Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Aerospace What made an Airbus rudder snap in mid-air?

  1. Mar 13, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1436374,00.html

    As you can imagine, there is great interest from Boeing on this one.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 13, 2005 #2
    Hmm, the only thing I can think of is extreme metal fatigue.

    Probably a problem at the plant where the metal was smelted. And if that part is composite, bad technique in putting it together.

    But honestly, that is really baffling as to how a 28 foot high vertical stabilizer could break off.

    Was the pilot able to land the plane, or did it crash?

    It seems like rudders are a problem still. I remember a few years ago when B-737 rudders would stick to one side. One crashed into a mountain in Colorado Springs because of it. Another, the pilot was able to wrestle the plane back. That pilot has two big brass ones for successfully fighting a 737.
     
  4. Mar 13, 2005 #3

    enigma

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    why is it that the articles wait until the third paragraph before they come to the most likely explanation:

    I guess the general populace doesn't think like an engineer...
     
  5. Mar 13, 2005 #4

    Q_Goest

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  6. Mar 13, 2005 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I like this comment from your link

     
  7. Mar 13, 2005 #6
    This article suggests pilot dogma is to blame:

    --
    [...] the NTSB has determined that the pilot flying the Airbus caused the vertical fin to break off by rapidly moving the rudder from side to side. The Airbus was flying at a speed below Va and so, according to pilot dogma, should have been immune from a structural failure. But we pilots were wrong.
    --
    http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=527
     
  8. Mar 13, 2005 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The entire point of a flight control system is to improve the handling and safety of the plane. The plane should not allow the pilot to do something that could snap off the rudder/stabilizer. This is a design flaw in the flight control system, and since this is happening frighteningly often, a flaw in the engineering of the tail as well.

    Airbus needs to stop playing the liability avoidance blame game and fix this. It'll hurt them badly if they don't - what other airliner have you ever heard of that had a problem like this?

    edit: another thing the article mentions that is certainly worthy of investigation is fatigue of composites. Composites are hard and strong, but they are brittle. Trust me: I have a set of graphite shaft golf clubs with a design flaw that concentrates the shock of striking the ball at the end of the hosel (where the shaft meets the club head). They break often. It is possible that the fatigue-ing of these airplane parts has not been adequately tested.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2005
  9. Mar 13, 2005 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Airbus may already be in deep but are only now realizing it. They are heavily invested in composite materials. Apparently the possiblity of a fundamental problem here is what peaks expectations among some Boeing people.
     
  10. Mar 14, 2005 #9
    This may be an issue for bicycle frames and forks, as well:


    --
    Also, I am well aware of how brittle carbon frames are. A carbon fork will "snap" instantly under an impact that would, at most, slightly bend a steel fork. (And, the steel fork can often be repaired). When carbon suffers a "fatigue" failure, it fails instantly, not over a period of months, as does a steel frame. Not a problem for a "Pro" with a new bike waiting for him on top of the team van. A more serious problem for average folks. A "instant" frame failure can cause serious injury to your body, as well as to your bank account.

    You may remember when Lance had a crash at the TdF near the top of a mountain stage. He may have been going only 10 mph at the time of impact. The crash was minor, and he hopped back on his bike. He had trouble getting the chain to mesh with his cogs...the right chainstay had cracked. A steel frame would have had, perhaps, a small dent in the same sort of crash. An easy repair.

    I understand the reasons a "Pro" rider might prefer carbon. Lighter weight during a mountain stage. Free for the first bike. A free replacement in a few months (I have not heard of a single "Pro" riding a carbon frame that is more than one year old). But, for a "Joe Average" rider like me, a steel frame is still the best way to go.
    --
    http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-71040
     
  11. Mar 14, 2005 #10
    It seems like both Boeing and Airbus are having problems with rudders.

    The B-737 had a hydraulic issue that opened a valve on its own, causing a severe turn.

    But the Airbus sounds like a composite failure. That is what sucks about composites, they show no failure signs until they break.

    Also, why would the tail break off if the pilot is moving it back and forth very fast? Airbus has fly-by-wire controls, so the electric motors would break, that is plausible, but not the whole structure breaking off.
     
  12. Mar 14, 2005 #11

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Out of curiosity, does anyone have an idea about the fatigue crack propagation rates & the failure respective fracture toughness in the types of composites they use in these constructs ? Was wondering about the ratio of growth to rates in steels and how small the critical crack sizes actually are....
     
  13. Mar 14, 2005 #12

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The Boeing issue was with severe thermal shock on the rudder's power control unit (a very cold actuator and very hot hydraulic fluid). It is a good story to read because it shows that sometimes you really have to look long and hard and get lucky in failure analysis. One thing that Boeing did on subsequent fixes, which I believe Airbus has yet to do, it to redesign the PCU's with limiters which limit the rudder travel at lower speeds.

    Here's a link to an executive summary for the A300 that crashed after takeoff from JFK (which was not far from where I was living at the time). I know the airline pilot's association does not fully agree with putting some of the blame on the first officer, but it does support design flaws.

    http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.htm
     
  14. Mar 14, 2005 #13

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's not an easy question. The critical flaw size depends on the local stress intensity conditions as related to the local fracture toughness - i.e. the basic definition. Obviously, as the local stress increases the critical flaw size decreases.

    Composites are way more complicated. Most mechanics codes for structural systems do well with continuum mechanics (constitutive) models, and these are general suitable for metals. Composites have a fine microstructure that requires signficantly finer meshing. Also, the local stress intensity distribution is highly non-linear.

    Complicating this the interfacial behavior between fiber and filler/bonding agent.

    It would appear that Airbus's testing is inadequate. Ideally, the DBL's bound the limiting in-field conditions. Fatiguing, however is very complicated because of the variability of high and low stress-intensity. I believe the methodology used in this area still needs significant improvement - as appears to be the case from the anecdotes of broken golf clubs, broken bicycle frames, and lost tail rudders.

    Clearly, Airbus needs to focus on the stress intensity field in the hinge regions of the rudder - high local stress concentrations - and likely beyond their DBL.
     
  15. Mar 14, 2005 #14

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, the different possible failure modes never really "help" with composites, and fracture mechanics of composite structures isn't that straightforward either. It's reasonable to assume that considering the different possible failure mechanisms the "scatter" in structural performance, and as such in safe life, is quite a bit wider than with our safe - bet metallic structures ... got to delve a bit to get a hang of it.

    Would think that with these sorts of structures experimental research would be exercised ... a lot, a whole lot more than we're used to with more damage tolerant materials. Wouldn't want to be responsible for the quality control of these things either .
     
  16. Mar 14, 2005 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The electric motors are stronger than the structure of the rudder, apparently. This, again, goes back to my comment: the plane should not be letting the pilots do something that could break it.

    Regarding fatigue, for months before my golf clubs break, you can hear the individual fibers snapping if you bend the shaft. But overall, the club performs normally right up until it fails completely (I guess with enough fibers severed, the rest go all at once on one impact) - sending the club head up to 50 yards.
     
  17. Mar 14, 2005 #16

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Anyone who plays hockey will tell you the same thing happens with composite shafts. There's no real degredation in how they perform. All of a sudden, half of your stick goes flying across the rink. I personally do not like them.
     
  18. Mar 14, 2005 #17
    Sorry, I meant the motors would fail, not physically break apart. And I agree, the fly-by-wire system should have not allowed that movement. I can understand a hydraulic plane breaking like that, but the computer should have stopped it.

    And yes, all Airbus planes are fly-by-wire.
     
  19. May 27, 2009 #18
    It could not be metal fatigue as it was made of Composite materials,carbon fiber,resins etc.IMO composites tend to keep on curing over time to the point where they lose their flexibility and become brittle.Having worked on Aircraft composite control surfaces as a A&P Mechanic a "New" composite control surface is flexible as it should be.Check the flexibility by bending it a few years later by and the flexibility is not the same.Subject the control surface to the same bending and it will surely crack.I believe this is the reason the Vertical Stabilizers "Rudders" on those airplanes separated at their attach points.The B737 rudder problems were traced to a flawed design in the Rudder hydraulic actuator.Most airplanes have two rudder actuators the B737 was designed with only one.When coming down from high altitude the internal parts were very cold and the coefficient of expansion & contraction of these internals were in conflict causing a uncommanded movement in tne rudder causing several B737's to roll inverted when on approach for landing causing many lost lives when crashing.hydro
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2009
  20. May 28, 2009 #19
    How does a pilot notice a falling object low and to his six? Anyway,

    what model of 310 was it? Airbus is big on reducing mass in every quarter--from avionics to toilet seats.

    I might suggest, to compliment previous speculations, that the 310 may have been under-enjineered by manajerial pressure as a direct result of VPs slinging-about words, concepts, and demands of which they are inherently incapable of comprehending.

    Imagine if you will, some CEO saying to himself, "we could trim the weight off of every subsytem by 30%, and we will."--then pressuring his betters to tell him why it can't done. Not some subsystems. All subsystems. Get the picture?

    Add this to the inherent nature of engineers to project that they are capable of more than they are, and the rest of nature will oblige.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%200008.html

    "The A310-300 weight reduction programme will exceed its 1200kg target"

    The weight reduction program is ongoing to this day. Fuel is a big chunk of commerical air transport costs. Reduction in fuel costs over Boeing per passenger-mile is a big smelling point.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/article...ation-narrowbody-development-on-the-back.html

    Don't underestimate the green energy folks who salivate over instilling fears of atmospheric carbon. Less fuel; less carbon. This works it's magic on the corporate public image. The eco-friendly folks want their day. They will have it. They will kill to get it.

    http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/ecofreight/casestudies/AirTransat-eng.htm

    This is psychology guys, not aerospace.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  21. May 28, 2009 #20
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Tail smale.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: What made an Airbus rudder snap in mid-air?
  1. Airbus strikes Boeing (Replies: 54)

  2. Mid air Stall (Replies: 6)

Loading...