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."

[arkady_renko]

In another thread there is a portion of an eyewitness interview. Here is a part of it:

John: So is it almost right above you?

Ken: Yes, kinda to the north of us, cause we where more to the east channel drive at that time, on that side of Jamaica Bay and um the pieces that came off the wing...flew into the um tail and tore the tail off and as soon as that happened the plane went belly up towards us and towards the east and it just dove straight down, like the uhh the belly of the plane actually turned toward the south and it went straight down into the ground.

He seems to have seen the wing or a portion of the wing take out the stabalizer. Perhaps the rudder was cocked sideways and the piece hit it going straight back. This might simply un-zip the rivets. I am sure that the rudder is designed to withstand more of a side force than a straight blow to the rear,

That would explain the lack of marks on the leading edge and the lack of rudder.

arkady

[bonesmccoy]

Perhaps I should stick with analysis of bioterrorism, but can I ask you military aviation types a few questions:

1. When an aircraft is undergoing a progressive loss of major structural elements (i.e. verticle stabilizer, wing, engine, etc.), aren't there finite causes of this kind of structural failure? If so, what are those causes?

2. Bird strikes can cause a loss of an engine, but would it lead to loss of the verticle stabilizer prior to loss of an engine's structural integrity?

Even if the jet underwent a rapid thrust imbalance and yawed to a ridiculous angle, can the load really be capable of snapping the verticle stabilizer? The photo suggested that the tail had loss of integrity along rivet lines (hence the straight edges). Isn't that a bit odd?

3. The pattern required to find an on-board explosion would be the INSIDE of the fuselage/wing structure and NOT the outside. Has anyone seen pictures of the INSIDE of the tail?

[maxamillion]

Yeah, that sounds quite logical... Seams like I remember some while back that there was some trouble with reverse thrusters, although I'm not sure which aircrafts or engines it was...

[MistyCA]

2 bolts? No weld?

[concerned about politics]

Wasn't that a FORMER NTSB official? What's the point of listening to a FORMER NTSB official?--

He doesn't have to follow orders. I'd believe him first.

[Husker24]

The flight data recorder will tell.

[MistyCA]

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

[arkady_renko]

2 Bolts?! Now my stomach is turning!

[Committed]

Earlier today, I was convinced we experienced an in-flight bombing based on just what the commentator cited. However, since then, I have decided it's just as likely that the engine parted from it's mounts and, under thrust, flew back into the horizontal tail section, causing the aircraft to break up. The engine has enough enertia to continue on while the tail pieces would fall far short of the crash site, in Jamiaca Bay. So the possibility of a mechanical failure still remains at least as likely as foul play.

Either way, it's still tough on the families and the residents of the NY area. Lets keep them in our prayers.

[LisaAnne]

LONDON, May 30 (Reuters) - Airlines must alter thrust reversers on Airbus A300 airliners to ensure they do not deploy in flight, an occurrence that could easily destroy the plane, the European aircraft manufacturer said on Wednesday. Aviation regulators had required an extra safety mechanism after reviewing an 1998 incident in which a thrust reverser, which helps the brakes to stop the plane on landing, deployed in flight, an Airbus spokeswoman said. The Korean Air plane landed safely. ``The incident led us to take immediate precautionary measures at the time, to recommend that airlines not use the thrust reversers,'' she said. The Airbus spokeswoman said that even before the latest fix, the A300 had had two mechanisms designed to prevent unintended thrust-reverser operation. Major A300 customers have included United Parcel Service Inc., FedEx Corp., AMR Corp.'s American Airlines and Thai Airways International Plc.

[Gracey]

I'd like to comment on EVERYTHING you said but instead will just say that you said it all for me. I like the way you think - and you SAY IT!!!!

Thanks again for a fine post.

[MistyCA]

Check this photo out

To me it makes it less likely that the wing or engine would have come up and sheared the stabilizer off

[MistyCA]

LOL...Matching tummies!

[MistyCA]

How do you figure then that the stabilizer was left back in the bay, especially considering that it would more than likely fall to the ground faster than the engine....(try throwing a shoe box and a baseball and see which one drops to the ground first, or which one travels farther before falling to the ground). Clearly the engine landed fairly close to the fuselage.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

FREEPERS-It's time to Nominate You Know Who for the Ronald Regan Award at CPAC

[timestax]

bump

[MistyCA]

Thanks Tonk

[MistyCA]

I think that makes a lot more sense