Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Records: Plane Suffered Turbulence
AP ^ | 11-14-01 | JONATHAN D. SALANT

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aaflight587; flight587
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-183 next last

1 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:13 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
American Airlines had better start hoping they find terrorism as the cause.

Damage that wasn't detected for 7 years seems alot worse for business than a terrorist attack.

2 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:14 PM PST by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
You know, if airlines and aircraft manufacturers would stop painting their aircraft, it would be infinitely easier to detect cracks and fatigue....

But trying to tie this to turbulence 7 years ago seems to be a bit of reach.

Why not take a look at the corrosion problems of the rear bulkhead of the Japanese A300 encountered earlier this year.

3 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:15 PM PST by Solson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
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

With this in mind, if this crash turns out to be not from a terrorist act, then I think every passenger has the right to see the safety records of an aircraft before they board it.....

Also AA and all other airlines that own AB300s need to ground them all until it is proven that they are safe for flight.

4 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:16 PM PST by Mixer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Solson
You know, if airlines and aircraft manufacturers would stop painting their aircraft, it would be infinitely easier to detect cracks and fatigue....

It saves weight, too. The American's fleet is already natural aluminum, though, with the exception of the logo and longitudinal red, white, and blue stripes.

5 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:16 PM PST by Denver Ditdat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dawn53; Mixer
For the life of me, I don't understand the need for this to be terrorism. So the airline wasn't doing their job - isn't it better to know this? So people don't fly Airbus anymore - is that so bad? So we find that AA has a bad maintenance staff - wouldn't it be good to expose that?

Let's keep air travel deaths in perspective here. 587 took the equivalent of two days of traffic fatalities in this country. If this is determined to be an accident (and I'm still waiting for the final report), does that mean you will never fly again? Does it change the fact that air travel is still safer than your car?

6 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:26 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Just so we aviator types can read other Freepers' comments without flinching:

The part of the tail that stands up straight is called the 'vertical stabilizer'; the hinged bit on the back of this is called the 'rudder'.

The little wings at the back are the 'horizontal stabilizers'; the hinged bits at the backs of these are the 'elevators'.

'Stab' is an accepted contraction for 'stabilizer'.

7 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:26 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Solson
A VERY big stretch!
8 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:27 PM PST by EggsAckley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mixer
Right now the government has an intersting choice:

1) Start admitting the crash is, at least, very very suspicious and that it could turn out to have been a bomb or sabotage. That would amount to admitting OBL could still reach out and touch NYC at a time when W was giving a big speech and the UNGA was meeting. And it would amount to admitting that our airport security is a joke.

2) Ground all AB300s. This would, of course, risk the wrath of every carrier that flies that plane, our European allies, and every government that has, so far, shut up about the possibility it was a terrorist act. All these parties would cease to be quiet and start getting very loud about our handling of the investigation.

If you are the kind of bureaucrat who thinks things are best handled without the public knowing what is going on, all option are beginning to suck. They don't say "Honesty is the best policy" for nothing.

9 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:27 PM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dawn53
All of this many years ago turbulence stuff sounds like NTSB spin to me. Are we to assume the structure of this airplane was never maintained or examined ? I think not. Something is beginning to smell fishy here ...and the stench is coming from the favored hole in the ground, the NTSB. Lets see, birds crashed it, turbine blades separated, engine pilons were weak and fell off, fuel system ignited accidentally, engine was on fire before it took off, engine fell off and caused a yaw, now turbulence seven years ago caused it........anyone smell BULL ??
10 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:28 PM PST by chemainus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
The whole turbulance issue is bogus unless there is a pre existing mechanical condition. As long as an aircraft is operated at or below "Maneuvering speed" the wings and other control surfaces will stall long before structural failure will occur. Maneuvering speed is determined by weight and configuration but is far faster than the aircraft was traveling after takeoff. Also, aircraft at an altitude of 10,000 feet or less are restricted to speeds of less thaan 250 knots.
11 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:28 PM PST by Species8472
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Denver Ditdat
In this case, it looks like the entire tail section is covered.


12 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:29 PM PST by Solson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley
I agree. There is a lot of turbulence around airports but the planes don't usually fall from the sky.
13 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:29 PM PST by MotherSpector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Grut
But where are the flaperons?
14 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:29 PM PST by Solson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Grut
The little wings at the back are the 'horizontal stabilizers'; the hinged bits at the backs of these are the 'elevators'.

True, except that most high speed aircraft, certainly modern ones, have all flying horizontal tail surfaces. Meaning that the whole thing moves, rather than just having a hinged part at the rear that does so. The Airbus A-300 has such a horizontal stab, as do the Boeing 757 and 767.

15 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:30 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Species8472
The whole turbulance issue is bogus unless there is a pre existing mechanical condition.

Not bogus. Most accidents have two or more co-factors.

16 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:30 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Solson
Attached to the ruddevators.
17 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:30 PM PST by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
I know the line about air travel being safer than your car but at least in my car I have a chance of survival.

Has anyone ever done the stats on the number of people on the road in any given day vs. in the air? I wonder how it is really determined that air travel is safer.

18 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:31 PM PST by BlueHorseShoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Fact....587 crashed.

If it was terrorists people don't want to fly.

If it was mechanical failure people don't want to fly.

Seems the only "turbulence" is being caused by citizens as they flee the airports and head for the highways.

19 posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:32 PM PST by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-183 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson