Test Reveals Problem With Tail on Another American Airlines' Airbus Jet

Wall Street Journal ^ | 11 Mar 2002 | Lynn Lunsford

[Rokke]

Monday March 11, 3:34 pm Eastern Time

Test Reveals Problem With Tail on Another American Airlines' Airbus Jet

By: J. Lynn Lunsford, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

DALLAS -- Testing on the tail fin of a second American Airlines Airbus A300 involved in an in-flight upset in 1997 has turned up problems with the all- composite tail that could provide clues about what caused another American jetliner to crash in November.

The tests, which were the result of the ongoing investigation into the crash of American Flight 587, showed that one of the six lug nuts that holds the tail fin onto the fuselage of the Airbus Industrie-made jet had signs of structural problems that could potentially lead to a failure. The problems weren't visible during routine visual inspections, which previously were believed to be sufficient.

That airplane had been involved in an in-flight upset in 1997 that placed aerodynamic stress on the tail that approached those recorded on the tail that failed on Flight 587. People familiar with the investigation say that the National Transportation Safety Board will issue a statement within the next hour elaborating further.

The airline, owned by AMR Corp. (NYSE: AMR - news) (AMR), operates 34 Airbus planes.

One person familiar with the situation said the discovery isn't likely to force a grounding of the Airbus A300 since problems have only been found in a tail that had undergone severe stress. The plane involved in the 1997 incident is the only one in American's fleet believed to have encountered such powerful forces on the tail during inflight upset.

-- Scott McCartney contributed to this report.

Write to J. Lynn Lunsford at lynn.lunsford@wsj.com

Copyright (c) 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

<a

[Rokke]

On a related note, Alcoa aluminium reported tinfoil sales dropped significantly within the last 24 hours.

[exit82]

Maybe someday, they'll get around to explaining the explosions that took place on Flight 587, before the tail popped off.

[Rokke]

And the evidence of those explosions would be......

[exit82]

Credible eyewitness reports--by firemen and policemen who live in the community where the plane came down. There was an explosion on the right side by the wing first. The engines also exploded off the wings.

This fact has been steadily glossed over by media accounts since the day the crash occurred. The next month, we found out about Richard Reid, and the existence of shoe bombers.This plane crash fits the profile of a bombing as the initiating event, not airframe failure.

A plane the size of an Airbus does not fall apart in midair. This tail problem is a bunch of baloney. There is a video in existence from a toll plaza that shows the entire sequence of events, but it has not been made public yet.

If the tail was indeed such a problem, the why is not every Airbus grounded right now until proven airworthy? For the same reason we didn't ground every 747 after TWA Flight 800 crashed. Because the stated cause or focus of the problem is not the real one.

[Rokke]

Did those firemen and policemen see the explosions before the tail fell off? If so, why wasn't there any debris in the water besides parts of the tail?

[exit82]

They saw the explosions, and stated it for the record in the news articles of the crash. They also recently took out a newspaper ad in one of the NY papers asking why their reports of what happened were being ignored by the NTSB investigators. They have also had a representative appear on "The Factor".

From day one, the NTSB has been giving out ridiculous explanations of why this plane came down. Also, all wreckage did not come down over the water,as you know.

Do a search here on Flight 587 for previously posted articles for additional information.

[mn12]

So now it's a damaged lug nut. I guess that's like how if a lug nut comes off of a car wheel, that corner of the car explodes!

[Rokke]

I went back and read several articles. It would appear there is a lot of support for the tail coming off first, including several articles from Aviation Week. On the other hand, the several eyewitnesses you describe do say there were explosions before the tail fell off. But their descriptions of what happened don't match the reality exhibited by radar tapes and wreckage dispersments. For example, Tom Lynch reports a small explosion after the plane made a banked turn. The aircraft had been flying straight for over 15 seconds before the tail fell off. He then states 2 or 3 seconds later a larger explosion happened at which point the airplane began to fall apart. Jim Conrad says the plane nose dived after the second explosion. Ellie Schofield says she witnessed only the last 3 or 4 seconds of flight. All of those folks are describing events that happened several seconds after the tail fell off and the plane started going out of control. I certainly believe they did see explosions. The explosions may well have been the result of the violent maneuvers the aircraft experienced in its last moments of flight. Other eyewitnesses report seeing the wing fly off and take the tail off before the plane went out of control and some report the plane was almost completely intact as it hit the ground. Regardless of who says what, if folks like Lynch, Conrad and Schofield really do have accurate memories, how does one explain the fact that the only pieces of debris found in the water (almost 1/2 a mile from land and 1 mile from the main wreckage) were pieces of the tail?

[Rokke]

A better analogy would be the bolt holding your steering wheel fell off leaving you in an uncontrollable car driving toward a hairpin corner overlooking a cliff.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[_Jim]

From day one, the NTSB has been giving out ridiculous explanations of why this plane came down.

Do you have a cite on that (i.e., can you post a link or article where they voiced a 'ridiculous explanation')?

[exit82]

Thanks for recounting the various eyewitness accounts. I do not have access to them, nor any of the information the FAA or NTSB has. After TWA 800, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the NTSB, that's my personal take on it.

What still mystifies me, is the fact, that if it was really the tail that fell off, why wasn't every Airbus grounded immediately? To do otherwise, and not truly ascertain the condition of each tail assembly on each Airbus, every passenger on an Airbus was in jeopardy. That was a step the FAA, FBI, or the NTSB was not willing to take.With planes built to certain factors of safety, and having to have the ability to fly in all types of wind and weather conditions, having a plane practically self destruct on a clear day is not typical. Otherwise, this type of event would be expected to happen with regular frequency.

Thanks again for your studious attention to detail.

[exit82]

Jim, that's my personal opinion. One of the early reports was that an extra .3g of force was enough to make the plane practically self destruct in midair. Sounds ridiculous to me.

I know there was a discussion thread and article on FR about this very subject with many pilots chiming in about it. Perhaps you can look it up in the archives.

[shaggy eel]

ping

[RnMomof7]

I flew air bus last fall..it was my 1st experience on them and and the flights were aweful..those planes were very sensitive to turbulence ..I have never gotten air sick in all my years of flying..but I was real close on those flights..

[exit82]

A hanger queen? That's a great line! LOL!