Former NTSB Official Doubts Accident Caused Flt. 587 Crash

www.newsmax.com | 11/12/01 | Carl Limbacher

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

Monday Nov. 12, 2001; 11:34 p.m. EST

Former NTSB Official Doubts Accident Caused Flt. 587 Crash

Aviation expert and former National Transportation & Safety Board official Vernon Grose said late Monday that he's increasingly skeptical that the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 was purely accidental.

"I am backing away from the ready idea that this is simply an accident," Grose told Fox News Channel's John Scott.

The veteran air crash prober said that he questions the sequence in which the plane broke up over Jamaica Bay before slamming into a residential area in Rockaway, Queens.

"Photographs you've already shown tonigt (indicate) the vertical stabilizer of the aircraft with the American Airlines insignia right on it (fell into) Jamaica Bay long before the engine falls off in Queens," he told Scott.

Grose said that if the vertical stabilizer detached from Flt. 587 over Jamaica Bay, which the plane traversed before plummeting to the ground in Rockaway, it suggested that catastrophic engine failure alone may not have caused the crash.

"No, I don't think that's the situation at all," he told FNC.

"The engine that came free, which apparently was the number 1 left engine, and crashed on land - that was well after the vertical stabilizer was detached from the aircraft and that tells me that somehow..... that the airplane was progressively disintegrating, not just losing an engine and then diving into the ground."

"Earlier today I thought it was simply the loss of an engine that caused this," Grose told FNC. "But I'm not convinced now.... I am becoming more skeptical."

[rmvh]

Re # 22...Think about it, a jet traveling 3 to 4 hundred knots at take off....

That is impossibly funny.

[Lion's Cub]

List of *AA Flight 587 stories can be found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/involved?group=191

[Z-28]

If the thrust reverser malfunctioned (or was rigged to do so), the severe yaw induced by the reverse thrust could have caused the verticle stabilizer to detach from air pressure, and then the engine and wing.

But that still doesn't explain the explosion and fire reported by many eyewitnesses, does it?

"First I heard a big explosion. Then I saw flames come out from behind the plane. And then a whole wing with the engine fell off." - Antonio Villela, a construction worker, eyewitness to American Airlines flight 587 disaster.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGATP04RYTC.html

[cardinal4]

I think the NTSB will be backpedaling on earlier statements.It was too soon to declare a mechanical.I still believe in a catastrophic stucture or engine failure.I just wish everyone would back off and let the safety board make its determination.

[Z-28]

The politically correct media and government will never mention this, but "Santo Domingo" (AA Flight 587's destination) translates to "Holy Sunday" or "Saint Dominic" (One of the original Crusaders, and founder of the order of the Dominican Friers).

Plus, Monday is really the defacto Veteran's Day.

Move along now, nothing here related to terrorism.

[Elsie]

No fuel dumping over Jamaica Bay because this type of plane does not have a fuel dumping mechanism. Fuel in Bay was from leakage.

Right you are! Shreaded holes in the WING TANKS will definitely DUMP fuel!

---

Now, about that tail...........

Where IS the RUDDER?

Think about it: the rudder wiggles back and forth for hundreds of thousands of miles, slewing the big bird all over the sky. The side load must be tremendous to yaw that much mass back and forth.

As it has been already pointed out, the vertical stabilizer looks very pristine. If debris hit it, it would show massive damage. And, however it detached from the body of the craft - the rudder SHOULD still be attached to the VS.

---

If the RUDDER somehow came off first, the plane would STILL be quite flyable, it would just be going STRAIGHT! [Yaw could still be acheived by ailerons and differential engine speed]. The loss if the whole assembly WOULD, however, cause a pitchdown moment, due to center of gravity shifting forward. (I do not know if the horizontal stabilizer has enough range to compensate for this.)

[Z-28]

"The loss of the vertical stabilizer I think only points to some sort of mechanical accident. Its so unlikely to find that as a place a bomb would or could be planted."

Hmm... I've never flown a A-300, but I've flown about all the rest, and the lavatories are directly under the vertical tail on most, as I recall.

Naw, that's just in the movies. Move on now, nothing here.

[Z-28]

"That NTSB press conference was the most uninforming thing I have ever seen on TV, they said absolutely nothing except basically that terrorists didnt take over the plane. Well duh! what were they going to do crawl out on the wing and loosen the engine mounts."

I take it you didn't enjoy the 40 minute history speech about the N.T.S.B. by the Clinton appointed female bureaucrat?

[Z-28]

I agree with you 100%.

Welcome to the nanny nation.

[all4one]

All of the talking heads are really searching for an answer as to why this was an "accident". Just heard this morning on an NBC affiliat that birds often cause engine problems. Do birds also cause an airplane that was serviced the day before to break apart and fall from the sky 3 minutes after take-off? If so, planes would be falling from the sky at an alarming rate.

I want to Hear the actual black box recording. Chances are that they will just tell us what they have heard. I would bet that we will never actually hear the recording.

Also, I would bet that you won't hear or see any additional "eyewitness" reports from the media today. They usually start discrediting these eyewitnesses with the official NTSB opinion. The line so far is that so soon after this "incident" it is almost a conclusion that it is an accident. This is much to soon in my opinion.

[DB]

The information was it crashed 3 or 4 minutes after takeoff. That isn't very long.

[Illbay]

Well, I'm sure the REPORT of the guy's comments are accurate. But all you have to do is work the phones till you find a guy who'll say what you want him to say.

I'm sure the guy is sincere, but his is one opinion--formed by limited information--among many.

I don't believe there has BEEN an official determination, has there? In less than 24 hours? I don't think so.

[Illbay]

You're entitled to your opinion, but can you explain to me how such a catastrophic accident could possibly be "covered up"?

[WyldKard]

I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude to this. The problem is that if this is the work of terrorists, it's a very LOUSY piece of work. There is still enough doubt that most people are willing to chalk it up to an accident, which is NOT what the terrorists want.

Even when the very first plane flew into the WTC, most folks were thinking it was an accident. It took THREE MORE planes crashing into stuff for people to KNOW it was a terrorist event.

If something like this happens again in the next few days, or within the next four weeks, THEN I might be willing to believe this was a terorist attack. Once is a coincidece. Twice is cause for concern. Three times is an attack.

Accidents STILL happen in this day and age...

[AndyJackson]

the odds that an AMERICAN Airlines airliner flying out of New York on Veterans Day

I hope you are being sarcastic, because you cannot use statistics in this manner. After any catastrophe you can always go back and pick out special things about it to show that statistically it could not have happened. Once it has happened, it did happen. Once it did happen you can go backwards to look at probabilities of causes, but you cannot go back and prove that it did not happen.

In particular, in this instance, from a statistical standpoint there is nothing special about Veterans day. Given that American is the largest airline, and that New York is the busiest airport, that is the most likely place for an accident to happen, not the least.

I am not arguing that it couldn't have been a terrorist act, but only that there is no statistical argument that says it could not have been an accident.

[MichaelP]

"Photographs you've already shown tonigt (indicate) the vertical stabilizer of the aircraft with the American Airlines insignia right on it (fell into) Jamaica Bay long before the engine falls off in Queens,"

When I saw the vertical stabilizer being lifted out of the bay I told my wife there must have been an explosion. The report that the aircraft dumped fuel into the bay would also support this, the fuel tanks were probably damaged and started leaking. The plane crashed quite aways from the bay. The stabilizer must have been blown off by the initial event. It probably blew the fiber optics that feed the control surface actuators....

Mike

[Lion's Cub]

But it really makes you wonder if perhaps our govt decided that we would not want to affect the balance by telling Israel that one of their planes had been terrorized by muslim fundamentalists. Or is that completely ridiculous?

I'd forgotten about that and I haven't gone back to follow the story; but I do believe that Israel knows exactly what happened. If it was terrorism, they've agreed to keep it quiet for now to aid in the basic war. They won't let it go unpunished.

[Jethro Tull]

"Now if this wasn't from newsmax.com I would believe it.

Would you be more comfortable if the Moonie controled Washington Times reported this?
Or the leftist New York Times?

Thank your lucky stars for the internet and the FR.

If it weren't here, you'd be at the mercy of the mainstream media...

[Z-28]

"Are you serious? really, are there only two bolts holding the stabilizer on? I can't imagine that."

These 2 bolts are like the 1 nut that holds on the rotor of a helicopter, right? We called them the "Jesus nut" on the UH-1.

Re: someone asking if the luggage was inspected. I'm told on the best of days, under the best of circumstances, only about 10% of the non-carry-on luggage is ever inspected.

[Jethro Tull]

114: "I do, however, recognize the problems associated with eyewitnesses accounts but will not dwell on that here."

Dear Huggy:

As a retired member of the NYPD, I too have investigated criminal activity for nearly two decades. And I also recognize that problems can exist with eyewitness accounts of events. I don't, however, dismiss them like so many 'experts' who inevitably gather at these unexplained plane crash sites.

Given the past track of the FBI and other assorted governmental agencies, wouldn't you agree that an eyewitness account is a crucial element to a successful investigation?