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.

[concerned about politics]

Oh c'mon. I read where the plane was 8 minutes behind the one that took off before it.

[Colt .45]

"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 ??"

Nope! All of these things can bring down an aircraft. If they failed to find any stress fractures, and the vertical stab spar was not magnafluxed after the 1994 incident to inspect it ... the seven year scenario is perfectly plausible. You guys act like there is no shoddy maintenance that happens on major airlines.

In answer to your question of smelling BULL ... yeah, its coming from all of the tin foil hat types on this subject.

[Hotspur]

Maybe by cold, bloodless statistics, flying is safer. I find it very difficult to believe, though, that driving a relatively new car in good weather from 8 am to 8 pm on a limited access interstate highway is more dangerous than flying. And that's the relevant statistic, not overall passengers or passenger-miles.

Add to that the fact that I'm, to a great degree, master of my own destiny while driving a car, not dependent on a pilot and an airline, and you can see why driving is looking better and better.

[Magician]

Looking at the picture you posted of an Airbus 300, it seems to me that the "V/stablizer" pulled out of the bay is only the upper part of the V/stabilzer, which is much longer. One of the witnesses in a boat right below the plane as it disintegrated said that the initial events were: 1. Orange explosion at a wing root.

2. Separation of the wing.

3. Wing sheers off the "tail" (V/stabilizer).

Could we be seeing only the top part of the V/stabilizer after is had been sheered off by the departing wing?

[Map Kernow]

You know the investigators are grasping at straws when they dredge up past incidents to try to explain a current disaster. This plane has been through I-don't-know-how-many checks and overhauls in seven years. A problem with turbulence seven years ago has nothing to do with whether the plane disintegrated from turbulence this past Monday.

Also, where did the turbulence come from? The departing flight before Fl. 587 was many miles ahead of it when Fl. 587 took off. You don't have "wake turbulence" for miles behind a plane.

Something is definitely fishy about this investigation. The more of these wacko "mechanical failure" scenarios they come up with, the more comfortable I get with wacko cover-up theories....

[VRWC_minion]

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.

Add to this that there was a helicpoter in the vicinity of flight 587, a large source of turbulence.

Its possible that the airport security delays is putting pressure on allowing more lift-offs per hour and less time between lift-off.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks.....

Engines

Birds

Turbulence

Prior damage

What next, a loner pychopath right-wing extremist?

[Solson]

I think what they recoverd from the bay was the entire Vert. Stab. If you have the pic, post it, we may be able to compare.

[VRWC_minion]

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

The turbulence from other planes on other runways can drift, its not static. Plus a helicopter was in area.

[Blueflag]

You don't have "wake turbulence" for miles behind a plane.

Actually you do, especially behind a large heavy airplane like a 747 headed to Japan. But generally, the vortices will sink to the ground. The 747 likely had a longer take off roll and a slower ascent, so the vortices, in theory, should have sunk lower to the ground than the normal flight path of the Airbus (unless they are such tugs that they climb poorly). Anyway, the point is simple: airliners hit wake turbulence all the time. It shakes and/or rolls the aircraft, the pilot corrects, and you keep going.

[mewzilla]

Does the FAA regulate distances from all the aircraft in the area, or do they only care about distances between flights taking off from the same runway?

[concerned about politics]

yeah, its coming from all of the tin foil hat types on this subject.

Yeah! And some still think the planes hitting the WTC was a terrorist act! They haven't shown one piece of plane to actually prove it!!

[Blueflag]

Does the Save-A-Connie have the fancy TWA red leather lounge in the rear?

Also, Central-Scrutinizer is a handle that could mean you look at race cars real close. (Just curious)

[Reborn]

"I would expect that the airplane underwent inspection after the turbulence encounter to verify that it hadn't been damaged and any damage that was incurred was fixed," Jim McKenna said.

I sure hope that the NTSB isn't going to try to fob us off with some turbulence bs. A plane that can't handle turbulence???? I have yet to be on a plane that didn't have some turbulence, and sometimes so bad that I could almost (gulp) "see" the nuts and bolts working themselves loose!

A terrorist threat wouldn't keep me from flying again. Planes that can't handle turbulence would!

[Capt. Tom]

Only about 5-6 Connies in flyable shape world wide, Qantas has one, MATS has one in AZ, and Eisenhower's old Air Force One, and maybe a few in S. America...

The one I was on was flying in the Carribean about 20 years ago. - Tom

[Lady GOP]

This has never happened to a plane before. They are going to try to snowball people into this.

[Avi8tor]

Something's Up!!

On the day this happend, just before making this post, I checked the FAA Incident Database for N14053, the airplane's registration, which was published by AOPA.

There was no report there, nothing...but there is today.  Draw your own conclusions.

[Ben Hecks]

**The whole turbulance issue is bogus unless there is a pre existing mechanical condition.**

Here's another wacko theory: Is it possible that the control system failed (while trying to compensate for wake turbulence) which allowed uncontrolled movement by the rudder? If uncontrolled, a "flapping" rudder could exert substantial stress on the VS. Obviously, this scenario would also have to end with the rudder locked in a 10 degree left positon.