|
Joe,
All transport category acft certified in the U.S. are certified to 4.4+ and 1.0- Gs. The Airbus had a failure in the composite block of mounting the horizontal stab that was known when it left France.
Agree that this shouldn’t have happened below maneuvering, by definition. If we have structural failure at this speed it is either/both a manufacturer’s defect and/or a design defect. The definition of maneuvering when used to certify for FAA use (and .mil acceptance) means that no structural failure will occur with full deflection back and forth on the rudder. This is not to say that bad things won’t be happening with aerodynamics.
On the 747 rear pressure bulkhead failure the repair was performed by the airline (either JAL or ANA) and signed off as if completed per Boeing’s directions. It was repaired with a poor butt vice the proper lap joint.
My current assignment is an active duty bubba with a reserve outfit. Been in contact with a few hundred reservists/guardsmen who fly the commercial big iron. The consensus is that the Airbus is nicer to fly when things go as planned and nothing untoward is happening, smoother and more comfortable. But only one thinks that an Airbus is the equal of a Boeing when it comes to “interesting Circumstances”. Then talk to the wrench turners… As a side note the one Airbus supporter (an instructor on a couple of Airbus models for a major) stated that certain Airbus models are marginally stable in yaw under the best of circumstances and that’s why you feel a little yawing phugoid as a passenger.
450,
Gotta disagree on the LATT stuff. That close to the ground with those shallow angles the acft wants to get away from terra firma due to the ground effect, think about flaring to land but magnified. Less than ½ wingspan from the ground at night on goggles was the norm for a community or two due to the mission and threat, only helos not to ***** about having airplanes fly underneath them were SOAR bubbas.
S/F, FOG
|