TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
This post isn't inspired by the recent thread about warnings, but rather a
magazine article I'm reading at this very moment. (Okay, technically I'm
typing at this very moment, but I was reading it a moment ago.)
I think most people on this list are aware that almost exactly a year ago,
on November 12, 2001, American Airlines flight 587 crashed in NYC, killing
265 people. The Airbus A300 encountered turbulence when it passed through
the wake of a Boeing 747. A very short time later, the vertical stabilizer
ripped off the Airbus. This left the airplane uncontrollable, and it crashed
into Jamaica Bay.
National Transportation Safety Board hearings were held last week. Quoting
from the report in "Aviation Week & Space Technology" (11/4 p. 51):
"The investigation so far has determined the tail came off due to massive
structural overload caused by motions of the rudder, and not a flaw in the
tail's structure. The point at which the tail broke was 29% beyond that
required by certification regulations. Airbus engineers estimate the tail
broke at 1.93 times the limit load, whereas it is only required to withstand
an ultimate load of 1.5 times limit load. In fact, during ground static
tests the tail broke at 1.93 times limit load."
Flight data recorder information suggests the rudder moved to extreme
positions because the pilot was quickly slamming the rudder pedals in an
effort to counter the wake turbulence from the 747. Testimony from other
pilots who have flown with the Flt 587 pilot indicate that in fact this was
something that this particular pilot had done in other aircraft. The
testimony also suggest the Flt 587 pilot believed this was an allowable
procedure. According to the article, a review of the training material
suggests that there's no specific prohibition against the maneuver.
In fact, quoting another paragraph on P. 47 of that same issue:
"Keeping in mind that until the...crash...most transport pilots were unaware
that rapid rudder reversals could cause the tail to rip off the aircraft,
the safety board zeroed in on why and how this crucial information, familiar
to flight test engineers and manufacturers, is not included in...training
programs."
And this is my assumption, but probably not in the flight manual either.
It's very possible that a couple of well-placed warnings in the
documentation may have been able to prevent this accident.
--Rick Lippincott
Lockheed Martin
Saugus, MA
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Order RoboHelp X3 in November and receive $100 mail in rebate, FREE WebHelp
Merge Module and the new RoboPDF - add powerful PDF output functionality
to RoboHelp X3. Order online today at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
Check out SnagIt - The Screen Capture Standard!
Download a free 30-day trial from http://www.techsmith.com/rdr/txt/twr
Find out what all the other tech writers, including Dan, already know!
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
