Records: Plane Suffered Turbulence

AP ^ | 11-14-01 | JONATHAN D. SALANT

[Oldeconomybuyer]

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.

[RayChuang88]

By the way, CNN reported that AA Flight 587 may have taken off some 30 seconds too early after a Japan Airlines 747-400 took off on the same runway.

That could indicate the AA A300B4-600R plane may have flown into the very strong wake turbulence of the JAL 747, and if there are structural weaknesses in the tail of the AA plane the turbulence could have been strong enough to rip off the vertical tail, which will cause uncontrolled yawing and departure from controlled flight.

[F-117A]

In this case, it looks like the entire tail section is covered.

Paint is applied to cover up the bondo.

[chemainus]

The spin keeps adding on....see what lie will pass muster then leak little addenda to it as the lie takes hold...

[chemainus]

King Kong COULD have swatted the thing down , too. That's what caused it to crash.

[chimera]

I wonder how it is really determined that air travel is safer.

I think it is the product of the number of passengers and the number of miles travelled divided by fatalities for a given time period. For air travel, the number of passengers is smaller than automobile travel, but the miles are more, and vice-versa. Check the average fatalities per year for commercial aviation vs. automobile travel. Relatively few, on the order of perhaps hundreds, against tens of thousands for auto travel.

But your point about survival per accident is a good one. People often survive auto crashes, but if a large jet goes down, 100% fatalities is more the norm.

[chemainus]

How does the Clinton News Network know the plane took off 30 seconds before the records show it took off ?...Oh sorry I forgot , Clinton's NTSB used car salesman Chief told them

[Ditto]

The Airbus, flying from Barbados to Puerto Rico, had just reached cruising altitude at 35,000 feet. The seat belt sign had just gone off.

Without warning, the plane hit air turbulence, sending the nose up and down. The plane landed in San Juan without any other problems, but some of the passengers required hospitalization.

I was on a flight that hit a jet wake while at cruising altitude. It was one hell of an experience --- it felt like hitting a speed bump at 200 mph. The plant definitely took a beating, harder than any ‘hard landing’ I have even been in. It didn't last long (I assumed we hit it at a right angle) and the pilot didn't seem to have any problem controlling the plane, but I can understand how anything that wasn't nailed down real tight could have come off. The most damage was to my pants. The cup of coffee on my tray ended up on my lap. I understand why they don't serve it real hot.

[GEC]

Whether it's in passenger-miles or passenger-miles per day, it's always safer to be on a plane than in a car.

Many people have already died since Sept. 11th because they took a car instead of flying.

[mewzilla]

From what I understand, the JAL flight was 8 miles ahead of the American flight, which is three miles more than the recommended distance.

I think I'd believe the flying frozen Butterball scenario before I'd believe this.

Next?

[Oldeconomybuyer]

I had a similar cruising altitude incident a number of years ago, and there was stuff flying all over the inside of the airplane - cups, books, laptops, you name it. The flight attendants had to crawl on their hands and knees to get the drink cart down the aisle.

The plane took a real beating but recovered after about 30 seconds. Made me appreciate how well they are built. Your typical Kia would have fallen apart.

[BlueHorseShoe]

Thanks for the info but I still hate to fly. And I have to admit I really don't want to fly now. Nor do I wish for my husband to get on a plane.

I need to search out those stats for myself as I have been curious if everything is taken into consideration or if people just repeat them unaware of important details that may show a different result.

[chemainus]

Me too mewzilla.....I detect the rancid smell of trying to fit the lie to plausible scenarios..... floating propaganda balloons to keep their highly-paid jobs at the trough

[FReepaholic]

This still does not explain eyewitness accounts of flames coming from the aircraft before impact.

[FReepaholic]

>>...By the way, CNN reported that AA Flight 587 may have taken off some 30 seconds too early after a Japan Airlines 747-400 took off on the same runway. ...<<

Other reports have them taking off 20 seconds LATER than the NORMAL wait period.

[Main Line of Mid-America]

Love that Connie!

Saw one (this one?? How many flyable are left?)fly over a couple of years ago--whatta sight, whatta sound!

Same thing with a DC-3/C-47--on a rare occasion when I see one, I drop everything to enjoy the audio!

Also saw an F-15 flying in formation with a P-51 before the airshow at the St. Louis VP Fair....would give my right arm for a ride in either one.

[chemainus]

This does not explain an observer who carefully said he saw a puff of smoke come from the wing/fuselage junction and debris flew out and THEN all the crazy things started happening.....

[yikes]

So, wake turbulence affects a following airliner by starting at the rear of said following airliner, ripping off the stabilizer, then moves forward and rips off the engines. I am aerodynamically challenged in the knowledge department, but this makes no sense to me.

Having been in a boat many times in which we followed in another boat's wake, I can't recall that the stern was affected first, then the bow. The two are not equivalent, I know, but common sense.......

[Capt. Tom]

Your picture in post 20 brings back memories. While flying on one of those planes, as we took off we blew a tire. I was sitting next to the window and saw the tire blow on the left side of the plane just before we went airborne. I didn't want to panic my wife so I didn't say anthing and sat there wondering what was going to happen on the landing.

I figured the pilots must be aware of the condition. When we came in to land and touched down on the runway the pilot rolled the plane onto the right side landing gear and then slowly brought the left wheels onto the ground after we had traveled hundreds of yards down the runway. When the weight of the plane came down onto the blown tire it just rattled and shook until we stopped. -Tom

[Dead Dog]

YES!

And Trim does not necessarily mean a deflection of the elevator or rudder, it could be any method used to neutralize control forces (as felt by the pilot) at any given airspeed. ie, if trimed for 200kts it will fly at 200 kts regardless of power settings.

[anymouse]

All together it's called the empenage.

Now that we have our terms straight, can we agree that wenn the empenage and engines fall off it doesn't matter if it was a terrorist bomb, sabatoge, piss poor maintenance or design flaw, the plane ain't going no where but down resulting in lots of funerals, worried passengers and spiraling airline and aircraft builder stock prices.