Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EIGHTH UPDATE ON NTSB INVESTIGATION INTO CRASH OF AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 587
NTSB ^ | 4 June 2002 | NTSB

Posted on 06/04/2002 7:05:09 PM PDT by Asmodeus

NTSB Advisory
National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
June 4, 2002

EIGHTH UPDATE ON NTSB INVESTIGATION INTO CRASH OF AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 587


The National Transportation Safety Board today released the following updated information on its investigation of the November 12, 2001, crash of American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus A300-600, in Belle Harbor, New York, which resulted in the deaths of all 260 persons aboard and 5 persons on the ground.

Public Hearing

The Safety Board has voted to convene a public investigative hearing on the crash of flight 587. It will be held in Washington, D.C. in October. The exact dates, as well as the issues that will be discussed at the hearing, will be announced at a later time.

Vertical Stabilizer and Rudder

At NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, two panels measuring approximately 6 feet long and 2.5 feet wide were removed from the vertical stabilizer from flight 587. They are the lug-to-skin transition areas for the left side forward and rear lugs. At the Safety Board's request, the Ford Motor Company has offered the use of its nondestructive evaluation laboratory, which is considered one of the most advanced laboratories using CT scanning in the world. The panels are currently at the Ford facility, located in Livonia, Michigan, undergoing CT scans to generate images of ply separations noted in earlier examinations. Most CT scanning equipment cannot accommodate the size of these panels. The scanning should continue for another week or two.

Also at Langley, seven additional coupons (samples) from undamaged areas of the stabilizer were removed for materials testing: four from the left skin, and one each from the aft spar, center spar and lower rib.

Witness Interviews

The Witness Group has received 349 accounts from eyewitnesses, either through direct interviews or through written statements. An initial summary of those statements follows:

· 52% specifically reported seeing a fire while the plane was in the air, with the fuselage being the most often cited location (22%). Other areas cited as a fire location were the left engine, the right engine or an unspecified engine, and the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified wing.
· 8% specifically reported seeing an explosion.
· 20% specifically reported seeing no fire at all.
· 22% reported observing smoke; 20% reported no smoke.
· 18% reported observing the airplane in a right turn; another 18% reported observing the airplane in a left turn.
· 13% observed the airplane "wobbling," dipping" or in "side to side" motion.
· 74% observed the airplane descend.
· 57% reported seeing "something" separate from the airplane; 13% reported observing the right wing, left wing or an undefined wing separate; 9% specifically reported observing no parts separate.

More complete observations will be published in the Witness Group's factual report when the public docket is opened on the first day of the public hearing.

NTSB Press Contact: Ted Lopatkiewicz
(202) 314-6100


NTSB Home | News & Events


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aaflight587; aaflight587ntsb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 06/04/2002 7:05:09 PM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus
Terrorism was the REAL reason....but NTSB will never say that...
2 posted on 06/04/2002 7:14:30 PM PDT by KQQL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Terrorism was the REAL reason....but NTSB will never say that...

And we know this because -- 18% of the witnesses reported observing the airplane in a right turn; or 18% of the witnesses reported observing the airplane in a left turn?

3 posted on 06/04/2002 7:23:12 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
And we know this because -- 18% of the witnesses reported observing the airplane in a right turn; or 18% of the witnesses reported observing the airplane in a left turn?

We know we damn sure can't rely on eyewitness reports to get to the bottom of anything.

Everybody saw something different.

4 posted on 06/04/2002 7:28:35 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
"Terrorism was the REAL reason....but NTSB will never say that".

If you KNOW that to be true, present your supporting evidence and reference source URLs.

If you can't do that, it's inappropriate, to put it mildly, to make either that allegation or that accusation about the NTSB.

Truth is always determined by facts, not suspicions, speculations, allegations or accusations.

5 posted on 06/04/2002 7:36:42 PM PDT by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Sorry KQQL. Shoddy French manufacturing and ineffective maintenance was the cause of this one.

Now, TWA800, that's a bomb of a whole other shoe.

6 posted on 06/04/2002 7:41:33 PM PDT by Incorrigible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
hum. might be another issue here. My aikido instructor explains it the best. "turn to the right. no your other right". lol
7 posted on 06/04/2002 8:20:46 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: *AA Flight 587

8 posted on 06/04/2002 8:59:01 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asmodeus; aristeides; Plummz; Betty Jo
· 8% specifically reported seeing an explosion.

This is significant since most on n=349 (sample size) didn't see the initial incident...assumption on my part.

9 posted on 06/04/2002 9:03:29 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
I'd want to see the interview transcripts before I trusted any summary put out by the NTSB.
10 posted on 06/04/2002 9:23:58 PM PDT by Plummz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
Let me cut to the chase. It was the shoe bomber #1.
11 posted on 06/04/2002 9:26:33 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz;Plummz;aristeides;OKCSubmariner;iwent south;Ann Archy;rdavis84
I no longer believe anything this government tells me, without "GOOGLING" the heck out of it!
12 posted on 06/04/2002 10:05:24 PM PDT by Betty Jo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Let me cut to the chase. It was the shoe bomber #1.

Ok.

1) How does a shoe bomb in the cabin magically, cleanly separate the vertical stabilizer (with not a scrap of blast damage on it, or burns) as the FIRST thing to come off?

2) Why is there no explosion heard on the cockpit voice recorder?

3) Why was there absolutely NO cabin debris (overhead bin luggage, parts of seats, etc) found floating in Jamaica Bay, or on land leading up to the crash site, if there was a shoe bomber in the cabin (which presumably would rupture the cabin?)

13 posted on 06/04/2002 10:44:26 PM PDT by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
"Let me cut to the chase. It was the shoe bomber #1.".....

Fred, you're most likely correct, take it from another personality. Anyhow, if in the unlikelyhood that it wasn't shoebomber #1, it may have been that out-of-control food and beverage cart rolling recklessly to the back of the plane (right past the shoe bomber, who was hiding in the bathroom). The cart knocked the tail off and also started a fire on the way to the back of the plane!

14 posted on 06/05/2002 3:43:34 AM PDT by ChasingFletch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
"Let me cut to the chase. It was the shoe bomber #1.".

Yep......and please give my regards to Ethel!

15 posted on 06/05/2002 3:45:49 AM PDT by ChasingFletch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
If it was shoddy French workmanship and the Airbus was considered unsafe, WHY WEREN'T THEY ALL GROUNDED AND THE PROBLEM FIXED??!! I'm not sticking up for the French, but look at the facts. This is another coverup.
16 posted on 06/05/2002 4:02:04 AM PDT by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
bump to the top
17 posted on 06/05/2002 8:15:12 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Perhaps. I've been more inclined to believe sabotage by a JFK "maintenance" crew.
18 posted on 06/05/2002 12:36:08 PM PDT by Plummz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
I read probably the same convincing article that you did that said that sabotage of the hydraulic lines could have caused the type of spin that the aircraft experienced. It was very technical and very convincing, but I'm not an aviator with an aero dynamics background.
19 posted on 06/05/2002 1:01:53 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz;beach_babe
Bump
20 posted on 06/05/2002 1:14:30 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson