It looks like the bolts were simply removed and the stabalizer was lifted off. No clue...
arkady
Posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:13 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:29:03 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Safety records show the American Airlines plane that crashed in New York was severely shaken by air turbulence seven years earlier in an episode that injured 47 people.
One possibility safety investigators are considering is that the Airbus A300 broke apart Monday after hitting turbulence from the plane taking off before it at Kennedy International Airport.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...
I am waiting for them to declare that Zeus struck the plane down with a bolt of lightening.
They are merely d r a g g i n g this story out until the next event takes over the news...probably will find Chandra Levy soon, and Flght 587 will be old old news. We have seen the NTSB do this again and again..what makes any of us believe we will see THEM ever telling the truth...is never good enough for you? LMAO
It looks like the bolts were simply removed and the stabalizer was lifted off. No clue...
arkady
Beautiful and fitted out like a Rolls on the inside.
Highly likely that wake turbulence might be the first thing to enter a pilots mind in this situation. But if you stop to think about it for a moment, the Airbus has a shorter take-off roll and a higher climb rate than that of a 747. The Airbus should have been above the JAL's flight path the entire time. Wingtip vortices sink at a rate between 750-1200 ft. per minute.
That's a great catch.
Please allow me a question without getting upset. Are you sure that your _first_ search didn't contain any key stroke errors? Did you just do one search? Did you save to disk the results so that you can go back and verify that you didn't make a key stroke error in your query?
I don't mean to be insulting, I'm just trying to rule out an obvious error. I've _often_ done searches and gotten puzzling results until I've reviewed my query and found some unexpected typo.
Mark W.
I'm sure. When I saw the story on AOPA and noticed the registration, or "N-number", I copied it to the clipboard. First I went to the Aircraft - Registry database and pasted the registration into the search. Thats where I got the information on ownership, serial number, etc. Then I pasted the number into the FAA database. There was nothing there.
In addition, some-one else here verified that the news reports from Monday indicated that there was no incident history on this aircraft. I'm not the only one who came up with nothing on Monday. Every reporter who's covered an air disaster knows about this database, and if there was anything there on Monday, you would have heard about it then...beleive me.
Very interesting.
I guess you were -- literally! -- a witness to history in the "making."
I observed in a different thread that I believed "wake turbulence" would be the eventual "cause" settled on for this crash because it was such a "convenient" cause -- it's invisible, so nobody can specifically say they didn't see it. Everybody knows turbulent events are _chaotic_ and can be trivial like a puff of wind or monstrous like a tornado. And it establishes a precedent for future "inconvenient" "incidents."
As another freeper pointed out, _planting_ the earlier data may have been setting the scene for an eventual conclusion.
I wonder if freeper reporting will impact the actual story and PREVENT a cover-up?! Wouldn't _that_ be something...
Mark W.
During the NTSB briefing, someone asked abot the rudder being in "max position" (incorrect terminology, I'm sure). How does that relate to the 10degree positioning?
Also, why aren't the networks scrambling too locate the guy whoeyewitnessed the tail flying off and helped the Coast Guard retrieve pieces? Not like he should be hard to find.
Yet now we're hearing about turbulence that happened seven years ago. And "similar incidents" that reportedly happened in the past with other Airbuses, or just other planes.
And then always come along the guys in the NTSB "amen corner," all claiming to be pilots or to have some other technical expertise that allows them to denounce any criticism of the "mechanical failure" scenario, all seeming to be able to come up with this or that aerodynamic scenario guaranteed to have the plane come apart in the air. Too neat and pretty, if you ask me.
Gee that's reassuring. An airliner structure that can't stand up to the turbulence of the plane taking off before it. I thought it was terrorism. Now we're told that an airliner can fall out of the sky in routine operations.
Also insultingly unbelievable. Maybe it was turbulence from domestic right-wing pro-life demonstrators flapping their arms. Please.
Assumption on my part seeing that its an airport with more than one runway.
Plus a helicopter was in area Source? How far away? What model?
One of the eyewitness reports.
I guess I was thinking of those cases where there is an accident during cruise, or initial takeoff, like this case. I guess if the crew has a chance to get the aircraft in some kind of controlled flight towards some kind of landing, your chances are better. But catastrophic accidents like this one, and others, like USAir 427, or Flight 800, from high altitude with little or no control, I think the record shows everyone is pretty much of a goner.
And, thus, uncontrolled departure from sky.
"What is it?!"
"It's that little room at the front of the plane. ..."
Surely you don't believe that the tail of the plane fell off?
of course not, and stop calling me Shirley.
Just another case of clear air turbulence.
+-<)B^)
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.