Well. That's Bad.
I'd like to point out first that I have a private pilot's ticket. Granted, I haven't flown in over a decade, but I do have a little experience actually flying airplanes. That said...
The NTSB has ruled that pilot error is to blame for the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in New York in November of 2001. The Airbus A300-600 took off from JFK International bound for the Dominican Republic. The co-pilot, Sten Molin, was at the controls when the aircraft encountered turbulence immediately after takeoff. In an attempt to stabilize his a/c, and following the training provided him by American, Molin used the rudder to correct his attitude. What he didn't know was that he was putting more stress on the tail of the aircraft than it could withstand.
The loud *bang* heard on the cockpit voice recorder (following the Captain's futile instructions to 'Hang onto it, hang onto it') was the tail section separating from the aircraft. Seconds later, the a/c hit the ground in NYC - killing 265 people.
Now there is an argument as to whether or not American Airlines was made aware by Airbus that the aircraft's rudder could exert more force than the structure could withstand.
A previous incident in 1997 almost resulted in crash in West Palm Beach. One passenger was seriously injured when pilots of American flight 903 used the rudder to steady their a/c on approach. After that incident, Airbus claims it stated that abrupt rudder movement could "lead to a rapid loss of controlled flight". American contends that given that, no one specifically told them that excessive rudder movements could cause the tail to be ripped off.
At first glance, this seems insane. This is an aircraft that can, essentially, tear itself apart very easily. And while that thought is scary, what really confuses me is why anyone sitting in the cockpit wasn't 100% aware of that fact. I'll be the first to tell you that flying an aircraft is not like driving a car. You can very easily do things in a plane that may be perfectly safe in some conditions, and cause a 'departure from controlled flight' in another. But that is part of being a pilot - knowing these things. The fact that American may have put pilots at the controls of these aircraft with insufficient warnings, and even a simulator that trained them wrong, is inexcusable. Add to that I don't feel Airbus did enough to alert its customers of the issue. Why do I think that? Because a crash occurred because of it.
In the end, the official blame in the accident landed on Sten Molin. It may not seem fair - he wasn't told he could kill himself and his passengers by simply using the rudder - but that's the way it plays out. As I was told when learning to fly, "Unless the damn wing falls off on a cloudless, calm, sunny day, it's always pilot error." This is one of those cases where that axiom seems particularly unfair.
In closing, I'd like to pay my respects to First Officer Sten Molin, his passengers, his crew, and their families for a tragedy that probably could have been avoided.
The NTSB has ruled that pilot error is to blame for the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in New York in November of 2001. The Airbus A300-600 took off from JFK International bound for the Dominican Republic. The co-pilot, Sten Molin, was at the controls when the aircraft encountered turbulence immediately after takeoff. In an attempt to stabilize his a/c, and following the training provided him by American, Molin used the rudder to correct his attitude. What he didn't know was that he was putting more stress on the tail of the aircraft than it could withstand.
The loud *bang* heard on the cockpit voice recorder (following the Captain's futile instructions to 'Hang onto it, hang onto it') was the tail section separating from the aircraft. Seconds later, the a/c hit the ground in NYC - killing 265 people.
Now there is an argument as to whether or not American Airlines was made aware by Airbus that the aircraft's rudder could exert more force than the structure could withstand.
A previous incident in 1997 almost resulted in crash in West Palm Beach. One passenger was seriously injured when pilots of American flight 903 used the rudder to steady their a/c on approach. After that incident, Airbus claims it stated that abrupt rudder movement could "lead to a rapid loss of controlled flight". American contends that given that, no one specifically told them that excessive rudder movements could cause the tail to be ripped off.
At first glance, this seems insane. This is an aircraft that can, essentially, tear itself apart very easily. And while that thought is scary, what really confuses me is why anyone sitting in the cockpit wasn't 100% aware of that fact. I'll be the first to tell you that flying an aircraft is not like driving a car. You can very easily do things in a plane that may be perfectly safe in some conditions, and cause a 'departure from controlled flight' in another. But that is part of being a pilot - knowing these things. The fact that American may have put pilots at the controls of these aircraft with insufficient warnings, and even a simulator that trained them wrong, is inexcusable. Add to that I don't feel Airbus did enough to alert its customers of the issue. Why do I think that? Because a crash occurred because of it.
In the end, the official blame in the accident landed on Sten Molin. It may not seem fair - he wasn't told he could kill himself and his passengers by simply using the rudder - but that's the way it plays out. As I was told when learning to fly, "Unless the damn wing falls off on a cloudless, calm, sunny day, it's always pilot error." This is one of those cases where that axiom seems particularly unfair.
In closing, I'd like to pay my respects to First Officer Sten Molin, his passengers, his crew, and their families for a tragedy that probably could have been avoided.
posted by DFMerrick at 09:26
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home