ScareBus 1 Safety 0

Anonymous — Fri, 24 May 2002 00:35:00 GMT

*** Posted by T. D. Ponder ***
IF WE CAN'T FIND A SOLUTION, LET'S REDEFINE THE PROBLEM!

There is a very disconcerting movement afoot to quietly change the
rules of flying after nearly 100 years. If successful, it will make life so
much easier for certain entities --- entities like the NTSB, FAA and
manufacturers of large aircraft. Actually it isn't just to make
life easier: billions of dollars are involved.

The FAA now says there is no need to ground the Airbus and says
also that no link has been found between material in the tail fin and
the N.Y. crash.

Perhaps not, but there is one indisputable very large link --- the tail went for
a swim in Jamaica Bay and the aircraft crashed and burned in a
nearby neighborhood with the loss of all aboard and five people killed
on the ground. I call that "a link!"

Notable: A substantial number of American Airline pilots who fly these things
have called for their grounding, but the government isn't listening.

THE REALLY SCARY PART IS YET TO COME

Boeing, at the request of the FAA, has issued a statement redefining
pilot procedures that have successfully been in effect for nearly a
hundred years. Isn't that incredible?

Get this;

From Boeing:

"The bulletin stresses that rudder input 'as a means to maneuver in
roll' -- often taught as part of military or general aviation pilot training
-- 'typically does not apply' to large transport aircraft
operations. 'The rudder in a large transport airplane is typically
used for trim, engine failure, and crosswind takeoff and landing. Only
under an extreme condition, such as loss of a flap, mid air collision,
or where an airplane has pitched to a very high pitch attitude and a
pushover or thrust change has already been unsuccessful,
should careful rudder input in the direction of the desired roll
be considered,' Boeing said. A rudder input is never the preferred
initial response for events such as a wake vortex encounter,
windshear encounter, or to reduce bank angle preceding an
imminent stall recovery'. "

Well now, THAT certainly takes care of the Airbus crash --- Obvious to
Boeing only now, the pilots used their rudder below design maneuvering
speed and caused the tail to decide to leave the aircraft to go for a swim.
It's time to break out the Champagne in France because design
maneuvering speed no longer applies to transport aircraft!

You can bet your last dollar that I certainly would use rudder in the event
of wake turbulence in order to keep from putting a couple hundred
paying passengers on their backs! And, I would expect the aircraft
to hold together during the recovery process! Anything else is nothing
less than male bovine excrement.

To continue:
"Boeing also cautioned that 'sequential full or nearly full authority
rudder reversals may not be within the structural design limits of the
airplane, even if the airspeed is below the design maneuvering
speed,' noting that no Boeing procedures 'require this type of pilot
input.' Besides over-stressing a vertical fin, rudder reversals can put
'excessive structural loads' on other parts of an airplane,
such as engine struts."

GeeJessieLee!
Now we have not only negated forever the FAA's own definition of
"Design Maneuvering Speed" but we also have absolved all those
crashes and upsets on Boeing 737s that Boeing earlier reluctantly
admitted was indeed, no fooling, a design problem. Not any more.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE IS MERELY AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE RULES

Here is another example of a rule change:

The bastard helicopter-yes-no-airplane V22 Osprey program has been
in deep trouble with a number of soldier-killing crashes. So, now the
rules are being changed by the Navy so that ... "No longer does the craft
have to be able to land without power when it's in helicopter mode."

What? Do you realize that means the Osprey is now safe to crash!
"Say you lost an engine, Marine 1234? Okay, you are cleared to crash in
your present location!"

DON'T LET THIS CONTINUE

Every pilot in America --- from the student pilot to the Airline Transport
Pilot --- should be offended by these blatant attempts to change the
nature of flying. Don't you just love the phrase, " ... military or general
aviation pilot training -- 'typically does not apply' to large transport
aircraft operations?"

Excuse me, but It has typically applied for decades. But now all is
different? Every hear of the tail section of a DC3, 5, 6 or 7 falling off
in midflight?

Is the basic Flight Instructor now doing his student a disservice by using
Dutch Rolls to teach him coordinated use of controls?

Has anyone ever ripped the tail section off a Cessna while instructing
control coordination techniques? No, because the Cessna is designed
and constructed to perform in a normal matter. Why suddenly are Transport
Aircraft immune from previous design minima? Because they keep
crashing?

As a pilot, please make your views know now. It IS Important.
Every Email or letter counts!

T. D. Ponder
Airline Transport Pilot
716 40th Place
Birmingham, AL
205 785-1615
tdponder@juno.com

http://www.angelfire.com/al/TDsFunpage/index.html

Contacts:

Email:

Your Congressmen
http://www.mrsmith.com/index2.html

Snail Mail:

NTSB
NTSB Headquarters
490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20594
(202) 314-6000

FAA

Federal Aviation Administration
Aviation Safety Hotline, ASY-300
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591

Aviation Safety

**ScareBus 1 Safety 0**

ScareBus 1 Safety 0