Skip to comments.
NTSB Briefing, NTSB claiming .3 to .8 g wake encounter caused crash?!?!?!
CNN
| 11/15/2001
| me
Posted on 11/16/2001 1:19:06 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 461-473 next last
To: CdMGuy
Exactly! Why would anyone ever want to fly again?
To: classygreeneyedblonde
.3 g wake...
3/10ths of a unit of gravity a "g".
Wake is wake turbulance
It means he encountered 3/10th of a g during a wake turbulance event. This is nothing, a aeronatuical bump in the road if you will...
The NTSB is either stupid, lying or working for Airbus.
To: Stevieboy
hmmmmmmmm
To: LarryLied
Yes - they said the bolts were intact. Broke off behind the bolts.
64
posted on
11/16/2001 1:19:11 PM PST
by
JmyBryan
To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Yep, they're really hanging their hat on the "wake turbulence" theory, if only because one of the Flt. 587 pilots appears to have mentioned it on the voice recorder.
For all you pilots out there, imagine how you're going to have to announce encounters with turbulence to the passengers from now on: "We're going to go through some turbulence here, ladies and gentlemen....EVERYBODY--SIT DOWN!!!! THE PLANE IS *NOT* GOING TO DISINTEGRATE...REPEAT...[etc.]" Won't that be a kick?
To: Milosevic2
Everyone write their Congressmen and SCREAM right now !! Enough is enough !!!!! No More Bullshit...
To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Did they mention whether they had done any explosives residue testing yet?
67
posted on
11/16/2001 1:19:11 PM PST
by
walden
To: LTCJ
An AE's help is needed here.
To: CdMGuy
Exactly.
This had better be some freak of mechanical nature or the airline industry's had it for the next 5 years.
To: The Magical Mischief Tour
To: The Magical Mischief Tour
thank you...
To: chemainus
I agree, time to scream! Next thing you know Ford and Firestone will tell us you can't do 70mph on the highway because the tires weren't mean't to stand that kind of speed and it is our fault.
To: CdMGuy
The normal category limits are pretty high. Most people are uncomfortable if loads exceed 1g. Remember, the sense of falling unsupported is one g. I have hit a lot of turbulence in my day but the planes I was flying didn't mind.
73
posted on
11/16/2001 1:19:11 PM PST
by
BillM
To: The Magical Mischief Tour
If they're talking about static loads, the stated .3 to .8 g would be several times too small even at the upper end to cause failure. If, on the other hand, the vortex initiated and sustained a harmonic oscillation of the vertical stabilizer, it could have led to a dynamic instability called flutter. The key issue would be whether the vortex could act as a load factor that stimulated a resonant frequency of the vertical stabilizer. The controls software of the A/C may have contributed to the problem if it didn't properly act to dampen rather than amplify the oscillations.
There's a famous film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that was built without consideration of resonant frequencies. Shortly after it was completed in 1940, on a windy day, the bridge began to rock up and down, with the waves in the roadway reaching several feet between crest and trough before the whole thing collapsed. It's believed that vortex shedding from a natural formation provided the periodic input that resulted in the bridge's collapse. Go to Tacoma Narrows Bridge Failure for a technical explanation.
74
posted on
11/16/2001 1:19:11 PM PST
by
jpthomas
To: classygreeneyedblonde
what is a .3g wake? In this context, it means a ripple in the air caused by a wake vortex from the wing of another plane.
The .3g means that it exerted an acceleration force of 3/10ths the force of gravity (32 feet/sec acceleration).
Can someone do a quick calculation and determine the lateral acceleration generated generated by a 20 mph right turn around the corner? I think it would help people understand the absurdity of this claim.
To: Avi8tor
avi8tor - Could you please help this ol hick decipher your posts.
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Could an explosive planted in the tail of the aircraft do the same thing? Especially one planted on the outside of the aircraft and not on the inside. That way it wouldn't cause a ton of noise for those in the plane, etc. I think the NTSB is run by a bunch of morons.
To: right_to_defend
You hit more than .3G accelerating down the runway. I say no one should fly anymore if .3 - .8 g will bring these things down in flaming chunks.
What a bunch of liars! Do they actually expect people to believe this crap?
To: 11B3
"In other words, it was a bomb. Why didn't they just say: "Isolated incident....Nothing to see here......""
When did the bomb go off? Was it one of those new Maxwell Smart Silent Boomers? Have you a plausible comment based on some sort of fact, not some friggin tin hat conspiracy BS? Get a life and quit listening to Art Bell!
79
posted on
11/16/2001 1:19:11 PM PST
by
lawdude
To: classygreeneyedblonde
a wake with impact force on the jet behind it that is equivilent to .3 earth gravities.
for reference, when you SCUBA dive to 33 feet depth, you are experiencing one full additional earth gravity in the from of the pressure exerted by the weight of the water on your body.
When a fighter pilot pulls a sharp loop, inertia/centrifugal force exerts a 2G pull on his body, or, were you to place a scale under his tush during the loop, he'd weigh twice his normal standing weight.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 461-473 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson