Pilots of Doomed Jet Unaware Tail Fin Fell Off

Reuters | 10/29/02 | John Crawley

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The crew of a doomed American Airlines jetliner apparently was unaware the tail fin had fallen off as they struggled to control the plane before it crashed last year into a New York neighborhood, killing 265 in the second-worst U.S. aviation disaster.

Cockpit voice recordings released by the National Transportation Safety Board at the start of public hearings into the crash shed little light on the cause of the disaster. But they established a critical time line for events and illustrated the dramatic final seconds of Flight 587, an Airbus A300-600. Safety board investigators are probing a number of factors -- including actions of the crew, rudder movements, and the possible role of turbulence generated by a bigger plane -- in the crash that occurred 103 seconds after takeoff on Nov. 12, 2001, from John F. Kennedy airport en route to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

The crash took place just two months after the catastrophic Sept. 11 hijackings, and immediately raised concerns it might have been another attack. But the safety board said then, and again on Tuesday, that the crash appeared to be an accident.

"There is no indication to date of any criminal activity associated with this crash," Carol Carmody, the acting safety board chairman, said at the hearing.

Investigators also said weather, which was clear at the time of the ill-fated flight, maintenance, air traffic control procedures, and engine performance were not factors in the accident.

There were also no apparent problems with the rudder before the flight, which is a critical finding.

Investigators believe a series of aggressive rudder swings a little more than a minute into the flight created substantial aerodynamic stresses on the tail fin, or vertical stabilizer, and caused it to break off the fuselage.

The safety board believes the crew was in full command of the flight controls, including the rudder movements. There have been some reports of rudders on other Airbus planes moving on their own without a pilot stepping on the pedals.

The voice recordings, which can provide a wealth of information for investigators, included comments from the pilot, Capt. Edward States, and the co-pilot, Sten Molin, who was flying the plane, as well as sounds heard by the crew.

The flight recorder captured routine conversation before takeoff, and the clipped jargon of cockpit procedures during the first minute of the flight, which was normal.

But then the plane encountered two wakes, similar to horizontal tornadoes, generated by a Japan Airlines 747 that took off from the same JFK runway two minutes before Flight 587 and was flying about 5 miles ahead.

The first, according to documents released at the hearing, was little more than a bump as the American jet crossed over it.

"Little wake turbulence, huh?" asked States.

"Yeah," Molin said.

Flight 587 hit the second wake seconds later as it began to turn left and climb to 2,400 feet. The cockpit recorder noted one "thump," followed by two more, and then a call by Molin in a "strained voice" for "max power."

While boosting the engines, the crew initiated a series of rapid back-and-forth rudder swings.

"You all right?" States asked.

"Yea, I'm fine," Molin replied.

"Hang onto it. Hang onto it," States called out.

There was a snap, another thump and then a loud bang, which investigators believe was the tail fin falling off the aircraft traveling at roughly 240 knots.

A roaring noise filled the cockpit and then two chimes sounded seconds apart, indicating the engines had fallen off. Engines are designed to break off when a plane spirals violently.

There were no indications from the recordings that the crew was aware the tail fin had fallen off the plane, as the pilots frantically struggled to determine what went wrong.

"What the hell are we into? We're stuck in it," Molin said after the tail fin had separated.

"Get out of it, get out of it," States said.

The transcript ended two seconds later at impact.

American is a unit of AMR Corp . Airbus, owned by European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co NV and Britain's BAE Systems Plc., which has defended its rudder system throughout the investigation.

[Bobby777]

what is the actual MPH of 240 knots?

[KellyAdmirer]

Engines are designed to break off when a plane spirals violently.

? How is having no engines on a plane with absolutely no gliding ability supposed to help anything?

[lelio]

So let me get this straight: this is a problem with Airbus planes yet few of them have been grounded to fix it? Something's not right here.

[lelio]

I suppose it gives you a chance to right the plane so you can land on its belly. Also less mass would hit the ground at once, possibly making for a "safer" landing.

[billorites]

"what is the actual MPH of 240 knots? "

About 278 MPH.

[Dinsdale]

How is having no engines on a plane with absolutely no gliding ability supposed to help anything?

It's better then no wings. Something is going to give.

All planes glide, some glide like a rock.

[billorites]

Engines are designed to break off when a plane spirals violently.

Better to lose the engines and keep the wings.

[Monty22]

This whole thing stinks. The hour this happened, they were going on the 'it's not a bomb' stuff instantly. I mean, instantly.

They had no clue.

What they want us to believe is that a bunch of loud noises happened, and the plane just fell apart on its own. I guess it is possible, but c'mon.

[Trust but Verify]

These transcripts are always fascinating in a horrific way. Pilots always strike me as brave and professional all the way to their last breath.

[Slicksadick]

I believe commercial aircraft are required to have at least a 12:1 glide ratio.

[Bobby777]

Reminds me of AA191 out of Chicago ... the no. 1 engine climbed up and over the wing (from the fuel left in the lines) ... it does this to keep from impacting the wing / aircraft ... unfortunately, when it went, it yanked the hydralics out ... the DC-10 had no locking mechanism for the forward slats / rearward flaps ... they retracted creating a lift imbalance ... supposedly the pilots performed the correct "engine out" procedure (they had no way of knowing it had separated) of stalling the aircraft to 160 knots ... however the left wing was stalling already the the aircraft rolled as the right wing lifted due to its slats / flap deployment (high degree of lift for takeoff) ... the aircraft rolled into a near-nosedive ... the whole flight was 45 seconds IIRC ...

however, in the case of 191, it was definitely mechanical failure due to improper attachment of the engines to the pylon and then to the wing ... proper procedure was to attach the pylon to the wing, and then attach the engine to the pylon ...

[oldcomputerguy]

I find it hard to believe that engines are designed to break off. The lone exception being some horrendous forces that would make it the last resort.

Having worked on planes in the USAF, this is the first time I have heard that mentioned.

[exit82]

The tail fell off. But was that the initiating event?

Notice there is not one recollection of the eyewitnesses that said there was an explosion near the fuselage at the right wing which started everything. And with all of the video cameras in the area on buildings, at the airport, etc, there is no video evidence of what happened.

The eyewitness reports have gone down the memory hole. If the tail really fell of and we still don't know why, why wasn't every Airbus grounded? They kept right on flying, didn't they?

I believe this was the first shoe bomber. The bomb blew through the hydraulic control cables below the floor of the cabin, severed the ones with the tail, the tail fin started flapping in the breeze without control and snapped off.

The first shoe bomber caught was three weeks later, Richard Reid.

For some reason, our government has been lying about
Flight 587, like TWA 800 and the OC bombing, since day one.
Tails don't just pop off; and planes don't get hit by vortexes when the takeoff pattern and timing is the same day after day after day.

There have been many previous threads on this subject on FR, which are worth reading.

[Bobby777]

thank you ... I guess I have a hard time believing the tail just fell off ... I'm familiar with wake turbulence and I haven't taken off behind a 747 that I recall (maybe DC-10's and L-1011's) when I flew a lot ... (passenger) ...

I know the 747 generates quite a wake for several miles ... these takeoff intervals are regulated by the tower ... I haven't heard that the minimum separation was violated ...

[billorites]

I find it hard to believe that engines are designed to break off.

The engines are very heavy and massive. The pylons which connect them to the wings are designed to be the weak link to protect the wing. They are strong as regards fore and aft loads, but are designed to fail when a rolling moment (horizontal) is applied.

[Publius6961]

The crew of a doomed American Airlines jetliner apparently was unaware the tail fin had fallen off as they

I could tell this would be an authoritative article after reading this.
Have Americans been dumbed down to the point where they (in addition to the author) is unfamiliar with the common word: "rudder"?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

that's exactly what I was wondering.

[eno_]

Right. That statement is utterly bogus. In fact, AB engine pylons are not deisgned to fail under any circumstances, unlike some Boeings and MDs, which are designed to have the engines come off in a gear-up landing.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list