Did a Poorly Trained Pilot Cause Flight 587's Crash?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 мар 2015
- When American Airlines Flight 587 crashed into a Queens, NY, neighborhood, investigators identified the extreme rudder movements as a key reason. But why would an experienced pilot make such a basic mistake?
From: AIR DISASTERS: Queens Catastrophe
bit.ly/1ErVVJN 
Развлечения
![Gunna - Whatsapp (Wassam) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TKRkcvu8V5M/mqdefault.jpg)
Rudder moves three times: falls
My playing war thunder: swings rudder for the entire game
yes but everyone hates war thunder
Those are military aircraft, they were meant to handle the strain. This is a civilian jet that is meant to be taken off, flown in a straight line and landed with minimal maneuvering.
Yes true
@@plasticballs no I don't, I play it all the time
I'd like to see the Concorde pull 25 g's
It’s amazing American Airlines have specifically trained their pilots to crash the plane.
Shut up
I wonder the person who designed this specific training has been asked to take some responsibilities for the cause of this crash?
American Airlines:
We lie about things to make you feel better!
Gabriel Afonso not anymore
No, American Airlines just exaggerated their training.
Nice simulation with windows media player at 00:49.
lol
I'm dead
Yup, caught red handed.
TLCM hahahahahaha
lol xD that play button
That Is why I practice emergency landings in X Plane 10.
zahid hussain lol same
Adam Bratvold BTW wanna hear my top 5 emergency landings in X plane 10?
zahid hussain Lol i make water landings
Tom B it isnt a water landing it is "crashing into the ocean" truly from list 25
...ok then
Captain Jerry Seinfeld
First Officer Harry Potter
Lol
Omg yes
Lolololol
unfortunately he didn't bring his wand to make a spell to keep his aircraft float... 😂
Huh. I saw First Officer Dwight K. Schrute.
How American Airlines didn't go under after this still continues to shock me.
Why would they? It was Molin’s fault. He had been previously reported by other pilots for his improper overuse of the rudder.
3 words...the american taxpayer.
@@maireadcostigan1934 How is it his fault if thats how he was trained?
@@ey7290 exactly the people that trained them to use the rudder aggressively it’s purely their fault.
@@Nick-1992-SRB
A/A didn't teach this.
I’m glad the First Officer was somewhat vindicated. He was just following his training.
H
To be fair the vertical stabilizer was weakened before the plane even took off as they said in an official record and the pilot completely overreacted and caused the already weakened stabilizer to break off by using erradic inputs. Both coming together caused a tragedy, although I have to say that normally you can feel the inputs changing the way the plane flies and "lays" on the wind, so he should have felt that the turbulence was in fact his own input.
there was no training to make those rudder inputs and there was NEVER any confirmation Sten made those inputs. the FDR did not distinguish between the rudder pedals and the yaw damper.
I didn't know Sten personally ... but he and all professional airline pilots deserve better than the treatment from the NTSB.
@@jungletrouble8296 would da tail still brake off if it was new?
He wasn’t vindicated. The NTSB report concluded he was responsible for the accident.
If you overused the rudder while in the air and the speed is high,the tail will break
no shit
+Chuadda but theres shit in my toilet you fucking idiot
+AnimatorGuy _360 you should try flushing it
That's what happen if you don't follow #### the pilot should know
That's also what happen when you don't follow the training
My grandma's friend lived exactly where the plane crashed. That morning, she decided to leave early to get something, I think it was a pair of keys.
So she drove off, making her way, and going to work.
When work ended she saw she had missed calls from my grandma, so she answered them and was bombarded by questions like "are you ok!?". She asked my grandma what she was talking about, and my grandma told her a plane had crashed into her house.
She didn't really believe it until she drove home and found her block flattened. Turns out the plane had crashed only 15 minutes after she left. Usually she'd still be home at that point.
It was an amazing coincidence for her
Damm
Angel on her shoulders for sure. Blessed
I was lucky as well! That day I was living in The Netherlands because I was born there. What if I weren’t?
Close call for me!
@@basvanvliet288 Very funny, now go back to dancing in your wood shoes and make me some cheese.
If the tail came off it should still fly u have to use engine power for the plane to go left,right,up,down
True Story, I worked as an Engineer at Boeing in the early 2000's during the initial design of the 787. It was rough because we were trying to design an airplane to compete with Airbus that always just follows the FAA/JAA rules to the letter of the law, while Boeing analysts would often impose higher requirements.
The investigators of flight 587 (An Airbus) came to the Boeing factory and observed visually that the 777 vertical stabilizer joint was way more robust than the Airbus design. When they met with the Boeing Engineers later to discuss the investigation they asked why this was.
A Boeing designer quipped "That would be Tom." He was referring to Tom Jones, the analyst for Boeing responsible for the 777 tail. Tom was about 75-80 years old at this time, so I would have to believe he has passed away now. Tom Jones replied "I know the FAA rules do not require the tail to be strong enough for this scenario, but there is nothing preventing the pilot from actually doing it."
That is the legacy of "If it's not Boeing I'm not going." It absolutely is a real thing. Unfortunately, The mighty have fallen since then. It's too bad.
Wow
Yeh the investigation agency gave Boeing too many "perks and less strictness.." and Boeing loss all their strengths.
The recent Boeing Senate hearings.. did you watch them? Crazy
Sadly that "moto" is gone with Tom.
Yea sadly it's the opposite now, if it's Boeing I'm not going
Their decline started when they merged with McDonnell Douglas
0:49 Woah,Windows media player can be used as a simulator,definitely will try
Why the fuck are you commenting twice?
That's really funny. They were probably playing a video of an animation.
copied approved
@@sandaru6926 why copy the word "copy"?
Stop doing that
@@napoleonbonaparte7172 yeah you also copied copy.
1:41 man the dude looks scary
Tameem that’s the actor not the real guy, search sten molins on the internet
Me- who looks scary? Let me click
Also me- 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Mans looks like a bronze statue
aftermathsample305 ok
Tameem bro he is American
Apparently the hinges connecting the rudder to the tail were stronger than the entire fuselage-tail connection, which just seems like bad design to me. If only the control-surface itself had snapped off there would've been an issue, but you can land a plane without it's rudder. Easier anyway than without the entire vertical stabiliser.
That is actually not the case. When the rudder was rotated 11 degrees, the plane started rotating, and the angle between the rudder and the wind was reduced, while the angle between the stabilizer and the wind increased.
Suddenly, the rudder was jammed the other way, and due to inertia, and other factors, the yaw angle was greater than before.
The third time, even if the rudder angle was 11 degrees, the plane could have just as well had a 40+ degree yaw angle.
In addition, the surface of the stabilizer is much greater than that of the rudder, meaning a LOT more force is exerted on it.
Peter Timowreef A B-52 landed with no tail
Completely UNACCEPTABLE that the tail came off just from using the rudder....I don't care if the pilot played Dixie with the rudder. BAD DESIGN PERIOD
@@BijahD There's not a single plane whose tail you can't rip off by this kind of rudder usage. If it's mechanical, you can break it.
@@BijahD what are you on? Do you have any Idea the amount of forces were applied? You cant possibly think a commercial plane should sustain multiple g's of force without breaking apart
At high speeds (above 200 MPH) there is plenty of air moving over the tail fin of an airliner, so even just 1º of movement is enough to turn the airplane's nose to either side. In fact, at such speeds 1 or 2 degrees of any control surface movement (ailerons, rudder, elevators) is more than enough to make the airplane respond.
This is precisely why I can't understand why he moved them around so much.... He seemed to have panicked :/
Wake turbulence. His inexperience killed the plane. I would not say it is his fault, just his inexperience that tragically discover this possibility . There is no previous accident caused by the “excessive input of rudder” and it was not even in the FAA safety rules so nobody would have known that could happen.
ya mean knots? ( i am confused )
Co Pilot panicked.
If subsonic
11 degrees left...
11 degrees right...
(Awkward silence)
Could’ve he ripped the tail off his own plane?
I find it funny how the rudder input has a stop light lol
Kyoshi Matzui A strobe light
I remember back early in my career when I was flying 737's, I followed a FedEx DC-10 down the runway about 1 minute after he departed. It was quite a ride for about 2 minutes, but neither the Captain or myself felt any need to make any adjustments. We were able to climb faster than the DC-10, so after about two minutes had passed, we were back in smooth air, made our turn to the west and continued on.
From the animations, it looks to me like the FO panicked :/
P.S. Love DC-10s. Go FedEx. Used to live in Memphis and loved watching them roll in.
Plane crashes
its brighter here
No survivor
@@coconutjam6013 You are way telling the truth. Nobody on the plane survived American Airlines Flight 587's crash. This is one of the worst and scariest plane crashes ever! Answer me.
@@Arkensius1157 4 months with no reply, that's rough
@normal human factual
@@Christian-be2eh No, it is ok if your reply is tardy (late)
It wasn't only AA training. Other pilots that flew with the first officer said he used the rudder pedals way to much when he did not need to.
... which he was *taught* to do by *AA training*
@@eggypankakesexactly my thoughts when I read the other comment
@@eggypankakes No he was not.
Pilots were not taught by AA to gun the rudder like Molin did.
He was trained that this scenario was going to push him into a 90 degree bank only recoverable with rudder, of course hes going to react this way@@Andee-zc5nw
Rudder overused=the tail will break
No shit
the 737 rudder failures resulted in only 1 movement, its when you move the rudder back and forth multiple times, the aircraft starts to pick up a strong yawing motion which greatly increases the loads on the tail. The composite plastic components are just as strong, in fact for any given mass its actually stronger than steel. It doesn't matter what material is used, the minimum legal strength remains the same, so the designed just uses as much material as necessary to meet (and usually exceed) that strength. In the case of the Airbus A300, that min strength was exceeded by a large factor
sounds correct to me.
I T S B R I G H T H E R E
Stop spamming the same thing
props to the cameraman for having the strength to survive a plane crash
Hi, Pharmacist. Can you get me my drugs.
All he needs is Motrin and water.
@@5starryansl ok here you go 😔
@@melissamariano7700 thanks
Cameramen are immortal that's why I am always recording when I am in a difficult situation
Just 3 violent moves!? Damn
Spudzlee yeah I know right? And i haven’t even watched the video yet!
3 violent moves is all it takes for a bitch to make you blow your load early. A plane is no different apparently 😂🤣
1:54 he's still alive!
Thats more like a trowback to show hes been training before
Luckily, the pilot was born on Krypton.
XD he is the actor XD
@@lostjustlost9706 he's joking
It was back in his training before the accident
this channel owns rare comment sections that dont make you feel awkward commenting after the video has been out for 5 years
James Ozzello
11 months ago
I’ve got over 8000 hours and currently fly an Airbus A320 for Jet Blue. Large inputs to the flight controls are used often and under many circumstances.
Even though the 300 is not fly by wire, there is no way the rudder faltered due to the application of full rudder control. The aircraft was well under maneuvering speed and I’ve never, ever heard an aircraft make a significant sound due to wake turbulence.
They departed plenty of time after the 747 and were also at a slightly different altitude through climb out. FAA was covering for Airbus.
The plane was previously damaged in weather overseas and I’m sure there were complications where a band aid was used to get the plane through to its next overhaul.
Airlines save time and money at all costs, and sometimes it costs lives. At the end of the day, it’s a business, and I love Airbus, but sometimes responsibility trumps optics, and unfortunately in this imperfect world, we can’t be prepared or foresee every single possible scenario.
We do the best we can, but flying is inherently dangerous given the amount of changing factors on a daily basis. God bless and clear skies.
agreed.
I hope the poor loved one's attorneys knew that AA is 100% responsible for killing those people.
This is an incredible demonstration of human development and exploration. The information that has been provided in this RUclips video is fascinating! Thank you, Smithsonian Channel!
**Rudder flies off**
Passenger: **chuckles** "I'm in danger."
*chuckles* I'm going to die
Oh god 😳😳😳😳
From Dexters Lab
maybe put extra bolts on the tail to keep it attached, like boeing does on its planes. Oh yea the extra bolts cost money, nevermind.
jony joe yeah an average american can probably afford to put extra bolts onto that plane, seriously 30 bolts is enough.
jony joe true
jony joe it's strong boeing has had less failures than Airbus or any thing else
MrStig691 Boeing had been in operation since 1916. How are you even comparing its numbers with that of Airbus which started in like the 1970s.
It feels like Boeing crashes more but Boeing sold more airplanes -_-
vertical stabilizer breaks off
plane falls to the ground like it is going 0 mph
Well it goes to flat spin almost immediately
A plane cannot fly without a vertical stabilizer. The plane will just fall because of the massive shift in forces to the very sensitive plane.
Without the rudder the plane will drift where it is headed until the drag of drifting sideways has eaten up all the forward speed and it falls almost vertically
JAL 123, it still fly with nightmare within minutes.
The video =People die in the video
The video =Joyful Music starts
The video =Says it's brighter here
Me = wtf is wrong with people theas days😂😂😂😂
Эххх
same
You are probably the person that doesn't understand anything about aviation.
The video: uses windows media player for simulation 😂😂 0:50
Same for me
Without the vertical stabilizer, aircraft went into a high-g flat spin resulting in both engines being ripped off and separated from the main impact area. Completely omitted from this account.
They weren’t that high in the air yet. So the passengers didn’t have to suffer for very long. Unlike the Alaska airlines crash in 2000. Going straight down from 24,000 Feet. That would suck.
POV: You check the comments to see there are barely any, but the video has 3 million views 🤯
Don’t call him undertrained. It might hurt his feelings
I believe this happened often on previous flights such that the vertical stabiliser was so weakened at this point it just required a little force to rip it off the plane’s body
So did this happen because he was regularly flying the route and this plane ?
@@Polentaccio although previous pilots said that Molin was excessive with rudder inputs, it was the condition of this plane as a whole, and by fate he flew that route with the plane and based on his rudder inputs (due to his training) the rudder finally gave out
@@perfectlyimperfect1938 one more time (I got pinged from months ago)
AA's AAMP (Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program, IIRC the acronym correctly, it HAS been a minute) did not teach this "rudder doublet" and the NTSB could not determine whether the First Officer or the yaw damper made the inputs. (Airbus design) Nor could they determine if the point at which the FDR recorded the doublets ... if the vertical stab was still on the airframe.
the vertical stab was "weakened" by a runaway yaw damper the week prior to the mishap. The fleet had a history of yaw damper malfunctions.
yet, the YT channel and far too many commenters here blindly accept the NTSB's report.
1:05 *Component failure popup*
Guy looking for the problem: "There!"
I hate how it takes a major plane accident and a lot of people's lives before people realize they are doing something wrong...
What sucks is that the turbulence was not that bad. Had they been patient, everything would be fine.
It's very good that they realized the training error and corrected it, but unfortunately that will never bring back those 200 plus people who lost their lives during this terrible accident. AA also initially blamed first Officer Stan Molin for this accident making it seem as if he was an incompetent pilot dragging his name through the mud.
AA protected Sten Molin. Molin had a history of overreacting to minor jet wash.
I’m here because of book “Clap When You Land”. It is such a great book 👍🏻
Same! I was shocked to learn the book was based off of true events. Rest the souls of all who lost their lives on that fateful day.🇩🇴🇩🇴
Why would the rudder tear off so easily?
He basically gave the rudder a lot of tension, it's not like it was made of vibranium.
I don't care what it is made of, rudder movement of 11 degrees isn't that much, especially at only 250 knots. Pilot error or no, rudders shouldn't tear off under those conditions. Cheap made airplane.
Actually there is a warning in the Airbus manual that clearly states not use the rudder that hard at high speed because of it being sensitive. I have seen the whole one hour program and AA had some bad training at that time. Airbus is not a cheap plane. You can also rip the tail off from a Boeing as well if the rudder is used in the wrong manner
+Jack P. oh wow thanks for the info man. I'm not a pilot of anything I just find aviation interesting.
Jack P. 550 knots is high speed, 250 knots not so much for 11 degrees rudder. Cheap made plane.
I should imagine the main effect of wake turbulence would be to make the wings wobble left and right, so he should have corrected with ailerons, not the rudder, any flight simmer could have told him that.
A little disconcerting that too much rudder input will rip the vertical stabilizer off...
“Sten! You’re breaking the plane!”
Ive always been so fascinated with aviation accidents. My uncle died on USair flight 1016 a year before i was born, and all my life i was always so curious about it.
My uncle was a pilot and died in a plane crash in WWII before I was born
"What's the solution to stop pilots doing something?"
"How about a light that says stop"
"Sounds about right"
0:45 damn a nice pc
I’ve seen this somewhere else! Isn’t it true that the rudder is also more sensitive during flight? Like it takes less pressure for the rudder to move while flying or something?
1:43 creepy
2020 anyone?
Yup
@@jlbricks1 oh its strange there are few comments maybe they disabled it before
Good morning. Lol
@@BeachBuggin goodmorning too
Me
Im surprised it couldn’t fly without the vertical stabilizer. You see those old
Photos from ww2 of bombers coming home
Without them
Ironic, as it was tragic, the pilot was well-trained; he was taught to crank the rudder in the wake of another plane.
Vincent Cuttolo you’re absolutely right. The error was not with the pilot. He was doing whet he was taught to do. The training was flawed. Since then, they’ve modified the training considerably with regard to rudder use in similar wake circumstances.
i died when he said could he have ripped the tail off his own plane
This is one tragic example of the fact that simulations and models are always only as good as the data that are fed to them.
I had two close friends that lost family members in this crash and an aunt who still lives about a mile from the crash site..one lost his grandmother to who he was very close and I'll never forget how hard he took it..being a new Yorker around 9/11 was kinda crazy to me but.i never thought this was a terrorist attack though...i hope all airlines learned important lessons from this crash..for one that a schedule isn't more important than lives...they knew they clearing the flight right behind the jal flight and that most likely they'd experience a wake.. hopefully they space flights out a bit more to keep that from happening though I'm sure they didn't know something like that could happen..it's a crazy example of trying to fix something but just make it worse as if the first officer did nothing at all they would've most likely been ok but he was working the rudder so hard and fast that it ended up being counterproductive and pushing them further into the wake until the VS couldn't take it anymore.. disasters are always sad but especially when they could have been prevented ....Que Descanse en Paz
Wake turbulence or wingtip vortices increases when closer to landing or takeoff due to ground effect and the way that air is being moved on the runway environment. It's still good practice to avoid when flying in the sky but a critical time you might roll over would be in or above ground effect.
I worked for American Airlines at JFK at this time. This flight was going to Dominican Republic. AA only had 30 of what we used to call the scare bus. My office was next to the gate area where they would depart these flights everyday. I would see all the Dominican people there and the beautiful Dominican women. This day was a very very bad day. We put thousands of people on planes closed the doors and sent them on their Merry way each day. Until one plane didn’t even get a few miles away and you could see the smoke. I went to the AA memorial service for this. Many of the pilots were there. This was only a month after 9/11 when “supposedly” we lost another plane. New York was raining airliners that fall. We were all very shook up and in need a help dealing which we never got.
"There! That would've done it"
I'm glad we've got Mr Holmes working on this case otherwise we'd never have figured it out from the giant "COMPONENT FAILURE" message.
This is scary man, incompetence on the party of American Air. You’d swear they where train Air Force fighters
It's pretty sad and scary that most of the changes that happen in the aviation industry is the result of people dying.
Yeah
"The History of Safety Regulation is Written in Blood "
Who else watching in 2020
Meeeee
I
Me
Me
nope, 1876 here.
0:22 the way he said that tho0:24-0:25
Watch an all-day marathon of these episodes the day before your next flight. Enjoy the ride!
man it is so sad rest in peace to all that died
I remember this plane crash. Rip all those souls.
angelincal 😭
I remember it very clearly too. I remember being utterly appalled when I saw the picture of the fully intact rear stabilizer. I remember being more appalled when the directive came out from airbus to 'not use the rudder too much'.....couldn't believe my ears.
When implementing this in the training program why didn't they test this procedure beforehand. Poor training material
It is a bit like yield sign on the road, a driver qualified to drive but not knowing the existence of yield sign despite its existence results in a car crash.
The maximum rudder angle for a given maneuver decreases the higher the speed gets. Go beyond the limit and the forces are exponental
Now how in the world did American Airlines (world's largest carrier) even come up with this training? What sort of company structure would allow that ridiculous training to get through an approval process? It's truly mind-boggling
They actually didn’t train their pilots to make massive inputs on the rudder the way Molin did.
to everyone who is watching this video. This is stupid. We all know that it was the airline's fault here. The pilots were NOT trained by the airline to deal with a failed tail rudder or whatever its called. The pilots did their best. ALSO the cockpit instruments didn't tell them what the issue was. So they had to guess what the problem was and where it was coming from.
Jeremy Greenlee simple understanding of physics should have told the pilot to hold back, but the stupid pilot single handedly crashed the plane. plain and simple.
Jeremy Greenlee there wasn't a problem to begin with, the First Officer did the takeoff and was trained poorly on how to behave in turbulence. The first officer reacted poorly and put the plane into that situation. Of course this is not entirely his fault. The airline trained him poorly and the captain did not really do much to help him out, or attempted to take control when he saw him struggling. Also there is really no recovery from a lost tail, therefore no training.
The rudder inputs have a limit, its even stated before this crash
Yeah training wrong airlines wrong
You can't dismiss the fault on the pilot, though. It's not as if he went into that training with *zero* idea on how to deal with wake turbulence.
There is a yaw damper systems onboard which will not allow the pilot to apply too much rudder based on airspeed
Well done for demonstrating a compete lack of understanding.
Now everyone is a expert of knowing what to do so suddenly
Tip: Never Ever Fly in American Airlines 👍🏻
Good idea
Every airline has had a crash its not just american airlines
The rudder had about 91 tonnes of force before it ripped off
Like a third of the planes entire weight
this crash always stuck with me bc of the video of the stablizer being lifted out of the water. just like twa 800 and the fiery debris field is still vivid in my head and I was around 6 when that happened. those 2 images are probably responsible for my interest in aviation disasters as an adult.
The fact this happened two months after 9/11, would probably explain why I didn’t hear this news back when I was 8
I got a ad saying do you want to be a pilot then come and learn bruhhh
That Pilot effed up!
No, his training did. Did you see the video?
Even so, it shows how easily one man's actions can doom hundreds of others in a very short amount of time. It's been proven that most crashes are due to human error.
KoolCat ! I wouldn’t say most, maybe like 50/50
Nice idea.
- See that control over there?
- Yes, it's rudder pedal.
- Well, you don't use it. It may break.
- Is it out of service? Should we file it for repairs?
- It is completely operational. You just don't use it, or it will break.
What type of an aircraft is that that you are not able to use the rudders as build in and the mechanical stability does not absorbe this allowed limits ?
if only they invented an ejector seat for the passengers
All planes should have the detachable cabin thing
@@hi-ot8kf Sure way to get everyone killed.
Have you ever ejected out of a high performance aircraft?
@@kellyreim6627 not lately
They need to install backup rudders...
Easier to make a stronger stabilizer, or to have weaker rudder hinges to make tearing off your own rudder impossible.
Zako srsly how and were will they install it and who will even read it Boeing engineers?
Better yet, a giant parachute that comes out the back end.
That’s not actually possible...
KoolCat ! That is not possible. Unless you are a really small aircraft like a buisness jet or a cessna
The NTSB said that contributing to the crash were characteristics of the airplane's rudder system design and elements of the airline's pilot training program.
Amazing how they find out the problem
May Mowlin's soul Rest In Peace! RIP. Eternal Rest grant unto him O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him and may he Rest In Peace!
“The training simulator has been modified to be more realistic”
Well, Sherlock that might just help 🤦♂️
Is the full vid on RUclips yet??
Moving the rudder few times broke off.. there more than meets the eye mostly in maintenance of the rudder
"they dont under stand hwy"
Give us full vids
When your simulation is on windows 7 and media player...
This is the message to all Captains. Whoever found or sensed their f/o have some problems during descending, please turn over immediately!!
Idk why, but these are so so addicting to watch. I fly very often, and I fly overseas. I probably shouldnt be watching all these, but.......
Bruh bring a parachute when on American Airlines or Qantas airline....
Passengers without any training cannot survive a parachute landing. I know you are joking though
Qantas has a great safety record
@@sheeprambeta3217 depends
@@sheeprambeta3217 ahahah yh good point
@@mylastbraincell690 not on Smithsonian lol
There is no way any pilot input could be severe enough to shear the tail off a commercial transport plane considering the plane was operating under 250KIAS since they were under 10,000'. This is well below any control surface loading limits.
Most likely, it was either a design/manufacturing defect or terrorism.
No. It was the result of a misfire of the US government's Aurora space weapon. It's capable of sending electrically-phased microwave pulses. An indirect hit would have destroyed the plane's electronics, causing erratic rudder movements capable of ripping off the tail (just like you can break bones in a seizure). A direct hit would have vaporized the aluminum of the plane, causing explosive decompression and structural failure. Either could have caused the "accident".
It was a design failure with the A300/A310 (only the the first few produced) I’m which the vertical stab wasn’t attached as well as it needed to be
You would be correct if it sheared off under normal maneuvers
Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. This is probably one of the best examples of that. You teach someone wrong, they will do wrong. I can't say that I blame the first officer for the accident
0:50 You can see them playing the “simulation” using Windows Media Player.
There was another pilot who did the exact same thing .. he took off after a big giant Japanese plane .. and then he stomped the router about five times because he thought he was in turbulence but he was the one creating the "turbulence" .. the tail broke off .. the plane spun out and crashed in Queens! .. killed everybody!!
😎👍🏽
This is that
Oh that's good .. I thought it must be a design flaw! 😳
There could be sensors as in anti- lock brake systems, that would detect to much rudder ( or any flight control surface) of excessive hydraulic force and at lest warn flight crew if not override inputs.
Flying your ship to structure damage level is just way to much input force to control surface, essentially,
you're asking your ship to do what she can not do and disaster lurks nearby.
As with any vehicle powerful controls require respect and judicial use accordingly.
Flight crews are in charge of many hundreds of lives at any one time. They must be fully adept at there craft for all the lives involved. Here the captain should have immediately took the aircraft.
Those degree turns are not mostly used during flight, mainly doing it for taxiing to the runway, or parking it.