Todd Wissing is an Airbus A300-600 First Officer and introduced
himself to the New York City Council - Transportation Committee
as someone who is required, by FAA regulations, to express his
concerns in any safety related matter. This is why Mr. Wissing
and some other Airbus A300 pilots wrote
a letter to the FAA and NTSB expressing concerns they had
about the A300 and the February
8th Safety Recommendation issued this year by the NTSB. Mr.
Wissing expressed his desire to focus on issues that directly
affect pilots and those issues that the pilots have direct knowledge
of--what the FAA regulations require of pilots, what pilots expect
of their aircraft, and what pilots expect of the FAA and NTSB.
Todd Wissing - Airbus A300 Pilot / First Officer
"As pilots we have to be
wary of the fact that ... sometimes .. to avoid liability, manufacturers
may try to implicate pilots wrongly for things that have happened
on airplanes."
Mr. Wissing stated, "We had always assumed ... that
something more than a visual inspection of the tail ... would
be conducted. We came up with a broad range of experts in the
field of non-destructive testing of composites materials that
supported that feeling on our behalf. We are ourselves have become
somewhat layman experts, if you will, in the field of composites
just from having talked to so many (experts). Experts from MIT,
NASA, US Air Force, all which backed non-destructive testing
(of composites). That point especially has significant impact
for the future as the airplanes that are being built now, the
Airbus A380 ... the Boeing Sonic Cruiser, are over sixty percent
composite material, including composite wing boxes. Second issue
was structural certification requirements for the rudder and
vertical stabilizer for all commercial aircraft. We thought that
certification standards that would allow something of that nature
to occur (separation of the tail) ... we wanted more re-evaluation
on that especially where it concerned metal tails versus composite
tails."
"As pilots who have experienced the airplane, (many)
of our pilots were concerned about documented rudder movements
on the A300 which were not caused by pilots. In fact,
if you look back through all the documentation you can't find
a time when the pilot over-controlled the rudder on an A300,
although we do have over 20, maybe even 30, documented cases
of the rudder moving on its own. In one case in 1999, in Miami,
the rudder moved 12 degrees left and right nearly resulting in
the loss of the airplane. A special emergency procedure was issued
for that (the uncommanded rudder movements). So it struck us
when the NTSB issued warnings about pilot training versus certification
standards ... why wouldn't you look at uncommanded rudder
rather than look at possible pilot actions."
"We know that NASA has conducted a study and printed
a report on the immature use of load bearing structures made
of composite material. (Another area of concern) ... The rudder
limiters ... what pilots expect versus certification standards
was one of the main points. Of course, we are (also) concerned
about pilot training ... if they are going to change the way
they they define certain things such as maneuvering airspeed,
which is a basic truth that we've always learned, they need to
come up with better training. We're still unconvinced that every
word they're saying is true, but if that's the case ... the training
needs to be looked at."
"A couple of things come to mind .. for the eight years
since the crash of flight 585 (United Airlines) in 1991 in Colorado
Springs, (it was) a Boeing 737 ... for eight years through the
crash of US Air Flight 427 in 1994, Boeing and Parker Hannifin
tried to convince the court that those crashes were caused by
... and I'll quote from an article on June 29th (2002) ... 'pilot
overreacted from wake vortex .. pressed rudder pedals the wrong
way'. That's what their lawyers, Boeing and Parker Hannifin,
maker of a rudder part, were arguing in court in June 2002. The
judge decided that Boeing was 25% liable and Parker Hannifin
was 75% liable. A lawyer for Parker Hannifin, told the Press,
'I have no interest in saying anything bad about the pilots,
(but) in a court room I have to defend my client'".
"As pilots we have to be wary of the fact that ... sometimes
.. to avoid liability, manufacturers may try to implicate pilots
wrongly for things that have happened on airplanes, and I think
that case (Boeing / Parker Hannifin) is a defining issue."
"Another (item) I'd like to point out ... the NTSB said
that this accident, with the rudder movements resulting in the
tail coming off, could have happened to any airplane ... Airbus
or Boeing. On the 28th of July, the Los Angeles Times quoted
three separate Boeing sources as saying that under the same forces,
the Boeing 767's tail would not have broken."
Mr. Wissing ended his statement by saying, "Finally,
a fellow pilot of mine, points this out regarding wake turbulence,
and he says 'if you consider all the places in the world where
aircraft take off that are behind other aircraft and you consider
that these airplanes have been taking off one behind the other
for 50 years ... large commercial airplanes ... and you consider
that Kennedy Airport is probably one of the best airports in
the world with the most highly trained air traffic controllers
... and you consider what's being speculated here about over-control
in reaction to a wake turbulence event that is likely felt a
lot by pilots, and I certainly have felt it many times, and you
consider what we're being asked to believe that these pilots
mis-controlled this airplane and caused structural damage ...
and go back 50 years (and see that this) has never happened before
... it seems to us that they (NTSB) still need to do some work."
Part III to be continued. Will include statements of Stan
Molin, and others.
I may be making available a CD-ROM with QuickTime Videos
of the Hearing. Please email
me if you are interested at letters@usread.com;
the cost will be minimal