Possible cause of AA flight 587 crash...a new thought

Vanity | 11/15/01 | Agent Smith

[MassLengthTime]

At 107 seconds after start of takeoff roll - airframe rattle.
At 114 seconds - comment about wake turbulence (speculation).
At 121 seconds - Second airframe rattle.
At 125 seconds - Call for "Max power.
At 127 seconds - Loss of control.
At 144 seconds - End of recording.

Assuming end-of-recording corresponds to impact, and not some other system failure, we can reference these CVR highlights to this radar track.

The first airframe rattle is 37 seconds prior to impact, or just about at the 09:15:30 mark -- the one that has the "Time (EST)" and "Altitude (feet)" legends attached.

The wake turbulence comment is about midway between that tick and the 09:15:45 mark.

The second airframe rattle is about at the 09:15:45 mark.

Calls for max power and comments on loss-of-control occur about where the track makes about a slight jog to the south, about 1.5 miles due north of IMPACT.

Another interesting piece of analysis: If we go upwind (11 kts from 320) from the point of the first rattle, we intersect the JAL 47 track at about it's 09:13:50 position, about 3/4 of a mile upwind, maybe 500 feet above, and about 100 seconds prior. For the wake turbulence (WT) to travel from that JAL postion to the AA position, it would have had to be moving about .75 nm/100 secs, or about 25 kts -- about twice what the surface winds were. (We really need to know what the winds aloft were.) Also, the WT would have been descending at about 300 ft/min.

[yianni]

Read By the Rivers of Babylon by Nelson DeMille.

[Tony in Hawaii]

Regarding the "fly-by-wire" question, this is from Airbus Industrie's own website:

The A300/A310 Family have been outstanding pioneers in such valuable innovative technological features as fuel-reducing wingtip devices, identical CRT displays on the flight deck, automatic windshear protection and digital electrical signalling (fly-by-wire) for slats, flaps and spoilers - reducing workload, maintenance and saving weight. Both aircraft are certificated for up to 180-minutes ETOPS operations, with both General Electric CF6-80 or Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines.

So, the A300 is fly-by-wire for some controls, but not for the basic aileron, elevator and rudder

Link to Airbus web page

[El Gato]

Beech Bonanza is a great example of a fine aircraft without one.

Only sort of. Those twin tails are neither vertical nor horizontal. They function to provide stability in both directions. However an example of an aircraft with no vertical tail at all would be the B-2. It uses the various control surfaces, which are all unconventional to one degree or another, to dynamically provide stability. The aircraft is, I would think, statically unstable in yaw, but with fly by wire, it's dynamically stable.

[El Gato]

there appears to be a lot of wear in the area where the bolt/flange/fuselage bracket assembly attaches.

Looks like it might have gotten kind of warm too, don't you think? But maybe the inner layers always look like that?

[let freedom sing]

Maybe it was the "o" rings that failed.

[Lion's Cub]

Indexing

[RaceBannon]

I dont get it. If that much fiber snapped in flight, it would sound like an explosion. I have heard some 1" stuff that sounded like a grenade inthe shoop, and was louder than all equipment running at the time.

[Blueflag]

"Do you know what Vne is for this airbus?"

Sadly, it must have been about 220 KIAS. But for all A300s, I have no idea. Prorbaly some good web-surfer (not me) could find it on the manufacturer's or FAA's web site.

[PogySailor]

I have read there was also about 3/4 NM horizonal separation between the two aircrafts ground tracks. See the RADAR track plot here:

Aero-News

[185JHP]

OK - I was thinking it would be 600 or 650, and diving from what, 3,000 ft., it wouldn't get up to a speed that would cause catastrophic structural failure. I have a problem with the tail, both engines, and one wing coming off at the speed it was traveling at, reagardless of stall/spin - I would expect it to pancake with all the parts still attached.

[Blueflag]

You and me both. Vne for a sound A300 is probably up around .96 MACH. At that point in its flight, 587 should have been all cleaned up and trim. No way the airframe should disintegrate unless it wsas already weakened. Best scenario for me involves conservation of momentum-- forward momentum is somehow transferred to rotational, and engines are 'flung off'. But the engines did not impact very far from the fuselage, and no one reports a spinning frisbee hitting the earth. Second scenario is that they were shaken off.

ALL scenarios tell me THAT A300 was one sick, non-airworthy airframe when it took off.

.

Or, it was a bomb or three that did ... (tin foil hat alert)

[Dixielander]

[185JHP]

I'm not a fan of the Airbus. I flew to Europe on one and wasn't impressed. I like the robust, honest, highly redundant Boeing way of defying gravity. FReegards Gonna be interesting to see the way this thing eventuates.

[Agent Smith]

Seems as though the "experts" are coming around to my view today.

[Adam-ondi-Ahman]

I found a link to a Flat spin theory on Rense. Any ideas on how valid this theory is?
Look at the botton of the page.