NTSB Photos of Tail of AA-587 Plane. (Lots of images)

NTSB ^

[cc2k]

American Airlines Flight 587
Belle Harbor, New York
November 12, 2001

Vertical Stabilizer and components of aircraft recovered from the water

Vertical stabilizer (tail fin) attachment point	Piece of rudder
One of the forward attachment points	Vertical stabilizer

Right side forward and center attachment points

Left forward attachment point

Images from the main wreckage site

NTSB investigator at crash site	Center and aft attachment points (left side)
1 center and 2 aft attachment points	Tail section of aircraft
	Forward attachment points of fin (attached to empennage)

[Ron C.]

"I'm not sure that I buy the argument"

I certainly don't - AT ALL - for two or three very significant reasons - all of which are persuasive.

1. Radar tracks of plane paths tell the most significant tale - the 747 path of flight was separate from that of the ill-fated by at least a quarter of a mile - maybe more.
2. No ‘wake' puts radical fast-switching g forces of the type reported - from left to right and then back right to left - those forces simply do not exist in a wake encounter. Far more reasonable would be the forces put on the plane by shifting of weight factors involved with the loss of the tail, then the engine, then the entire right wing of the craft. Almost no one is talking about the fact that the entire right wing separated from the craft causing it to roll hard left, them pitch into a near virtical descent.
3. No one is talking about the explosion seen, and heard, in the air - the obvious fire on board and the smoke prior to the crash. That discussion was all over the media early on, now it is being ignored.

There is more too. I've been in aircraft wakes, many times - once right behind a 747 - less than one minute separation - and at almost the exact altitude and path. A bit of a bumpy ride for all of 2 seconds - no sideways action whatsoever - only vertical, as would be expected - certainly nothing that would cause destruction of aircraft - unless it were small and poorly constructed, perhaps.

[ladtx]

No pictures.

[vrwc54]

Discussion of this photo

After seeing all these pictures, we've all been thinking in terms of the tail fin separating from a solid piece of fuselage.

But, look at this picture:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/AA587_11.jpg

These are the two forward mounting brackets for the tail fin. Look what they are attached to...(or perhaps more to the point, NOT attached to). Note that this section of the top of the fuselage is completely broken apart from the section behind it (the section with the two center and two rear tail fin mounting brackets). Note that it is also broken apart from the main fuselage in front of it.

What would have happened if something happened to separate (or even just buckle/displace) this piece of the top of the fuselage in flight? At that point, wouldn't you have incredible forces acting very differently on the front vertical stabilizer brackets and the other four brackets? Forces that would be very different from any anticipated design criteria? Could this cause the level of force required to snap off all six mounting tabs? Would that change the whole paradigm of thinking about what caused the vertical stabilizer to break off this airframe?

What could have caused the gaping holes shown in this photo -- one visible between the two brackets and one to this side of the brackets? Above the center hole, is that a section of the "roof" that appears to have been somehow forced upwards from the hole -- like a tab of metal pushed out from the inside? If that piece of metal were pushed upwards with a sudden strong force during flight, would not that put the front stabilizer fasteners under tension loads that would not have been anticipated?

Is this section of the plane located directly above the ceiling of the rear lavatories?

Just looking at pictures and thinking out loud.

[Double Tap]

I don't see any pictures either.

[vrwc54]

To see the photos click "Old Style" at top or bottom of the page.

[MizSterious]

Ron, for what it's worth, on ABC's Good Morning America this morning, the woman who heads this investigation said some of the same things. She actually said that if it was due to a wake, that there had to be some other critical problem with the plane. (I note that every time someone says that on Free Republic, someone suggests purchasing a tinfoil hat.) She really actually said that the turbulance would in no way make a plane come apart, unless something very grave was wrong with it in the first place.

[MizSterious]

I'm seeing some, but not any of these on this thread.

[vrwc54]

The Cockpit Voice Recorder continued for 20 more seconds under battery power, if I understand correctly.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Radar tracks are indeed parallel but cross twice. As a private pilot I can say that wakes can indeed cause side to side or yawing forces. In fact the vortices of the propeller spinning clockwise facing the front hit the fin and rudder from left to right forcing the plane to yaw to the left. You must apply right rudder to correct. If you can imagine a wake spinning just above the plane and the rudder just sticking into the spinning vortice above it, then the plane will yaw in the opposite diriction as the diriction of the bottom of the vortice.

[barker]

Morning bump so I can find this thread tonight.

[MizSterious]

Ah, thank you!! Works like a charm!

[vrwc54]

Can you see the photos when you click on Old Style at top or bottom of this Page?

[Blueflag]

"I certainly don't - AT ALL - for two or three very significant reasons - all of which are persuasive. Radar tracks of plane paths tell the most significant tale - the 747 path of flight was separate from that of the ill-fated by at least a quarter of a mile - maybe more. No ‘wake' puts radical fast-switching g forces of the type reported - from left to right and then back right to left - those forces simply do not exist in a wake encounter. Far more reasonable would be the forces put on the plane by shifting of weight factors involved with the loss of the tail, then the engine, then the entire right wing of the craft. Almost no one is talking about the fact that the entire right wing separated from the craft causing it to roll hard left, them pitch into a near virtical descent. No one is talking about the explosion seen, and heard, in the air - the obvious fire on board and the smoke prior to the crash. That discussion was all over the media early on, now it is being ignored. There is more too. I've been in aircraft wakes, many times - once right behind a 747 - less than one minute separation - and at almost the exact altitude and path. A bit of a bumpy ride for all of 2 seconds - no sideways action whatsoever - only vertical, as would be expected - certainly nothing that would cause destruction of aircraft - unless it were small and poorly constructed, perhaps. "

Ron--

First let me state that I do not really understand how a commercial airliner flying at roughly 220 KIAS in clear air can be torn apart by wake turbulence. It boggles the mind, especially for someone like me who flies 150 segments a year.

Having stated that, I'd like to take issue with your statement "No ‘wake' puts radical fast-switching g forces of the type reported - from left to right and then back right to left - those forces simply do not exist in a wake encounter. If an aircraft encounters the bottom of the spiraling vortex, then the top (as opposed to the two sides, The aircraft will indeed be pushed laterally. Now, thw vortex should in my mind NOT push disproportionally on the VS, but rather on the entire airframe, so torque is not applied around the yaw axis. But maybe it did. Sideways air pressure would also account for why the VS appears 'undamaged'-- becasue the airpressure was uniform across its surface (postulate). REM: In my mind, that VS was weakened before the plane took off, no matter what the real cause was -- from bomb to fairy dust.

"I've been in aircraft wakes, many times - once right behind a 747 - less than one minute separation - and at almost the exact altitude and path. A bit of a bumpy ride for all of 2 seconds - no sideways action whatsoever - only vertical, as would be expected - certainly nothing that would cause destruction of aircraft - unless it were small and poorly constructed, perhaps." For every example, there is a contraindication. One day in the winter of 1998, I was a passenegr in a United 737 on final into ORD. We were landing to the north in a snow quall. Nothing major, just the atmosphere wringing out some moisture after the passage of a cold front. When we were perhaps over the middle marker or closer, the aircraft rolled a good 30 -45 to the right, suddenly. The pilot immediately corrected the roll, but could not prevent us from losing altitude and we landed just over the threshold. There were the ususal gasps and some screams. The pilot came on to inform us that we had landed behind a 757, and had encountered a strong wake, despite over 1 minutes' separation (IFR). I have been bounced numerous times on approach into ATL on 27L, espedcially when coming down from the NE corridor. Some of these are roll, some are yaw. Most, as you write feel vertical .

What's my point? We should not rule out the possibility that the A300 DID encounter rough air, with lateral forces, generated by a subsiding wake from a preceding 747. I think EFVERYONE agrees that this event should NOT tear apart a commercial airliner, especially one the size of an A300. Lastly, I personally do not know when the wing fell off, if the smoke from the engine really was visible as the A300 executed its takeoff roll, if there was fire in the wing root, etc., etc. I find it VERY hard to believe that all this started with CAT.

My personal opinion is that this particular A300 was a rattle-trap airframe, near-death. THis event just tragically exposed that. As a very frequent flyer, I avoid Airbus equipment in general, and believe the A300 fleet needs to be grounded until they are proven airworthy. THe A300 certificate should be at risk right now. Simply my opinions.

p.s.-- pardon the typos.

FReegards,

[Ron C.]

"It would not have come off immediately.."

I agree with the tail-loss contributing to the wild G-forces, but not that it hung around more than a second or so in the departure - more likely the tail departed due to explosive force. I suspect highly a bomb in the aft toilet would do the trick - yet no one that SHOULD know this is saying a bloody thing about it.

No amount of blither from the NTSB, proven dolts and untrustworthy as they are, can convince me that there was not deliberate sabatage here. That tail, the engines and the wing did not leave the plane caused by a wake that was hundreds of yards away (proven by radar tracking.)