To clarify, the evidence is that the VS failed below the attachment point, barely inside the tailcone.
I thought the bolts that held the VS to the empennage were found still in the empenage, and the attachment parts, repaired and original were still there, and 'wheat straw' looking composites were visible there. No matter. Either way, the point is that the VS did not separate at broken or loosened bolts. Structural members failed, at least in part. Could also be that some bolts failed, others didn't, and the remaining tight structures failed. We're just trying to figure out how in the world a VS could fall off an A300, with or without WT.
I look forward to reading more. Thanks.
It's somewhat ludicrous to think that the A-300 was going to catch up to a B-747. The ATC maximums of the altitude/speed restrictions would preclude that.
Agreed. I think the point here is that their departure paths were different, and the A300 "reportedly" intersected the flight path of the 747 about 45 seconds behind the 747. How? The 747 flew a long curve, while the A300 flew a more direct path. You're right that the A300 would not be permitted to catch the 747 in controlled airspace.