The Mystery of Flight 587

Brother Jonathan Gazette -- Scroll Down all the way ^ | 11/15/2001 | Marshall Smith

[Swordmaker]

This is a logical explanation for the sequence of events and the existing evidence.

"Investigators at first believed the plane landed nose-down -- because of the lack of wider destruction that would have resulted had it hit the ground at a shallower angle. That did not explain, however, why they found so many intact or nearly intact bodies so quickly."
Washington Post article, Published Nov, 15, 2001, Page A18

[B4Ranch]

Your opinion?

[jlogajan]

It's all a conspiracy, I tells ya.

[Cicero]

This is way beyond my expertise. But the statement about the B-2 fly-by-wire requiring no vertical tail doesn't prove a thing. There's nothing resembling that kind of special computer controls in an Airbus.

[umgud]

This is a lot to swallow but, considerably more plausible than the center fuel tank story.

[Ziva]

Fascinating!

[Swordmaker]

How else do you explain the loss of the vertical stabilizer and then both engines??

Unless we are looking at a sudden, simultaneous, never before experienced, depolymerization of the carbon fiber composite materials that make up the tail and engine pylons, we must look for another logical modality of failure.

The sudden deployment of the left engine Thrust Reverser fits the picture of what apparently happened... and the evidence seems to comfirm it.

As to whether it was sabotage (sabatuer cuts hydraulic line to thrust reverser just before take-off) or mechanical failure (the hydraulic line to the thrust reverser breaks because of age, wear, constriction, whatever) is another question.

Timing and location suggest sabotage. The investigators need to look closely at the left hand engine and specifically at the hydraulic lines to the thrust reverser.

[Swordmaker]

I, too, thought that was a bit off the wall... the B1 and B2 will NOT fly without computer assistance because of their inherent instability.

[Republic]

I feel a little smug after reading this. Can't help myself. From the beginning I have believe that a sabateur messed with this plane before take off. And I still do.

And I thought this article was like reading a horror story-never have a read a more devastating rendition of the conditions of the cabin during a mechanical failure in flight. Horrendous.

I really believe that all mechanics and other personnel associated with maintenance and repair of aircraft need to be vetted-yesterday.

How easy this author makes it seem for someone to clip a few critical wires within an engine, making cuts that bring down an airliner without fail. I wonder how the delayed flight of this airliner fits into this scenario? It would be so nice to know exactly what caused the delay in lift-off since the critical time for the sabotage suggested by the author means that the engines needed to be running for only a certain time before failure would occur. IF it was a terrorist, he sure as heck did not want the engines to start leaking before the plane was airborne. Timing was everything in this event. And there must be plenty of leads. I sure hope they are looking at ground crews-big time.

[Lower55]

Being a pilot myself, this was my first opinion. I just couldn't express it as 'wordy' as you did. My un-wordy explanation was: Sounds like a reverser malfunctioned.

[Nita Nupress]

If you have the time, I'd like to hear your opinions on this one.

[B4Ranch]

The question that sits up front in my small mind is why didn't the NTSB and FAA immediate ground all similar AirBus's. Remember the 737 that crashed noth of LA with the defective gear in the tail section. Didn't they ground all the 737's until they found the cause?

[BADJOE]

I am a private pilot with 3500 hours. I have also discussed this event with my brother who is a retired Delta captain.

This is the most plausible explantion yet for this crash.

[Nita Nupress]

Does this one make sense to you?

[vrwc54]

I agree with you. Airbus is involved in this investigation which gives me some hope that the truth will someday be known.

[daviddennis]

First, excellent article. This is the first explanation of the crash that actually seems to hold together satisfactorily. I'm not saying I believe this is the reason for sure; but I like it because it explains many of the more bizarre facts about the incident.

The only problem with it is that I thought Al Queda would only do showy attacks that were against targets where there would be no ambiguity over whether it's terrorism or not. We're going to know for sure what happened only when all the data is analyzed; I don't think this is the sort of dramatic attack bin Laden specializes in. By the time we know what happened to Flight 587, it will have long since been overtaken by subsequent events.

I just don't think it fits the big egos of Al Queda.

D

[rickyc]

this all sounds great, but I think the reversers are held stowed by mechanical interlocks, not hydraulic pressure.

[VeganFreeper]

Excellent writing.

I have two questions:

1) Wouldn't an indicator ("idiot light") illuminate on the flight deck during the pre-flight checks, indicating a loss of hydraulic pressure in the left thrust-reverser?

2) What evidence do you have to show that a thrust-reverser would gradually slip into the acuated position when pressure is lost in the hydraulic line?

[Iscool]

This is way beyond my expertise. But the statement about the B-2 fly-by-wire requiring no vertical tail doesn't prove a thing. There's nothing resembling that kind of special computer controls in an Airbus.

Like the article says, the old "flying wing" of decades ago flew around quite nicely, without a tail configuration and without modern computors...Highly conceivable...