Jet's tail stabilizer found, could offer clues
 

Saw that. Evidence points to trouble (icing?) of the pitot tubes causing erroneously low airspeed readings. I'm hoping our resident pilots will comment on this.

Ice on the pitot tubes seems unlikely as they all have capability of operating with anti-icing systems, which shoiuld be turned on within a certain temperature range well before freezing and in visible moisture. As a former pilot, I hate to say it, but this tragedy is starting to appear as pilot error. No one in their right mind goes driving through a cell, no matter how big the aircraft.

Remember that AA Airbus that went down off of JFK in 2001? Parts of the tail came off due to excessive control inputs. Seem the bigger Airbus models are quite sensitive to that.

Yes, I was shocked to learn that many of these structures are epoxyed together. Now that is some glue..........

Without knowing what happened it's impossible to say when the tail came off. Was it causative or consequential? As for pilot error. I think it's way to early to tell. Severe weather can form and dissipate extremely quickly, especially in the tropic's. From the satellite picture of the storms with the planes apparent flight path superimposed it looks to me like they might have attempted to adjust course to try and fly thru the mildest part. To properly circumnavigate the whole line of storms might not have been possible by the time they realized how bad they were.

- Peter.

I was quite surprised when they said "the pilot pushed the pedal too hard". That was about the most lame thing I ever heard. I don't think a car company could get away with that. "you pushed the brakes too hard so your car blew up, your fault." It seems more like "our plane is structurally defective, your fault." Ever since then I tried to fly on Boeing planes only. Being from Seattle it is easy to find support for this idea.

Boeing isn't perfect either. Google "737 rudder problem" some time.

Is that the one where Alaska didn't grease the screw, or is that the one with the valve that would work backwards when it froze? Or something else? At least the frikkin tail didn't fall off the plane because the pilot pushed the pedals! At the very least you program the computer to limit actuations that will make the tail fall off! Or maybe glue it on better?

It's the backwards valve. As long as you have enough airspeed, you can still steer with the ailerons. If you're going too slow, the rudder makes more force than the ailerons can overcome and you get steered or flipped into terrain. Bad day.

there was an issue with the 737 but since the FAA ordered the updates, haven't heard a thing concerning any 737 rudder issues. any plane can fall out of the sky, however given a choice, I'd rather board a Boeing aircraft......

Can you imagine what it will be like when the first A380 goes down? That jet can carry up to 853 people all at once. What a juicy target that makes.

Taken out of context, you draw an erroneous conclusion..........an unfortunate fact given the state of the media these days.

The issue is not "pushing the pedal too hard". The issue was the fact that the pilot used heavy right rudder and then immediately corrected his mistake with a heavy left rudder and finally, another heavy right rudder. The intense forces developed in the resulting sideslip were greater than the aircraft could handle.

This behavior is not specific to an Airbus airplane. Given the same set of events, any Boeing aircraft is also susceptible to a similar fate.

Well, I never heard of a tail falling off of a Boeing plane ever.

Well, I never heard of a rudder hardover on a Airbus airplane...........causing a crash and total loss of aircraft.............TWICE............ever.

Well, I never heard of a cargo door blowing off an Airbus airplane..........causing a crash and a total loss of aircraft............ever.


Your bias has fully eradicated any judgment that you may have possessed.

That was a McDonnell Douglas MD-83.
A tragedy caused by cost cutting bean counters.

Not quite correct.

The "bean counters" never stated that specific maintenance tasks should not be performed in the interest of saving money.

The culture at the airline, however, tended to ignore the need for fully complying with the required maintenance tasks at each check. How this develops is gradual and sinister and is not simply explained by "bean counter".

I wouldn't say it has been fully eradicated. I just said the TAILS never fall off. Hopefully that was just a one time occurrence for Airbus.

I do not recall the rudder hardover issue. What was the solution to that? I do recall the door latching systems got redesigned and retrofitted.

So, the fact that the tail of a Boeing aircraft never separated from the fuselage gives you supreme confidence in all Boeing products over their competition............??

It's not a one time occurrence. It can happen again on any aircraft if the pilot mishandles the controls.

Read up about the 737 crashes in Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh..........and understand that Boeing has its share of issues on poor designs.