Recently a reader questioned whether it would be possible to loop or roll a jetliner because the forces involved might tear the wings off. The Straight Dope asserted that would not be a likely source of failure.
A few years ago an Alaska airlines jetliner had an attitude control mechanical failure which resulted in the airliner doing several rolls and crashing into the ocean thereafter. It was in an upside down orientation when it hit the water. It was structurally intact on impact. It crashed because of loss of speed. On another occasion a jetliner’s attitude control sensors malfunctioned causing the pilot to initiate a roll in a misdirected response. Again, the plane was intact but crashed due to loss of speed and altitude.
Alternatively, shortly after 911 a jetliner crashed in New York city because the vertical fin of the the tail assembly detached from the fuselage. This was determined to be the result of wind shear hitting the plane while at slow speed shortly after takeoff (or before landing, I can’t remember which). Intellectually, I can accept that this is possible since I am not an engineer but at an emotional level I like to believe there was something more involved than simply a gust of wind blowing the plane apart. I have no doubt that they looked at the design of the structures that attached the tail fin to the plane and whether these were properly maintained but still I kind of wonder.
That would be American Airlines Flight 587. The tail wasn’t hit by “a gust of wind” but rather wake turbulence, which is more than just a gentle breeze.
Yes, and more importantly the failure was a result of overly-aggressive use of the rudder, resulting in stresses that were explicitly beyond the tolerances specified by Airbus, who had recommended that AA train their pilots to be aware of the issue (they didn’t, IIRC).
I will note that Airbus’s positions that what the pilot did was “overuse” of the rudder is a point of controversy, and a number of organizations maintain that many other, if not most other, airplanes would tolerate that much rudder use.
It seemed that there was fault on both sides (Airbus for having a design fault that required extra pilot training to not overuse rudder, and AA for not training the pilots in light of the design fault). Regardless of the question of who is at fault, the point I wanted to make was that technically the fault occurred due to overuse of the rudder relative to design specifications.
northernguy - for future ref, it’s helpful to others if you provide a link to the column in question, when you start a thread. Helps keep us on the same pages, avoids search time, etc. No biggie, I’ve done it for you. And just as a comment, it’s not really “recent,” it’s from 1978.
That is a great video. While it says the airplane was a 707 it was really a one off demonstration plane, Boeing 367-80. Know as the “Dash Eighty.” It is a prototype that led to the development of the 707 but not an early version of the famed jetliner.
Whether the Dash 80 was a “707” or not is a judgment call. It was developed as a prototype for the 707 program, closely resembled the 707 as it was then planned to be, and it was even originally designated a 707 before it was renamed 367-80 to confuse the competition.
By that logic, all prototype aircraft are “different planes” than the production aircraft… I don’t know if you’re going to find a lot of people agreeing with that.