Investigators Find Signs Birdstrike May Have Caused Crash of Flight 587

Wall Street Journal ^ | November 13, 2001 | SCOTT MCCARTNEY

[Axion]

Investigators examining one of the separated engines from American Airlines Flight 587 found foreign debris inside, indicating that the engine may have ingested a flock of birds and then caught on fire.

The engine burned internally, people close to the investigation said. But its parts appeared intact, except for the damage from what is known in aviation as ``foreign object debris,'' or ``FOD.'' That would suggest that the engine didn't suffer a catastrophic failure from some mechanical breakdown, but from sucking in birds, these people said.

[kingh99]

Flock of Bin Laden Gulls! Pull that picture. They are sending secret messages!

[kingh99]

The lazy mechanics. I beg to differ. Achmed and Abdullah are very enterprising young men. Well educated in American schools too!

Allah Akbar!

[mwl1]

Your answer is amazingly chilling. Thank you.

[Greenpointer]

This is from that birdstrike site.

The likelihood of these three hazards can be roughly
estimated from the following information:
Fatal and non-fatal worldwide hull losses since 1959 (five total, one fatal),
Total jet transport flights since 1959 (about 300 million),
Estimated U.S. and Canadian large commercial jet transport flights 1999-2008, (80 million),
Average load factor of 54% (60% for airliners, 0% for cargo jet transports, 10% cargo flights),
Average passenger capacity (130),
Probability a passenger dies in a fatal bird strike accident (0.5),
and Cost of average jet transport (30 million 1997 dollars).
Assuming that the historical world hull loss rate is
roughly current underlying rate in the U.S. and Canada,
P(Hull Loss From a Bird Strike Event) = 5/300M = 1.67 x 10-8
P(Fatal | Hull Loss) = 0.2
P(Fatal Hull Loss Event) = 3.3 x 10-9
P(Fatal Hull Loss Event in U.S. or Canada) = (3.3 x 10-9)(8 x 10+6) = 0.027/yr

Assuming a binomial distribution of events, this would imply that over the next decade,
P(Zero Fatal Hull Losses) = 0.763
P(One Fatal Hull Loss) = 0.209
P(Two Fatal Hull Losses) = 0.026
P(Three Fatal Hull Losses) = 0.001
Estimated Fatal Hull Losses = 0.209 + 2(0.026) + 3(0.001) = 0.263

Note: This last figure means that in the next 10 years there is about a 25% chance of a fatal bird strike accident involving a large jet transport in the U.S. or Canada.

[EggsAckley]

Many posts--including your own--on this thread scoffed at the idea that a birdstrike could bring down an aircraft.

Puhleeze....that's a real stretch. I have NOT scoffed at the idea that a birdstrike can bring down an aircraft.
Maybe others have, but I haven't. What I HAVE scoffed at is that THIS crash could have
been brought down by birdstrike. And that is simply because of the sequence of events in the crash.
If birds hit the engine, the tail section would not have fallen off FIRST.
What part of that DON'T you understand?

[Magician]

One witness, a boater, describes an explosion at the wing root, the wing separating, and then the wing knocking off the vertical stabilizer as it departed the aircraft.

[discostu]

Thanks for the side by side picks. It shows me something very important: that tail is NOT undamaged. It's clear that it's only about 1/3 of the total stabalizer (upper front) and it's also clear that a large part of this section is stove in (you can see the fold line around the bird in the logo, seems to go the entire height of the section). This kind of damage could have happened when it impacted with the water, or could have been during the crash itself. That's what experts are for.

Also note, I haven't seen any pictures of the left side of the tail, unless somebody's got one of those to show the other side all we're really talking about is 1/6 of the stabalizer (1 side of 1/3 of the tail). Even if we see the other side there's still the lower and rear sections of the stab.

As for why the tail hit first: inertia mostly, some would be flutter. Engines (especially commercial engines) are notorious for going a long way after a break for a few reasons: 1 - they're really heavy and so have a lot of inertia propelling them forward, 2 - they're basically very large hollow footballs, really good aerodynamics for free flight seperated from the rest of the fuselage (which things like tails aren't, they start to spin usually), 3 - turbines, even the most catastrophic collision is likely to keep the turbines rotating just on their own circular inertia, when turbines rotate they provide forward thrust (that's their job) which would push the engine farther (adding more inertia).

So far looks like the NTSB is on it and cruising well. This isn't like 800 where Billyboy started talking about finding those that shot it down (remember that press conference?) then months later we were told a totally different story. Now that could just mean that the people in charge or doing a better job of covering this one up. But I don't think so. For numerous reasons (support of the war and confidence in the airlines being high on the list) it would be better PR if this plane HAD been taken out by terrorists than by shear bad luck and accident.

[catpuppy]

Do the rash and character of announcements by the investigating authority and government 24 hours after the incident meet with you past experience in any investigation?

I don't claim to have seen all or even most of the coverage of the incident. However, the government officials that I have seen speak on the matter have been reserved and cautious which is typical during such investigations. Again, I'm not speculating as to what may have caused the crash. I'm just saying that it is premature to rule out a birdstrike as a possible cause.

[Jack Barbara]

Didn't Nostradamus predict this?

[Colt .45]

Thats what is so aggravating about Free Rpublic sometimes. You try to express your opinion of "How this could be an accident, and lets wait for the professional investigators to do their jobs first", and you get blasted by the ALLCAPS because "you are an indoctrinated system dude." Or they start calling you a DemocRAT Socialist Leftist who can't get over the fact that Gore lost. Geez, I'm a Republican who voted for Bush fer chrissake!

I have worked in aviation for 19 years, and know that there are a myriad of things that can bring down an aircraft. I truly believe it was nothing more than a mechanical failure which caused catastrophic structural failure.

But the conspiracy aficianados on here love to look for the Bogey Man under every rock. The government always lies, and these people are right because they say so, the self appointed Dilettants Investigation Squad. They'll state that its everything from Stinger missiles to the Alien Nazi Terrorist Dwarfs with an Illudium Q238 ray gun. Couldn't be anything as simple as engine FOD, or a bird strike. They ought to go to work for the 'National Enquirer' or 'Star' ... they'd fit right in.

Doesn't it remind you of the movie '1941' with John Belushi? It would be comical if it weren't sadly true.

[culpeper]

All your birds are belong to us.

[Ditto]

Yes, I believe you, but aren't there screens to keep the birds out of the engines?

No there aren't. The idea of a jet engine is to suck in as much air as possible not to impenge airflow with a screen. And what kind of screen would you use to stop an opject traveling at 500 mph?

Remember the Concorde last year? It was brought down by a piece of rubber from a blown tire. Bird strikes to flying are a risk just like deer strikes are a risk to driving a car. Hundreds are killed every year when Bambi comes crashing through their windshield at 50 mph.

[Travis McGee]

Howard Safir, former NYC police commissioner

Safir was also the leader of the US Marshals under Reagan who took a backwater bunch of misfits and turned it into a world class FLEA. He is NOT to be taken lightly!

[EggsAckley]

I have not stated an opinion as to the cause of the crash. Indeed, I have said that we should wait for the investigators to figure it out.

The opinion that you have stated is that anyone who doubts the birdstrike theory is crazy.

Do you ever think before writing?

This kind of statement is uncalled for, childish, and just plain stupid.

[Clinton's a rapist]

And the 2nd guest in that segment was Howard Safire, former NYC police commissioner, who said something really interesting to me. He said that flight 587 must not turn into an investigation like TWA 800 had. He said with 800, it boiled down in the end to a political decision about what the outcome of the investigation would be. And that it had been a struggle between the FBI and the NTSB. He didn't say who won, but I'm thinking it was the FBI... (Protecting someone's interests, who happened to be in the WH at that time?)

I didn't follow the Flt 800 story closely but, looking back at EgyptAir, it's clear that these investigations are largely driven by politics and that the truth has very little to do with it.

[concerned about politics]

Well Eggs, I'm going to admit this.....I don't believe the bird story...GASP!
But I guess we'll all have to wait for "the Gov. fax".
Do we have a choice?