exactly how the flight happened. Using that data we can make a simulation of what happened.
@@BlazarDev what led you to believe Robert didn't understand that point? haha anyway, that is very cool eh? to be able to directly model on computer. A fascinating ability
You really think you are in a position to criticize these pilots control inputs during a situation where the tail literally separates from the aircraft? What universe of entitlement do you live in?
Especially when you realize that if the copilot had just taken his foot off of the pedals, the autopilot would have automatically corrected the yawing.
Wow, it really didn't take much. I figured there were more than just a few rudder inputs. Also, it's sad to see that he was causing his own problem. He probably thought the movement from his rudder input was the wake turbulence, causing him to put even more or harder rudder inputs to compensate. It reminds me of over correcting your steering while driving a car at a high rate of speed. You turn a little, which causes your car to turn a lot. Then you overreact and turn even more in the opposite direction, which then causes you to flip, or spin out, and crash. Like most of these crashes, this was a horrible end for the passengers, the crew, and the people on the ground. One second you're relaxing and thinking about what you need to do today or tomorrow. The next second, your life flashes before your eyes, and you realize this is the end so you start mentally saying goodbyes.
It definitely felt like a panicked reaction, even just watching how he uses the hand controls he’s literally yanking the alerons up and down. Handling things way too aggressively
I've seen one recreation that put the stress on the vertical at it's peak somewhere around 900 tons, if not higher. Each time it was worked L-R R-L the forces magnified until...
I think you are off by a factor of ten. The mounts for the vertical stabilizer on that plane are rated for 100,000 pounds of force and during this situation, the co-pilot introduced over 190,000 pounds of force.
This isn’t a re-creation, this is real blackbox data that came from the airplane. It saves pretty much everything about the plane like it’s rotation, position, altitude, and everything like that. This is exactly how the flight happened. Using that data we can make a simulation of what happened.
One of the many reasons I really don't care for Airbus' engineering. Introduce flight-envelope protection that stops the pilot from doing actions that won't hurt the airframe but may be necessary in some very rare circumstances to recover the aircraft... buuuut also allow anyone to be capable of snapping the vertical stabilizer like a piece of balsa wood just from quickly and aggressively alternating the rudder input. And have the lowest resistance rudder pedal force in the industry, while you're at it. Most other companies either build the control surfaces to take the stress you can induce on it, with a margin of safety, or disallow the control surfaces from being able to go past safe margins with DFBW sensors. Airbus... did neither, and instead prevents the pilot from having actual unfettered control when it's necessary when they do use flight-envelope protection systems. As for why this is a problem - See: China Airlines Flight 006 and FedEx Flight 705 being examples of why such systems as how Airbus implements them (or doesn't in the case of the A300 here) can actually prevent the aircraft from being recovered. It's made all the worse that when people brought up CAF 006's incident as evidence that their flight-envelope protection systems potentially causing more accidents than they prevent, Airbus literally said, "But with our system it wouldn't have suffered a problem to begin with." Yeah... That's the type of hubris we're dealing with here. And, oh, before someone ages from now wants to throw shade on my comment: 1.) Don't bother. 2.) Yes, I know the A300 was designed before Airbus started using their own flight-envelope protection system. Here's the problem with that counter-argument if you're thinking it: the A300 in AAF 587? It was made in 1988. Y'know, after the A320 debuted. And, worse yet, Airbus knew about these limitations for years... and did absolutely nothing to prevent it. They could have easily mechanically limited the rudder inputs - far larger changes have been done by aircraft manufacturers for less than this. They decided not to. Not only did they not fix it, they didn't even try to push the issue as a warning to pilots or airlines. For decades. If you think that isn't on Airbus' head, I dunno what to tell you. Also, this doesn't mean that Boeing isn't guilty of the same negligence. Don't get me wrong: they are. It's just that, frankly, *_no one_* in the commercial aviation sector is as bad as Airbus when it comes to this issue.
@Armando Silvier Facts don't require your belief. Wake turbulence didn't cause the rapid failure, it was the first officers fear of wake turbulence that caused the rapid failure. Come back when you're not ignorant.
Can someone explain, why the pedal's effective travel changes (red markers)? I can easily understand, why the surface travel is being limited with increasing speed, but why the pedal? If I'm a pilot, and I have some rudder travel, I would measure my inputs by this travel. If at the normal input the reaction would be equal to the full deflection, capable of overloading critical structures, it's the straight way to disaster from my humble perspective.
@@rustusandroid thanks for your comment. The question arises, where is the line between control authority and abuse? How one train pilot for this line? What I am trying to say is that critical aeronautical systems shold be designed in the way they can't be abused. Btw, my question was not about the control authority of the surface deflection itself - you can see that it's get limited by automation as speed increases exactly to not overstress structures. My question is why the effective travel of the pedals is affected. In my logic the travel of the controls, which leads to the maximum allowed deflection of the surfaces, should stay the same through all flight modes. That's from the perspective of ergonomics, interested to learn other opinions.
@@nicolaymalkov9497 I hear what you are saying.. let me try it this way. Your solution seems to be to have some computer algorithm restrict what you can and cannot do. That is one way to go, and indeed is done in a lot of circumstances. As we have found, this also introduces technical problems and complexities that have also been the demise of airplanes. This airplane is not as advanced as an Airbus or a 777, it was created in a time when this tech did not exist, for one. Second, there may be times as a pilot that you would want to have your choice of deflection control if other critical systems failed and you needed to rely on your ability to fly the airplane. Third, out of the hundreds and thousand of airplanes flying this has never happened, so we temper our response accordingly. I think training is the answer, and not to just throw more technology at a problem, like we are quick to do sometimes. This pilot broke the tail off with his panicked, sloppy flying, but he could have easily enough snapped the wings off as well, given another situation. You can't program a computer to handle every situation, and at some point the guy flying the plane must have some stick and rudder skills.
@@nicolaymalkov9497 ... Your question is not stupid at all. The reason why this plane was engineered in this way is, probably, because it was simpler and less expensive to design, manufacture and maintain in this way. I mean, it is much simpler to make the rudder deflection proportional to the pedal deflection and limit the amount of pedal travel than to engineer a mechanism that varies the ratio of pedal displacement to rudder displacement with speed. Yet, that second more complicated approach is what most planes do, including later Airbus models and even a later version the A300. That said, every airplane that doesn't have and "all mighty" (well, mightier than the pilot) computerized envelope protection (that is, about every plane that is not an Airbus numbered 320 or higher, including fly-by-wire planes from other manufacturers) can be broken up with pilot's inputs. Some are more robust than others but all of them, including this accident plane, meet or exceed the minimum required level. Specifically for the rudder, what is required is that at speeds of up to Va (structural maneuver speed, which by the way this plane was flying below that speed), starting from straight flight, the rudder pedal is instantly depressed to max displacement and held there until the point of max overswing, then suddenly neutralized again. This airplane exceeded these requirements. This pilot exceeded this requirements even more with his crazy rudder inputs. Agreed: the craziness is attenuated a bit by the sensitivity of the rudder pedals that you explained, but still crazy.
I was there. I awoke to endless firetrucks sirens. I went and saw both engines. I then tried to see the crash site but couldn't because it was blocked off. That's when the severity of it really woke me up. Seeing fireman's faces and seeing a leveled area in the distance that were 3 large family homes. That made me realize that here I am getting excited over catching a glimpse of wreckage, when people's lives are ruined forever. I felt ashamed for trying to personally gain something out of others tragic misfortunes.
This isn’t a re-creation, this is real blackbox data that came from the airplane. It saves pretty much everything about the plane like it’s rotation, position, altitude, and everything like that. This is exactly how the flight happened. Using that data we can make a simulation of what happened. Though it’s very windows 3.1.
I am surprised that something like this can even happen. Wouldn't this sort of thing be found in flight tests? If there is such a thing as it being known, the forces needed to tear the vertical stabilizer off, why is there no system to prevent pilots from using too much input in the first place?
Because there's absolutely no reason for a pilot to add full deflection rudder back and forth and back and forth rapidly, the dangers of overstressing the aircraft structure from such maneuvers are taught in their early stages of flight training.
Willaev Then, it sounds like even more reason validating @blastyfs2’s idea. If there’s no reason to ever use that maneuver, then a system to prevent pilots from exceeding safe input would have the effect of purely saving lives like these.
Syclone0044 there’s thousands of ways a pilot can crash a plane, it’s impossible and counterproductive to try to engineer the plane to prevent every possibility. Better to teach the pilot how to fly vs making the plane idiot proof. The latter will never cover every possibility.
@@Syclone0044 - Exactly, and based on my research such safeguards were designed into all Boeing aircraft (and likely most other manufacturers including later Airbus models). I still remained convinced their was component fatigue/ failure, and a maintenance regimen that didn't catch it in time. The NTSB, BEA, NTSC, etc. etc. etc are not the be all, end all, of what actually happened in every accident. They are good, and maybe 95% accurate? But nothing is 100%. There are always unknown contributing factors.
@@Sovereign_Citizen_LEO There's no safeguards. Unlike this airplane, modern airliners won't let you push the airfoil pass its aerodynamic load limit - in one direction. But if you went into the flight deck of a modern Boeing 777 at cruise and pulled the yoke full back then shoved it full forward 3x in a row, you're probably gonna shear off the horizontal stabilizers. The only airliner in the World I can think of that would survive this kind of abuse is the McDonnell Douglas MD-80, because the flight controls move tiny trim tabs rather than entire aileron/rudder/elevator.
Yes, you wanna reduce the side-slip and keep the wings somewhat level without loosing too much lift from them. But using rudder this excessively is unnecessary, especially together with the ailerons. Additionally, you really don't need to keep the plane flying perfectly straight whatsoever in a wake turbulence. Just make it not lose too much altitude and keep the attitude somewhat reasonable.
@@RubenKelevra what gibberish you speak. I bet you can’t cite a case where rudder would have made a difference. No manufacturer recommends routine rudder use for wake.
greg55666 aircraft use what is called a coordinated turn, they use rudder and aileron to basically negate the lateral forces. This is why you never feel like your being thrown side to side.
Oh, you're saying the "lateral acceleration" indicator in the controls is relative to the plane, not the ground? The plane, that object, does in fact have lateral acceleration, it is in fact turning through the sky, but what is important for the plane is which direction that acceleration is going through the body of the plane, and by banking the plane, the pilot keeps that acceleration pointing "downward" relative to the plane, that is, downward through the bottom of the plane, although that vector would have a lateral component relative to the ground. Got it.
Coupe420 Wow that’s interesting, can’t believe I never knew that. So could you pilot a plane purely via rudder so it would feel like when I am road racing?
.....but you shouldn't be inputting full lock of the steering wheel at 200kph, or you WILL crash, so that was actually the perfect analogy for this crash and exactly what happened. @@RubenKelevra
If the system is prone to fail at certain speeds, wind, turbulence, then it should have a input limits, or warnings notifying maximum input is dangerous. This is not rocket science, if such thing was a big issue, why not a simple alert, or tone, if past its safe point. BS, this was bad rudder construction, or something else close to 9/11.
Aviation always evolved cause to accidents and previously unknown dangers. If not, then crash investigations wouldn't make sense... The vertical stabilizer was able to sustain such forces, but not with that speed and in the middle of a turbolence. It's impossible to predict every scenario of something, in general...
@@pedroaxb1570 but even that. It’s strange than the vertical stabilizer can resist. It s design and test with high structur limit. Even on other deep dives crash with higher speed, we rarely see a lost airplane structure.
From my modest encounter with airline pilots the rudder on big jets is not used when either not landing or not taking off. The Rudder is used to counter cross winds or to keep the ship straight down the runway. When 'cleaned up' there is no need for the rudder to counter the ailerons as there are inboard high speed ailerons and that applies to all modern jets. One of the best things to do when encountering turbulence is nothing, except perhaps keep the wings level (rudder not required at the speeds they were going) and lose some speed if in the cruise.
Comments section full of people bragging about themselves as usual, how many hrs they, have, what they fly, typical Braggers. The video is not about you or what you fly so shut up bragging about yourselves. People like ye destroy comment sections waffling on and on and on about yourselves 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Playing Russian Roulette flying with that guy. Molin was a menace to himself and everyone else on that plane. Should of been fired back when John Lavelle first complained about him.
The FAA covered up for air bus just like the did for boeing on the 737 Max.. New reply on "I’ve got over 8000 hours and currently fly an Airbus A320 for Jet Blue. Large inputs to the flight controls are used often and under many circumstances.Even though the 300 is not fly by wire, there is no way the rudder faltered due to the application of full rudder control. The aircraft was well under maneuvering speed and I’ve never, ever heard an aircraft make a significant sound due to wake turbulence.They departed plenty of time after the 747 and were also at a slightly different altitude through climb out. FAA was covering for Airbus.The plane was previously damaged in weather overseas and I’m sure there were complications where a band aid was used to get the plane through to its next overhaul.Airlines save time and money at all costs, and sometimes it costs lives. At the end of the day, it’s a business, and I love Airbus, but sometimes responsibility trumps optics, and unfortunately in this imperfect world, we can’t be prepared or foresee every s Inbox
Pilot here. The commentator who wrote that is either lying or misinformed. Not only is 240 knots above maneuvering speed, but this airbus aircraft doesn't have a computer limiting the G force or aerodynamic load on the airfoil like the A320. if you really want to test the theory of the commentator, go to your local flight school and rent a Piper Seminole, then take it up to speed over the water and jam the rudder full left then full right five times. (I'm joking. Please don't do this.)
That’s cool. But then why did the rudder of that A310 just literally yeet itself off in 2005. It landed safely back in Cuba. But only the rudder detached then.
@@BimmieJames Yeah. Aviation is just one of those topics where everyone talks like they trained Bob Hoover. I don't mind, responding to those comments is usually pretty entertaining.
The claimed the pilot was taught to make "aggressive" left and right inputs... The key word is aggressive, which is subject to what the individual thinks is aggressive. In my mind "aggressive" in flight control sense did not mean slam the steering max left then max right multiple times in a row. Watching the animation it looks like a child was at the controls. No training would ever, ever tell you to make those violent inputs the way that pilot did.
The company was actually caught teaching their pilots this practice. They’re lucky it didn’t happen before that. A company that flies should understand that anything can be stressed to its breaking point but the hunt for money can cause lapses in judgement that lead to ppl dying. During the investigation they determined that if he had just done this once they would have been fine but he kept jamming on the rudder over and over. You’re right it does look like a child at the controls but unfortunately that was a trained pilot. Just like in any industry there are ppl who train their students poorly and in this case the airline was partially responsible.
Oh, are YOU a pilot that has a history of flying through deadly wake turbulence?Molin used the same tactics back when he flew the 727, and that tail never broke off. Airbus usually gets a pass for being such shitty airplanes. If this happened on a 737, the media would have covered it like the moon landing.
American Airlines were teaching their Pilots to get aggressive with the Flight Controls, however this was only ever emphasized in Upset Condition Recovery. Wake Turbulence is not an Upset Condition. The training itself isn't really at fault. It was the application of Aggressive Control inputs in a situation that didn't require it. The Training material in question is available for viewing on TH-cam. Just search up "American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program" in the YT search box.
i think it was because the pilot flew another plane (correct me if im wrong) and was taught to do this while flying the smaller plane to shake the turbulance
I've seen reports on this, the first officer who was flying the plane had been taught to make hard back and forth rudder movements when caught in wakes. He had been warned by several other pilots that he had flown with not to do that but he continued to do so anyway. His hard back and forth movements caused it to put more stress than it was designed for due to being in the wake of the other plane. If the first officer would not have made the hard inputs the plane would have been fine. But by doing that he passed the structural limits and it broke off.
That maybe, but I’d prefer my planes to be able to withstand hard control inputs….
@@211212112full deflection of the rudder at the speed they were going put over 203,000 lbs of force on the rudder, over twice its design limit. Maybe just don't have idiots fly or make TH-cam comments instead? Somehow it wasn't a problem for any other pilot.
@@211212112 Engineers investigated ways to reinforce the vertical stabilizer after this accident but determined it wouldn’t make a difference. Every fast, repetitive pedal motion multiplied the amount of pressure being applied to the stabilizer, meaning either way it would fail.
This is a one off anyways. Large planes can actually take a lot of abuse, just look at FedEx Flight 705 and what the pilot did with a (super shitty) MD DC-10 plane to stop a hijacker.
That’s why in this case, the pilot Sten does hold accountability over the issue. If the problem had been brought up previously he should’ve heeded those warnings. It wasn’t like this was a 1 off thing, but that he had a history of doing that
Sad
Absolutely horrific. As a professional pilot, it is shocking even to me how quickly the situation deteriorated.
That's usually the way.
took 2 mins.
Stop bragging, it's not about you nor is it necessary to tell the world what you do just to say it's a horrific accident 🙄🙄🙄
@@AwesomeAngryBiker cry me a river you twit. You have nothing else to do other than troll the Internet and make comments on posts that don't involve you. Get a life.
The rudder inputs were pretty dramatic, even for being in wake turbulence.
Well, actually needed the travel of the foot paddles for maximum travel of the stabilizer is reduced in flight on this type of aircrafts.
They guessed that this might be a contributing factor
This isn’t a re-creation, this is real blackbox data that came from the airplane. It saves pretty much everything about the plane like it’s rotation, position, altitude, and everything like that. This is exactly how the flight happened. Using that data we can make a simulation of what happened.
@@BlazarDev what led you to believe Robert didn't understand that point? haha anyway, that is very cool eh? to be able to directly model on computer. A fascinating ability
You really think you are in a position to criticize these pilots control inputs during a situation where the tail literally separates from the aircraft? What universe of entitlement do you live in?
Especially when you realize that if the copilot had just taken his foot off of the pedals, the autopilot would have automatically corrected the yawing.
Wow, it really didn't take much. I figured there were more than just a few rudder inputs. Also, it's sad to see that he was causing his own problem. He probably thought the movement from his rudder input was the wake turbulence, causing him to put even more or harder rudder inputs to compensate. It reminds me of over correcting your steering while driving a car at a high rate of speed. You turn a little, which causes your car to turn a lot. Then you overreact and turn even more in the opposite direction, which then causes you to flip, or spin out, and crash.
Like most of these crashes, this was a horrible end for the passengers, the crew, and the people on the ground. One second you're relaxing and thinking about what you need to do today or tomorrow. The next second, your life flashes before your eyes, and you realize this is the end so you start mentally saying goodbyes.
Rapid rudder movement began at 9:15:51 and 9:15:59 it fell off. Crazy how quickly that happened.
It definitely felt like a panicked reaction, even just watching how he uses the hand controls he’s literally yanking the alerons up and down. Handling things way too aggressively
I've seen one recreation that put the stress on the vertical at it's peak somewhere around 900 tons, if not higher. Each time it was worked L-R R-L the forces magnified until...
I think you are off by a factor of ten. The mounts for the vertical stabilizer on that plane are rated for 100,000 pounds of force and during this situation, the co-pilot introduced over 190,000 pounds of force.
This isn’t a re-creation, this is real blackbox data that came from the airplane. It saves pretty much everything about the plane like it’s rotation, position, altitude, and everything like that. This is exactly how the flight happened. Using that data we can make a simulation of what happened.
@@BlazarDev
You can stop copy and pasting that in every single comment reply even when it's not warranted. Thanks.
One of the many reasons I really don't care for Airbus' engineering. Introduce flight-envelope protection that stops the pilot from doing actions that won't hurt the airframe but may be necessary in some very rare circumstances to recover the aircraft... buuuut also allow anyone to be capable of snapping the vertical stabilizer like a piece of balsa wood just from quickly and aggressively alternating the rudder input. And have the lowest resistance rudder pedal force in the industry, while you're at it. Most other companies either build the control surfaces to take the stress you can induce on it, with a margin of safety, or disallow the control surfaces from being able to go past safe margins with DFBW sensors. Airbus... did neither, and instead prevents the pilot from having actual unfettered control when it's necessary when they do use flight-envelope protection systems. As for why this is a problem - See: China Airlines Flight 006 and FedEx Flight 705 being examples of why such systems as how Airbus implements them (or doesn't in the case of the A300 here) can actually prevent the aircraft from being recovered. It's made all the worse that when people brought up CAF 006's incident as evidence that their flight-envelope protection systems potentially causing more accidents than they prevent, Airbus literally said, "But with our system it wouldn't have suffered a problem to begin with." Yeah... That's the type of hubris we're dealing with here.
And, oh, before someone ages from now wants to throw shade on my comment: 1.) Don't bother. 2.) Yes, I know the A300 was designed before Airbus started using their own flight-envelope protection system. Here's the problem with that counter-argument if you're thinking it: the A300 in AAF 587? It was made in 1988. Y'know, after the A320 debuted. And, worse yet, Airbus knew about these limitations for years... and did absolutely nothing to prevent it. They could have easily mechanically limited the rudder inputs - far larger changes have been done by aircraft manufacturers for less than this. They decided not to. Not only did they not fix it, they didn't even try to push the issue as a warning to pilots or airlines. For decades. If you think that isn't on Airbus' head, I dunno what to tell you.
Also, this doesn't mean that Boeing isn't guilty of the same negligence. Don't get me wrong: they are. It's just that, frankly, *_no one_* in the commercial aviation sector is as bad as Airbus when it comes to this issue.
@@j_m_b_1914 oh my god
@ 2:30 Those yoke inputs! Jesus.
@tinwoods I'd probably faint 😵
Molin wigged out.
They determined that they overstressed the vertical stabilizer by using too much rudder.
it is shocking how quickly that happened--just how quickly so much force can build up
Can't do that to a Boeing.
Graeme Williams is that true? I’m honestly curious
Armando Silvier just shut up freak
@Armando Silvier Facts don't require your belief. Wake turbulence didn't cause the rapid failure, it was the first officers fear of wake turbulence that caused the rapid failure. Come back when you're not ignorant.
Airbuses rudder is stronger than said. But using it at 250 Knots can be dangerous
I remember this. Everyone was afraid it was another terrorist attack so soon after 9/11. I think it crashed into a neighborhood.
i think that happened here in new york
Igor Igor it did.
Long Island. A tragedy added to the WTC tragedy and the Pentagon and PA crash. That was a really bad time...
@@rvnmedic1968Queens but close
It went into the ocean off Long Island.
the piolt held the rudder to the right and he thought it was the wake turbalance 2:33 to 2:37
It's went from everything is fine to your worse nightmare immediately 😢
like driving a boat more throttle, ease back
Can someone explain, why the pedal's effective travel changes (red markers)? I can easily understand, why the surface travel is being limited with increasing speed, but why the pedal? If I'm a pilot, and I have some rudder travel, I would measure my inputs by this travel. If at the normal input the reaction would be equal to the full deflection, capable of overloading critical structures, it's the straight way to disaster from my humble perspective.
It's that he overloaded it multiple times from side to side very quickly. You NEED the control authority of the rudder, you just can't abuse it.
@@rustusandroid thanks for your comment. The question arises, where is the line between control authority and abuse? How one train pilot for this line? What I am trying to say is that critical aeronautical systems shold be designed in the way they can't be abused.
Btw, my question was not about the control authority of the surface deflection itself - you can see that it's get limited by automation as speed increases exactly to not overstress structures. My question is why the effective travel of the pedals is affected.
In my logic the travel of the controls, which leads to the maximum allowed deflection of the surfaces, should stay the same through all flight modes. That's from the perspective of ergonomics, interested to learn other opinions.
@@nicolaymalkov9497 I hear what you are saying.. let me try it this way. Your solution seems to be to have some computer algorithm restrict what you can and cannot do. That is one way to go, and indeed is done in a lot of circumstances. As we have found, this also introduces technical problems and complexities that have also been the demise of airplanes.
This airplane is not as advanced as an Airbus or a 777, it was created in a time when this tech did not exist, for one.
Second, there may be times as a pilot that you would want to have your choice of deflection control if other critical systems failed and you needed to rely on your ability to fly the airplane.
Third, out of the hundreds and thousand of airplanes flying this has never happened, so we temper our response accordingly.
I think training is the answer, and not to just throw more technology at a problem, like we are quick to do sometimes. This pilot broke the tail off with his panicked, sloppy flying, but he could have easily enough snapped the wings off as well, given another situation. You can't program a computer to handle every situation, and at some point the guy flying the plane must have some stick and rudder skills.
@@nicolaymalkov9497 ... Your question is not stupid at all. The reason why this plane was engineered in this way is, probably, because it was simpler and less expensive to design, manufacture and maintain in this way. I mean, it is much simpler to make the rudder deflection proportional to the pedal deflection and limit the amount of pedal travel than to engineer a mechanism that varies the ratio of pedal displacement to rudder displacement with speed. Yet, that second more complicated approach is what most planes do, including later Airbus models and even a later version the A300.
That said, every airplane that doesn't have and "all mighty" (well, mightier than the pilot) computerized envelope protection (that is, about every plane that is not an Airbus numbered 320 or higher, including fly-by-wire planes from other manufacturers) can be broken up with pilot's inputs. Some are more robust than others but all of them, including this accident plane, meet or exceed the minimum required level. Specifically for the rudder, what is required is that at speeds of up to Va (structural maneuver speed, which by the way this plane was flying below that speed), starting from straight flight, the rudder pedal is instantly depressed to max displacement and held there until the point of max overswing, then suddenly neutralized again. This airplane exceeded these requirements. This pilot exceeded this requirements even more with his crazy rudder inputs. Agreed: the craziness is attenuated a bit by the sensitivity of the rudder pedals that you explained, but still crazy.
I was there. I awoke to endless firetrucks sirens. I went and saw both engines. I then tried to see the crash site but couldn't because it was blocked off. That's when the severity of it really woke me up. Seeing fireman's faces and seeing a leveled area in the distance that were 3 large family homes. That made me realize that here I am getting excited over catching a glimpse of wreckage, when people's lives are ruined forever. I felt ashamed for trying to personally gain something out of others tragic misfortunes.
looks like Microsoft flight simulator for windows 3.1
9
😂
this was made in 2001 or 02, yea the graphics power of those days wasnt nearly what we see now.
not really, it looks more like Flight Simulator 2000 i would say. Sure it doesnt look like fs2020 but its look better than win 3.1 stuff
This isn’t a re-creation, this is real blackbox data that came from the airplane. It saves pretty much everything about the plane like it’s rotation, position, altitude, and everything like that. This is exactly how the flight happened. Using that data we can make a simulation of what happened. Though it’s very windows 3.1.
I am surprised that something like this can even happen. Wouldn't this sort of thing be found in flight tests? If there is such a thing as it being known, the forces needed to tear the vertical stabilizer off, why is there no system to prevent pilots from using too much input in the first place?
Because there's absolutely no reason for a pilot to add full deflection rudder back and forth and back and forth rapidly, the dangers of overstressing the aircraft structure from such maneuvers are taught in their early stages of flight training.
Willaev Then, it sounds like even more reason validating @blastyfs2’s idea.
If there’s no reason to ever use that maneuver, then a system to prevent pilots from exceeding safe input would have the effect of purely saving lives like these.
Syclone0044 there’s thousands of ways a pilot can crash a plane, it’s impossible and counterproductive to try to engineer the plane to prevent every possibility. Better to teach the pilot how to fly vs making the plane idiot proof. The latter will never cover every possibility.
@@Syclone0044 - Exactly, and based on my research such safeguards were designed into all Boeing aircraft (and likely most other manufacturers including later Airbus models). I still remained convinced their was component fatigue/ failure, and a maintenance regimen that didn't catch it in time. The NTSB, BEA, NTSC, etc. etc. etc are not the be all, end all, of what actually happened in every accident. They are good, and maybe 95% accurate? But nothing is 100%. There are always unknown contributing factors.
@@Sovereign_Citizen_LEO There's no safeguards. Unlike this airplane, modern airliners won't let you push the airfoil pass its aerodynamic load limit - in one direction. But if you went into the flight deck of a modern Boeing 777 at cruise and pulled the yoke full back then shoved it full forward 3x in a row, you're probably gonna shear off the horizontal stabilizers.
The only airliner in the World I can think of that would survive this kind of abuse is the McDonnell Douglas MD-80, because the flight controls move tiny trim tabs rather than entire aileron/rudder/elevator.
How do you pronounce "#" ?
'Pound' or 'Numerical'
Depends on the context.
For CVR transcripts, a "#" is an expletive
Hashtag
Aviator Gator You’re the only correct answer in this context
It's a bleep, essentially. Fill it in with any obscenity you would use yourself and you'll have the right sentiment.
Is using the rudder in wake turbulance the right thing to do?
Yes, you wanna reduce the side-slip and keep the wings somewhat level without loosing too much lift from them. But using rudder this excessively is unnecessary, especially together with the ailerons.
Additionally, you really don't need to keep the plane flying perfectly straight whatsoever in a wake turbulence. Just make it not lose too much altitude and keep the attitude somewhat reasonable.
No. It isn’t.
@@peteconrad2077 lol. Yeah you can resort to use Ailerons like hundreds of pilots did successfully before doing an uncontrolled flight into terrain :)
@@RubenKelevra what gibberish you speak. I bet you can’t cite a case where rudder would have made a difference. No manufacturer recommends routine rudder use for wake.
@@peteconrad2077 yeah just eat that fish and troll somewhere else. :)
🐠
I don't understand how the plane can be turning with no lateral acceleration, but I guess that's just me?
lat acc of the rudder
Do you want to explain it in English?
greg55666 aircraft use what is called a coordinated turn, they use rudder and aileron to basically negate the lateral forces. This is why you never feel like your being thrown side to side.
Oh, you're saying the "lateral acceleration" indicator in the controls is relative to the plane, not the ground? The plane, that object, does in fact have lateral acceleration, it is in fact turning through the sky, but what is important for the plane is which direction that acceleration is going through the body of the plane, and by banking the plane, the pilot keeps that acceleration pointing "downward" relative to the plane, that is, downward through the bottom of the plane, although that vector would have a lateral component relative to the ground.
Got it.
Coupe420 Wow that’s interesting, can’t believe I never knew that.
So could you pilot a plane purely via rudder so it would feel like when I am road racing?
Too much cowbell First Officer.
2:30
Horrific..
So here's the deal. The aircraft is awesome. Just don't use full rudder or it might come apart. WTF.
Look here's the deal. This car is awesome. Just don't use full travel of the steering wheel while driving 200 kph or it might come apart.
@@RubenKelevra hmm actually that’s a great comparison
.....but you shouldn't be inputting full lock of the steering wheel at 200kph, or you WILL crash, so that was actually the perfect analogy for this crash and exactly what happened. @@RubenKelevra
is that Microsoft flight sim
If the system is prone to fail at certain speeds, wind, turbulence, then it should have a input limits, or warnings notifying maximum input is dangerous.
This is not rocket science, if such thing was a big issue, why not a simple alert, or tone, if past its safe point.
BS, this was bad rudder construction, or something else close to 9/11.
This was pilot error poor training, he shouldn’t have been using the rudder as aggressively as he was
Aviation always evolved cause to accidents and previously unknown dangers. If not, then crash investigations wouldn't make sense... The vertical stabilizer was able to sustain such forces, but not with that speed and in the middle of a turbolence. It's impossible to predict every scenario of something, in general...
@@pedroaxb1570 but even that. It’s strange than the vertical stabilizer can resist. It s design and test with high structur limit.
Even on other deep dives crash with higher speed, we rarely see a lost airplane structure.
From my modest encounter with airline pilots the rudder on big jets is not used when either not landing or not taking off. The Rudder is used to counter cross winds or to keep the ship straight down the runway. When 'cleaned up' there is no need for the rudder to counter the ailerons as there are inboard high speed ailerons and that applies to all modern jets. One of the best things to do when encountering turbulence is nothing, except perhaps keep the wings level (rudder not required at the speeds they were going) and lose some speed if in the cruise.
More info:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20011112-0
new york will never be the same after 9/11
Comments section full of people bragging about themselves as usual, how many hrs they, have, what they fly, typical Braggers. The video is not about you or what you fly so shut up bragging about yourselves. People like ye destroy comment sections waffling on and on and on about yourselves 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Playing Russian Roulette flying with that guy. Molin was a menace to himself and everyone else on that plane. Should of been fired back when John Lavelle first complained about him.
No sound?
But wait - it was an Airbus! I thought only Boeing aircraft crashed.
What does DEP and CAM stand for, please?
And DFDR data..?
Thank you very much!!
The FAA covered up for air bus just like the did for boeing on the 737 Max.. New reply on "I’ve got over 8000 hours and currently fly an Airbus A320 for Jet Blue. Large inputs to the flight controls are used often and under many circumstances.Even though the 300 is not fly by wire, there is no way the rudder faltered due to the application of full rudder control. The aircraft was well under maneuvering speed and I’ve never, ever heard an aircraft make a significant sound due to wake turbulence.They departed plenty of time after the 747 and were also at a slightly different altitude through climb out. FAA was covering for Airbus.The plane was previously damaged in weather overseas and I’m sure there were complications where a band aid was used to get the plane through to its next overhaul.Airlines save time and money at all costs, and sometimes it costs lives. At the end of the day, it’s a business, and I love Airbus, but sometimes responsibility trumps optics, and unfortunately in this imperfect world, we can’t be prepared or foresee every s
Inbox
Absolute bullshit. This was minor wake turbulence that didn’t require mashing down on the rudder five times and yanking the wheel left and right.
Pilot here. The commentator who wrote that is either lying or misinformed. Not only is 240 knots above maneuvering speed, but this airbus aircraft doesn't have a computer limiting the G force or aerodynamic load on the airfoil like the A320.
if you really want to test the theory of the commentator, go to your local flight school and rent a Piper Seminole, then take it up to speed over the water and jam the rudder full left then full right five times. (I'm joking. Please don't do this.)
That’s cool. But then why did the rudder of that A310 just literally yeet itself off in 2005. It landed safely back in Cuba. But only the rudder detached then.
@@WestAirAviation it’s “I played 3000 hours of FSX with my Xbox controller so I basically graduated plane school”
@@BimmieJames Yeah. Aviation is just one of those topics where everyone talks like they trained Bob Hoover. I don't mind, responding to those comments is usually pretty entertaining.
Last words: Get out of it, get out of it.
The claimed the pilot was taught to make "aggressive" left and right inputs... The key word is aggressive, which is subject to what the individual thinks is aggressive. In my mind "aggressive" in flight control sense did not mean slam the steering max left then max right multiple times in a row. Watching the animation it looks like a child was at the controls. No training would ever, ever tell you to make those violent inputs the way that pilot did.
The company was actually caught teaching their pilots this practice. They’re lucky it didn’t happen before that. A company that flies should understand that anything can be stressed to its breaking point but the hunt for money can cause lapses in judgement that lead to ppl dying. During the investigation they determined that if he had just done this once they would have been fine but he kept jamming on the rudder over and over. You’re right it does look like a child at the controls but unfortunately that was a trained pilot. Just like in any industry there are ppl who train their students poorly and in this case the airline was partially responsible.
Oh, are YOU a pilot that has a history of flying through deadly wake turbulence?Molin used the same tactics back when he flew the 727, and that tail never broke off. Airbus usually gets a pass for being such shitty airplanes. If this happened on a 737, the media would have covered it like the moon landing.
American Airlines were teaching their Pilots to get aggressive with the Flight Controls, however this was only ever emphasized in Upset Condition Recovery. Wake Turbulence is not an Upset Condition. The training itself isn't really at fault. It was the application of Aggressive Control inputs in a situation that didn't require it. The Training material in question is available for viewing on TH-cam. Just search up "American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program" in the YT search box.
No way “Get out of it” were the last words spoken.
Yes it was.
Was this cause by Weak Plastique on Air-Bussés
How do these people get into these positions?? Same as Air France 447. Zero aptitude as aviators. They should be flipping burgers at Maccas.
Air France 447 was far higher on the scale of incompetence. This was poor training, combined with structural flaws in the tail support system.
tinwoods professional pilot - a330
loooooooool only know ur australian cause my older brother is and he calls mcdonalds maccas :'( as an american its the funniest thing i ever heard
i think it was because the pilot flew another plane (correct me if im wrong) and was taught to do this while flying the smaller plane to shake the turbulance
@@GOF-pk9mg there is no aircraft requiring these inputs in this situation
τ/τ÷cm-1
I'm guessing the drinks trolley went down untouched? Big loss there.