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

Vanity | 11/15/01 | Agent Smith

[Agent Smith]

Up until now, my best guess as to the cause of the 587 crash was defective/substandard bolts used in attaching the vertical stabilizer to the tail and a failure to detect the problem through inspections.

However, I heard on the news last night that the vertical stabilizer was not fabricated from aluminium, but from a carbon fiber composite. This material is very strong and light but can fail catastrophically if a stress fracture/crack develops. Based on the photos of the recovered stabilizer showing that it was cleanly severed from the tail, I now believe that this is the most likely cause of the accident.

The turbulence from the JAL 747 was the straw that broke the camel's back.

[okie01]

-- what did ATC call out for winds? "Flight 587 cleared for takeoff, winds are .... "

Winds were reported to be coming from 320 degrees at 11 Knots.

[MassLengthTime]

Indeed several aircraft have been successfully flown without a VS in place.

I wonder how the Airbus fly-by-wire flight control system is programmed to respond in such circumstances.

Anyone remember the problem with Arianne V blowing up after launch? It was traced to a software bug that only occurred during anomolous conditions.

[Gotterdammerung]

"Sabotage is certainly a possibility, but the list of suspects would be pretty short. These facilities operate 24/7 and the chances of an outsider entering and accomplishing this task unnoticed are remote." How 'bout an inside job?

[Agent Smith]

My credentials are a logical inquiring mind and a modest knowledge of composite laminates.

[Blueflag]

Really interesting programming question about the fly by wire. HAd forgotten to consider that.

IF NOSIGNAL or NACK = response from VS actuator and sensor

THEN ABEND

oops.

[Blueflag]

Well, some reports and data indicate that in the air, their paths were as little as 45 seconds apart. To be confirmed.

[okie01]

"I wonder how the Airbus fly-by-wire flight control system is programmed to respond in such circumstances."

I understand that the fly-by-wire system is present in the A320 series, but not in the A300. Could someone confirm this?

[Beenliedto]

what did ATC call out for winds?

I think I heard that the winds were 320 at 11... pretty much straight down the runway... I flew out of an airport in Northern Virginia that morning... that would be consistent given the weather pattern of the day, IMHO.

[Azzurri]

I have a hard time believe wake turbulence caused this crash. Why now, two months after the most massive terrorism in history? On an American Airlines jet, taking off from JFK, on Veterans Day? Too many coincidences. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of planes with small structural damage flying around right now. You would think several wake turbulence disasters of this sort (damaging an existing condition) would've occurred countless times before. The A300 leaving 2 and a half minutes behind a 747 is something that happens every day, all over the world. I'm no aviation expert, but I sense sabotage and no explanation thus far passes the smell test.

[mad_as_he$$]

Just for the record I for one am not buying this turbulence call from anybody. There is no way you can convince me that there was that strong of wake 5 minutes later. I have taken off hundreds of times from some of the busiest airports in the world and never felt anything that felt like enough turb to cause structural failure. On the other hand I have been in bad weather on on 737,747,757,MD-80/11(worst pos in the air)A-300/320 and 767 and seen the wings flexing 4-6 feet at then end - just as they were designed to do. This vert stab looks like somebody sawed it off. Maybe it's that monster from the Twilight Zone - where's Captain Kirk?

[cinFLA]

The Bonanza has a V-tail which allows for vertical stabilization.

[bootless]

Hi -

A friend of mine who has flown lots of big iron said that severe turblence will indeed cause a rattling sound in the airframe. Will track his quote down when I get to work... Thanks for your thoughtful posts here...

[timestax]

Until all the mysterious crashes end, I would not ever fly out of N.Y. There seems to be some kind of curse.

[Blueflag]

Mad--

Here on this thread most of the discussion folows your logic, that

(1)WT should not cause a crash in a structurally sound aircraft

(2)it is possible that the A300 DID encounter the wake of the 747, and

(3) the A300 could have ended up as little as 45 seconds beind the 747.

To your point, no one is postulating that a 'healthy' A300 could be knocked down by WT. Evidence appears to indicate the VS failed above its bolted on attachement points-- an obvious problem. We have no definitive reason why, and are only suggesting that a weakened VS could have failed in a WT event, and contributed mightily to the crash.

I look forward to your response.

[Blueflag]

plus rattling sounds in the galley, the overheads and in the brains of the flyers. ;-)

[F16Fighter]

"Feel free to...debunk my theory."

With all due respect, I am leaning toward a Gremlin's mischief. I seem to recall Bugs Bunny having had one helluva time in that one cartoon where he's trying to keep control of his plane...

[mad_as_he$$]

Bolts could be a major factor the FAA has failed to address the counterfeit problem for many years. I don't disagree with you basic premises I think I will just wait and see what plays out.

However we should not forget that the French are involved. lol

[mad_as_he$$]

Oh yes and one thing else a NATO AWACS should have records of this. I have heard nothing about that.