Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hblair on November 12, 2001, 08:23:00 AM
-
not again. :(
Anybody got any info?
-
Foxnews on the web is the only one reporting so far (Surprised that AP wire didn't have it up yet)..I'm betting this one was not related to terrorism.
-
CNN now reporting too, apparently is was on approach to JFK.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Queens police confirm an aircraft crashed Monday in
the Far Rockaways neighborhood of the New York City borough.
The spokesman could not confirm the type of plane but said it crashed in the
Rockaways at 122nd Street and Rockaway Beach Boulevard.
WCBS-TV reported that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said it
was an American Airlines 767 presumably on approach to John F. Kennedy
International Airport in New York. The station showed pictures of a huge plume of
smoke.
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
Now they're saying Airbus A-300...
-
Yeah, saw that..
An American Airlines plane has crashed in the
Queens borough of New York City. The FAA
identifies the flight as American flight 587, an
Airbus A300 from JFK airport to Santo Domingo,
Dominican Republic. Thick smoke was billowing
over the area, and local media reported several
houses on fire.
-
Witnesses report the right side of the plane being on fire before it hit the ground.
Two crash sites apparently - one for the main body, one for an engine.
246 passengers and 9 crew on board.
Doesn't look like a terrorist attack a la WTC from what people are saying.
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
That's what I was thinking dowding. If it was a bomb, you wouldn't think the engine assy would get seperated...
-
CNN reports "The plane was a Boeing Airbus A300."
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
If an engine explodes, and departs the aircraft, the aircraft is going down. Think you right Hblair..time will tell...sad year for America.
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
An ATC friend just emailed me saying "Tower was talking to them the whole way down. Trying to get him to a wooded area instead of a residential one"
Of course, none of this is confirmed.
-
Certainly looks like a 'normal' air disaster. Which under any other circumstances would be an odd thing to say.
CNN reports "The plane was a Boeing Airbus A300."
Heh. What does it take to be a journalist these days? Certainly not attention to detail it would seem.
They just concentrate on the three S's - speculation, speculation, speculation...
-
Engine sitting at a gas station a mile from crash site.
(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2001/images/11/12/top.wnyw.engine.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Engine sitting at a gas station a mile from crash site.
(http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2001/images/11/12/top.wnyw.engine.jpg)
yep last i heard CNN said that this is not an attack but error. I heard that an engien fell off the plane which made the plane crash.
-
Guys, Bohica flys airbuses out of New York for AA. I hope and pray he is alright.
Dnil
-
Originally posted by Dnil:
Guys, Bohica flys airbuses out of New York for AA. I hope and pray he is alright.
Dnil
Christ man I've been wondering about him all morning. I knew he flew for AA but didn't know what ship or city he flies out of. Man I hope he's ok :(
Bo if you read this let us know dude!
U
-
hangtime - check in plz
-
Same thing I was thinking mrfish.
-
Check this FAA Advisory (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/5f8b64c1022d28f286256aa0005b892d?OpenDocument). Could be what happened. But then again, maybe not, we'll have to wait and see what the official investigation comes up with. In the meantime, I'm still gonna fly.
Certainly looks like a 'normal' air disaster. Which under any other circumstances would be an odd thing to say.
Yeah, i'd agree completely with that.
-
The Airbus A300 has very good safety record by most accounts.
A300 reliability (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_625000/625770.stm)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
CNN reports "The plane was a Boeing Airbus A300."
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
most of CNN reports are like this one
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Engine sitting at a gas station a mile from crash site.
probably needed fuel ?
:rolleyes:
-
Bad form EagleC :(
-
Read the book "Airframe" by Michael Crichton if you want to see dimwit journalists.
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Rendar ]
-
AIR CRASH RESCUE NEWS:
November 12, 2001 - Officials: Crash Likely an Accident.
WASHINGTON (USA) - An accident rather than terrorism probably caused an
American Airlines jet to plunge into a neighborhood in New York, federal
officials said Monday. Investigators focused on an engine that fell away from
the doomed plane.
The investigators swiftly reviewed the plane's maintenance records, but
initially found ``nothing indicative of a specific problem,'' said director
Marion Blakey of the National Transportation Safety Board. Officials located
the flight data recorder and rushed it to the nation's capital for analysis.
``All information we have currently is that this is an accident,'' said
Blakey, as the Bush administration sent experts to the scene.
While the crash was horrific - the plane carried 255 people to their deaths,
and wreckage set several homes on fire in Queens - the preliminary assessment
seemed a relief of sorts for a nation struggling to recover from the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks and an outbreak of mail-spread anthrax.
President Bush was handed a note informing him of the crash moments after it
occurred, and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge moved quickly to the White
House Situation room to confer by telephone with FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller and others. Officials gave some consideration to shutting down the
nation's air travel system, as was done after the September attacks in New
York and Washington, but decided against it after sifting through the
available information.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said at the White House there had been no
unusual communications between the cockpit and air traffic officials on the
ground. He also said there had been no credible threats against airplanes in
advance of the crash.
Fleischer declined to rule out terrorism but said he would not dispute the
assessment of other officials who had said privately there was no preliminary
evidence that terrorists had been involved.
Blakey made her comments a short while later.
The president spoke by phone with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Gov.
George Pataki. In a remarkable sign of the times, Giuliani said he had asked
the president for ``air cover'' to protect his wounded city.
Blakey said debris fell over a wide area of Queens, a few miles from the
airport where Dominican Republic-bound American Airlines Flight 587 plane
took off. She noted there were reports of some wreckage recovered in Jamaica
Bay.
Witnesses said there may have been an explosion on board the plane.
``It's too early for me to advance theories on this,'' Blakey said. But she
noted in response to a question that engine parts were scattered ``some
distance from the actual crash crater.''
At least one of the engines, believed to be from the right side, fell intact
on a gas-station parking lot. American Airlines said the left engine on
Flight 587 was freshly overhauled and the right engine was about due for
maintenance after nearly 10,000 hours of operation.
General Electric Aircraft Engines, the Cincinnati-based subsidiary of General
Electric Co., sent two experts to the crash site to assist federal
investigators. GE manufactured the CF6-80C2 jet engines - the same model as
those installed on Air Force One - that were mounted on the underside of each
wing of the doomed flight.
``There are eyewitness reports that they saw the engine on fire and it
reportedly landed in a separate place from the main body of the wreckage,''
said Susan Coughlin, a former vice chairwoman for the NTSB and now chief
operating officer of American Trucking Associations Foundation. ``That would
certainly prompt the investigators to figure out why.''
A Chicago-based lawyer, Tom Ellis of the Nolan Law Group, said photographs of
the surviving engine showed ``pretty clear evidence of an uncontained engine
failure.'' His firm sued on behalf of victims of United Airlines Flight 232,
which crashed in 1989 in Sioux City, Iowa, after an earlier version of the
CF6 engine came apart in flight. So-called ``uncontained engine failures''
can result in an explosion of metal fragments as damaging as shrapnel from a
bomb.
Earlier this year, on May 18, a problem with the same type of engine forced
the emergency landing of a Monarch Airlines passenger jet in Portugal.
Documents from the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch said a rotor
blade snapped, puncturing the engine's housing with a 3-inch hole and causing
minor damage to the wing. The pilots reported dramatic vibration, and British
officials reported there had been ``several similar failures prior to this
event.''
The FAA ordered airlines in June to begin regularly inspecting these types of
engines for cracks in certain rotor disks, a component within the engines,
after the dramatic failure of one engine when maintenance crews set it to
high power during testing on the ground.
Last year, the FAA also ordered airlines to replace a fuel tube within these
engines to prevent high-pressure leaks that investigators warned could result
in an engine fire and damage to the airplane. Also last year, the FAA ordered
carriers to remove certain fan shafts within these engines earlier than
planned to prevent possible catastrophic failure.
GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said American completed all these inspections and
repairs. ``Airworthiness directives'' from the FAA mandating such repairs are
relatively common.
GE has built 2,954 of these engines - first introduced in 1984 - and they are
among the best-selling for wide-bodied aircraft. Kennedy called the CF6
engines ``phenomenally reliable,'' and said they have been installed on more
than 1,000 planes worldwide.
-
Could be Darkstar, but fuel doesn't normally explode in a liquid state; so you need to have a tank with fumes in it. The (Silk Air?) 737 and TWA 800 (center tank just at empty, 120 degrees or so F. inside) that had fuel tank explosions met that criteria, but here we'd have to posit that an A300 at takeoff on a reasonably long flight had a wing tank near empty. Maybe, but we'll need many more pieces.
Anyway, as you see from the news report posted there, the #1 engine was "Freshly Overhauled". In a press conference, the CEO of AA specified that "freshly overhauled" meant "one or two cycles ago". Not right out of the hangar, but pretty close.
It's a terrible tragedy, and we will have the answers in time. But the right now the odds are on a maintenance or manufacturing error on the engine. Second bet would be birdstrike.
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Dinger ]
-
anyone hear from bohica or hang?
-
Hangtime's checked in... dunno about Bohica.
AKDejaVu
-
Bo is fine. Just got an email from him. He just flew the same flight on Saturday.
Dnil
-
Wow...What a difference 2 days makes.
-
Originally posted by Dnil:
Bo is fine. Just got an email from him. He just flew the same flight on Saturday.
Dnil
Excellent! Great to hear that. Thanks, Dnil.
Just goes to show once again that it's better to be lucky than good.
-
Originally posted by Dinger:
Could be Darkstar, but fuel doesn't normally explode in a liquid state; so you need to have a tank with fumes in it. The (Silk Air?) 737 and TWA 800 (center tank just at empty, 120 degrees or so F. inside) that had fuel tank explosions met that criteria, but here we'd have to posit that an A300 at takeoff on a reasonably long flight had a wing tank near empty.
There are different theories about both of those accidents: http://www.webpak.net/~skydream/ (http://www.webpak.net/~skydream/)
From Airline Safety Website:
In the aftermath of the crash, hundreds of witnesses claimed to seen a missile head toward the aircraft. Some witnesses claimed to have seen more than one such sighting. Some of these witnesses were as reliable as any on the planet. Yet they were officially disbelieved with a prejudice which is staggering to any reasonable person's imagination. Trusted forensic science corroborates the witness observations. Strangely, despite the extreme reliability of some of the witnesses, or the sheer quantity, their testimony was bypassed by all federal agencies. The immediate question becomes, "How can hundreds of witnesses ALL be wrong???"
But we dont believe in conspiracy theories..
:rolleyes:
-
The engine falling off more then likely was only a part of the crash. these big planes are made with shear pins that snap and allow the engine to fall rather than take the plane with it. They are in whats called the pylon area and the pylon goes with the engine when it brakes off. Severe vibratons can cause them to shear, as when a massive bird strike happens. I never worked on the A300 so dont know anything about it. The engines are same as 767 300's. :(
-
Yeah, now it looks like the vertical stabilizer came off first, as it was found in the bay about a mile from the crash site. Photo on CNN shows that it was sheared off cleanly at the base, without any external damage.
-
Phew, am happy Hangtime and Bohica are all right. This is bad enough as it is.
-
:(
Piss off speculators.
:(
-
Originally posted by Creamo:
:(
Piss off speculators.
:(
What a nice contribution to this topic. :rolleyes:
Btw, whats wrong with speculation?
I don't see how the very sad fact that so many people lost their lives should keep us from discussing about it.
-
Editted comments...don't know why, he never held back. :D
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
Ignore list only stops private messages. Besides, cut Creamo a bit of slack here; he is a little closer to this than most of us.
-
Originally posted by Kieran:
he is a little closer to this than most of us.
That certainly worries me.
-
I’m a bit frustrated by the current events. Can’t say I want another company tribute newsletter that takes 2 full damn pages to honor the dead. What can you do?
However, in a hundred inebriated posts, I can never match such a simple sentence of hate and animosity for a given situation, typed out of pure stupidity by you Ripsnort.
What you need to do is not worry about me, but think long and hard how someone can tweak you so bad on a message board, you will make reference to deaths of hundreds and maliciously infer my job responsibilities worrying you.
You old sad fool.
---
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
and maliciously infer my job responsibilities worrying you.
Pot, kettle.
Kettle, pot.
How's it going there Cowboy?
-
Creamo, I could pull countless posts up by you to this community that would make anything you say in sensitivity a non-factor.
Sit down, re-evalutate your attitude, then post.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Sit down, re-evalutate your attitude, then post.
Did Toad say something about a pot and a kettle? Seems to apply here too. Remember, you're not representing the community when you insult Creamo, so to do so makes you no better than when he insults you, particularly at a time like this. Get off the horse.
SOB
-edit- PS...Toad - put the gun down cowboy! :p
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: SOB ]
-
How did the tail fall off into the bay? Did it go b4 the engines? And both engines fell off?? Blocks from the crash site?
sounds fishy...
Either very poor servicing or sabatoge. I think the gov will try to supress it if it is the latter.
-
Geese. Uncontained catastrophic engine failure. Shredded wing tanks, possible loss of hydralic controls. Fuel leaks. Eventual explosion of fuel takes wing off.. spin air stresses takes off tail and last engine.
The 15-25 pound Canada geese are ALL over this area at this time of year.. I've seen huge numbers of 'em on the dune areas down by the beaches, they especially like the grass verges on the edges of the runways on ALL the airports around here.
My guess... accident. Not terrorisim, not sabatoge. But it's just a guess. All those souls lost... damn. :(
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
Geese. Uncontained catastrophic engine failure. Shredded wing tanks, possible loss of hydralic controls. Fuel leaks. Eventual explosion of fuel takes wing off.. spin air stresses takes off tail and last engine.
The 15-25 pound Canada geese are ALL over this area at this time of year.. I've seen huge numbers of 'em on the dune areas down by the beaches, they especially like the grass verges on the edges of the runways on ALL the airports around here.
My guess... accident. Not terrorisim, not sabatoge. But it's just a guess. All those souls lost... damn. :(
I saw a report last night that they found both engines and that they were "fairly" intact. They said they had found no evidence of a bird strike or catastrophic engine failure. I'm no expert, but from what I've heard from eye witness reports the thing sounds like it exploded in mid air to me at least part of it. We'll probobly never know for sure, I wouldn't put it past the government to say it wasn't terror related even if they knew 100% that it was.
Lot of dead people too :(
U
-
Alot of speculation out there. Just to add the report I heard lastnight.
Another theory is that the vertical stabilizer came off first. The spin stress sheered the engines, causing a rupture in the wing tanks, thus inducing an explosion from the fuel.
To quote someone yesterday but can't remember who, "You know our times have changed when you hope the death of 255 people was an accident".
Sad :(
-
Well, not dissing Airbus here, but my brother in law, whos currently a mechanic at AA, and is a certified FAA AP inspector (but not currently doing that line of work) told me in 1995 when Boeing was having some problems with its aircraft...he said this:
"If you think Boeing has problems with their airframes, just wait til these Airbuses have a few thousand cycles on them, they "use alot of glue" instead of rivets..." now, he did not mean glue glue, he meant the manufacturing process was one that left air worthiness a big question mark after thousands of cycles. Granted this is his opinion, but it was an ominous one.
-
Speaking of which, Indian, do you know a Chuck Sydlo at AA? I know its a big company, but he works in KC, was a TWA employee, now AA. Anyway, he's family.
-
thats what has me puzzled.. why did the vertical stabilizer, with it the rudder, just fall off first? Within minutes of take off, almost like it was loose before they started their takeoff roll. Then maybe as the plane stresses yawing back and forth the engines then fall away, maybe...
heard same report, engines do not look like a bird strike. Wierd.
What pissed me off was the humor and laughter at the NTSB press conference yesterday afternoon by both the NTSB officials and reporters.
Very poor taste...
-
Who knows? I still don't see terrorist involvement as likely.
Both engines fell within 100 feet of each other, suggesting that they broke off after the plane was out of control.
It's weird and scary.
Wake Vortices have caused airliners to crash, but structural failure?
don't go looking for a conspiracy here. Oh, and mora, the TWA 800 shootdown conspiracy is pretty weak. If you want to see what a real conspiracy looks like, do a web search on "Itavia" and "Ustica".
Or hell, Valujet and arcing. The net is full of good conspiracy theories involving plane crashes.
Why do people do it? You got me.
-
Originally posted by Apache:
To quote someone yesterday but can't remember who, "You know our times have changed when you hope the death of 255 people was an accident".
Sad :(
You can say that again brother. :(
-
"Wake Turbulance" ??
WTF?
Eyewitness accounts all seem to agree... it was on fire... fire comming from the engine.
So; what scenario would take the tail off FIRST, then light this thing on fire? "Wake Turbulance??"
What about the trail of fuel across Jamaica Bay?
Damn; makes no sense at all.
-
Wait on the Flight Data recorder report. The new ones show a LOT of parameters. They'll know much more after that is reviewed.
-
This is spooky,
my brother said he was on the flight out of JFK that flew a minute or so before the fated plane.Someone on board actually commented that there was a big fire behind them as they banked away on the circuit they flew!
Now i hear on the news that all aircraft were supposed to be at least 2 minutes apart.
strange that my brother mentioned the fact they flew 1 minute before this plane and now they are saying that could be the cause!
frightening or what?
-
Hazed, it's two minutes behind a "heavy jet". (The 757 is considered a "heavy" jet due to it's wake characteristics even though it is not in the "heavy" category as determined by weight.)
It's only one minute behind other "large" (727) or "small" aircraft.
Here's a good article on Wake Turbulence:
Aircraft Wake Turbulence (http://www.aircraftbuyer.com/learn/train15.htm)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
"Wake Turbulance" ??
WTF?
Eyewitness accounts all seem to agree... it was on fire... fire comming from the engine.
So; what scenario would take the tail off FIRST, then light this thing on fire? "Wake Turbulance??"
What about the trail of fuel across Jamaica Bay?
Damn; makes no sense at all.
sumpin fishy ...
FBI Sitting on Flight 587 Videotape
A videotape that could show exactly what happened to American Airlines Flight 587, which crashed three minutes after taking off from New York's JFK airport on Monday, is in the hands of the FBI - but the bureau has thus far declined to release it.
New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman Tom Kelly confirmed to the Daily News Friday that the agency has given surveillance videotapes from Cross Bay Blvd. and Marine Parkway bridges to the FBI.
"One tape captures the plane taking off from JFK," the News said.
Cross Bay Blvd. and Marine Parkway traverse Jamaica Bay, where the plane's vertical stabilizer was discovered intact after the crash.
Dozens of eyewitnesses have told media outlets they saw an explosion and/or a fire at the juncture of Flight 587's wing and fuselage moments before it began to break up, losing its tail first, then both its engines.
Catastrophic engine failure, which was first suspected to have caused the explosion, was ruled out Tuesday after NTSB investigators examined the engines and found no evidence of mechanical failure.
Since discovering the engines were working properly, NTSB spokeswoman Marion Blakely - along with most media outlets - have quietly dropped references to witness accounts of a midair explosion.
The NTSB now says that wind turbulence from another plane is the most likely cause of the crash. One former jumbo jet veteran pilot was highly skeptical of the turbulence theory.
"If wind turbulence caused that accident, I'll never fly again," Barry Schiff, who flew 747s for TWA, told the New York Post.
But a videotape showing the exact sequence of Flight 587's breakup could clear up any mystery, showing whether or not the breakup was caused by an explosion or by turbulence.
It's not clear why the FBI has not yet released the MTA video - or even commented on what it shows. It's also not clear why the Flight 587 video was not turned over to the NTSB instead of the FBI, which had reportedly adopted a secondary role in the wake of NTSB claims that the crash was an accident.
When an Air France Concorde jetliner crashed after catching fire on takeoff from a rural French airport last year, an amatuer video of the accident was released within 48 hours.
Calls to the FBI's New York office and to MTA spokesman Kelly were not returned by press time.
-
I'm not at all satisfied with the way the investigation is going... I smell not fish... but rat.
Terrorist Rat.
Waaaaay to many people heard an EXPLOSION, which is WHY so many people looked up, and THEN saw a burning aircraft spinning in.
This bird was not 5 miles high and 8 miles off shore like Flight 800 was. This thing was at less than 3000 feet up, and close enuff to see panel lines and aircraft markings clearly from the ground.
I dunno... I have this niggling feeling that we ain't gettin the straight poop on this one.
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Hangtime ]
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
I dunno... I have this niggling feeling that we ain't gettin the straight poop on this one.
Most likely not, imagine a public that witnessed a tragedy occur not once, but twice spanned by 2 months and 1 day with supposed "beefed up" security.
I'd imagine the airline industry would be flushed right down the toilet if it came out.
Besides, aircraft engines have a built-in emergency system that forces them to jettison if a fire or explosion is detected inside them. They don't just fall off because the tail fell off.
-SW
-
The bit about the 'damaged' FDR having to go back to the 'manufacturer' for 'repair' prior to its being 'read' by the NTSB stinks too.
Yah.. I know; I'm over-reacting and lookin for trouble where no trouble is... right?
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Hangtime ]
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
The bit about the 'damaged' FDR having to go back to the 'manufacturer' for 'repair' prior to its being 'read' by the NTSB stinks too.
Yah.. I know; I'm over-reacting and lookin for trouble where no trouble is... right?
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Hangtime ]
Nope
I think they are playing the "drag the crap out and they'll forget about it" game.
Dunno, if it is for the good of the economy and thus the country, a big part of me hopes they can spin it if the facts point to more terrorism. Then again maybe they are playing a wait and see game, if we don't announce it, maybe the chicken toejam terrorist org will ... that is if the tail section just didn't fall off the plane by itself.
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Besides, aircraft engines have a built-in emergency system that forces them to jettison if a fire or explosion is detected inside them. They don't just fall off because the tail fell off.
-SW
Well, that's news to me. I don't know of any controlled way to jettison an engine.
-
Come on, Toad, just fly real low and scrape it off.
-
Okay, Hang, I don't buy it.
First, Airliner Crashes draw lots of conspiracy theorists because of the simple fact that they don't happen very often. When they do happen, it's usually for a freakish combination of events.
Second, if they wanted to "cover up" a terrorist plot, why not just leave it at an engine separation? That's a good enough argument, and the other evidence could be swept under the rug or ignored.
Third, so far the terrorists have followed the path of least resistance. Blowing the Vstab off a plane at low altitude is not consistent with this: that should require a helluva lot of explosives or a high-profile sabotage job. If they could pull this off, it'd be much easier to slip 200 grams of semtex on board set to blow at 30,000 feet.
Fourth, they're not saying it was wake turbulence. All they have is that the plane might have encountered WT from the jet ahead of it, as the pilots mentioned that on the CVR, and the FDR has some pretty big jolts on it. Nobody in their right mind believes that if the VStab came off due to Wake Turbulence, that WT is the primary cause. The primary cause would in that case be the failure of the vstab to withstand the force.
Fifth, they're not suppressing the information about an explosion and engines on fire. That did happen. Remove the vstab and the plane doesn't exactly fly in a straight line. Put two jet engines at max power and you could see all kinds of fireworks: compressor stalls, failures, separation.
Sixth, the argument about the videotape doesn't work. When the Concorde crashed, we saw the videotape in 48 hours because the amateur photographers sold it to their news studio. It took so long because they took it to Spain, IIRC.
So the FBI has it. Anyone want to tell the crowd why Commercial Aircraft don't have cameras mounted on them tied to a black box?
-
Hey, don't mind me.. I'm just a cranky old man wot didn't eat his weaties.
I mean, with hundreds of thousands of cycles in and out of airports with that same seperation between aircraft, established to provide a safe margin to avoid the well known effects of 'wake-turbulance'..
...when suddenly, 8 weeks after the WTC attack, at an airport 15 miles away and purely by coincidence a relatively young airframe suddenly loses a vertical stab and rudder when the pilot tromps on the pedal to control some wake turbulance, experiences .4 g's of side acceleration, spits off it's engines, explodes into flames and spins into the dirt.
Happens all the time... no cause for alarm; move along now, folks...
No.. I got it.. it wasn't an accident; it was seperatist french-canadian terrorist geese armed with stingers working off of the PITA agenda. There was no claim of responsibility from the despsiciable terrorist geese because as we all know, french-canadian geese can't speak english worth a damn; and, after all; they were trained and equipped by the CIA anyway.
:rolleyes:
I'll shut up now. Sorry.
-
Hang,
If there's one thing I've learned in my career it's that the early speculation rarely gets it right.
I DO trust the NTSB. It's one of the better government agencies, IMO. I guess they could be "bought" but I'd think they'd be the last ones to go.
For your scenario, there's going to have to be a smoke trail from a missile or evidence of an onboard explosion. I'd think those would be hard to hide. Too many fireman and police around to hide metal shredded and fragmented OUTWARD from the fuselage, don't you think? And where's the big "whomp" on the cockpit voice recorder? Man, you can hear the F/A's slam the drink carts into the galley slots. I'm thinking an explosion of that magnitude would be on the tape too.
OTOH, I've hit wake turbulence a few times. Bouncy and uncomfortable, sure. Rip off the vertical stab? Nah, no way I'm buying that, at least on a "normal" vertical stab.
I do wonder about the "aircraft rattle" noises on takeoff. Have they said anything more definitive about those?
And if that stab truly was delaminating...
Aircraft rattle on T/O with a delaminated vert stab... would point me a little more towards accident.
Still, it's too early. Let the NTSB folks finish.
-
Another way to put it:
There is no such thing as a "normal" airliner crash. They all involve freakish circumstances. That's why we fly.
Yes, the US does have reasons why this shouldn't be terrorism, but this is not how a cover up is done. A coverup would be "uncontained engine failure, followed by separation and crash". That's believable.
Vstab shearing clean off? That's just weird. Wake Turbulence won't be the cause of this any more than cold weather was the cause of the Challenger explosion.
-
[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: SOB ]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
I do wonder about the "aircraft rattle" noises on takeoff. Have they said anything more definitive about those?
Wonder what explosive bolts sound like on a voice recorder when they go off in the stern of an airplane ...
If it's that sophisticated, I don't think we'll be told, not anytime soon anyway.
Sorry just my paranoid self thinking out loud again...
-
Hangtime the seperation was less then 2 minutes. The planes rudder shows rapid movement before the tail seperation. The Airbus A300 has a history of rudder problems. Wake turbulence was a sart to the crash at most, engines were running until they left the airplane. The photos released so far show a massive failure of the Vertical stab, they broke just above the mounts. Who knows when the rudder left the airplane no record or devices to show that. Dont think its been found yet.
-
Eagler, #1, the bolts are still in place and they run through the composite tabs which are still in place. The composite tabs broke above the attach point.
#2, explosive bolts??? Fer gawd's sake guys! Get a grip! Do you even know how those work? You think THYE sneakily replaced the normal bolts with radio-activated explosive bolts??? Who are THEY? When did THEY have time to disassemble the tail of an aircraft that is in DAILY service, replace the bolts with explosive bolts capable of remote activation, reassemble the tail... all without the normal maintenance guys noticing anything out of the ordinary?
You know the maintenance functions are closely tracked and carefully scheduled right?
Jeez, lookout! There's black helo's over your house RIGHT NOW! Aggggh!
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Well, that's news to me. I don't know of any controlled way to jettison an engine.
It's done automatically. It's a system my cousin told me about when he worked at Boeing plant in Seattle. This was about 6 years ago.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Jeez, lookout! There's black helo's over your house RIGHT NOW! Aggggh!
No there isn't, I just checked :)
Yes, paranoid - bolts are extreme but something is fishy. We'll see or maybe we won't. Really no sense in worry about it, we all gotta go sometime....
-
SW, there isn't an "automatic" jettison.
The engines and mounts are, however, designed so that catastrophic damage and/or fire will most likely allow/cause the engine to separate before it burns into the wing structure.
It's not a "jettison system". It's intelligent design.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
SW, there isn't an "automatic" jettison.
The engines and mounts are, however, designed so that catastrophic damage and/or fire will most likely allow/cause the engine to separate before it burns into the wing structure.
It's not a "jettison system". It's intelligent design.
Maybe that was it, 6 years is a lot of time for words to get replaced in your memory. :-)
I knew it was something along those lines though.
-SW
-
..the bolts are still in place and they run through the composite tabs which are still in place. The composite tabs broke above the attach point.
Jeeeezus... and nobody sees on the attachment tabs any 'obvious' delamination? And the structure in fact failed above the attachment points?
Whelp; without any obvious visible delamination and without any apparent way to visably or by other means screen, ultrasound, or scan for this type of composite componet failure; and since this is a MAJOR flight surface, without which a pilot's skill is of no import to survival and this method of construction and attachment for this componet is the same on ALL Airbus models...
IF IT DON'T SAY BOEING, I AIN'T GOING![/i]
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Hangtime ]