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.

[MarkWar]

>Just so we aviator types can read other Freepers' comments without flinching...

"There's trouble in the cockpit!"

"What is it?!"

"It's that little room at the front of the plane. ..."

Mark W.

[concerned about politics]

I went to the data base, but What do I click on? What area makes you wonder?

[jammer]

You are exactly right. I am laughing at the contortions these people are going through. But then I think of how deluded people are and get sad again.

An aviation consultant said the plane could have been weakened by the earlier encounter.

Yes. And the Wizard of Oz COULD have buzzed them, weakening the bolts/rivets. But, assuming it wasn't the Wizard (which is about as likely), does that mean that we should never fly a plane that has been in turbulence? Are planes now disposable, like HP Printers?

The implications of this are horrific. Terrorist acts occur rarely (especially now that we let them do anal probes on passengers), but turbulence is really common.

[concerned about politics]

Something's Up!!

please elaborate.

[Avi8tor]

The incident report was not in the database two days ago.

[Map Kernow]

The turbulence from other planes on other runways can drift, its not static.

Where were these "other planes"? "Turbulence drifts"? Please...then tell us how far and how fast.

Plus a helicopter was in area

Source? How far away? What model?

[RightlySo]

That's a beautiful old "Connie" aircraft! Not a bad shot of it, either. :)

[Hotspur]

Read the story. It wasn't just turbulence; it was turbulence ON THIS VERY PLANE that was so strong that it caused 47 injuries. Hardly just your everyday cruising altitude turbulence.

It's hardly stretching the bounds of believability that this plane could have suffered damage in that event that-- seven years and hundreds of flights later--could have caused Monday's catastrophe.

[concerned about politics]

The incident report was not in the database two days ago.

I read it, but I saw nothing new. Why the intrigue?

[Lady GOP]

Gertz reported in the Washinton Times yesterday:

U.S. intelligence agencies received a warning that terrorists were planning an attack timed to Nov. 11 but so far do not believe yesterday's airliner crash was part of an attack.

One intelligence official said a warning was sent to senior Bush administration officials last week stating that unidentified terrorists were planning to carry out some type of mass attack on Nov. 11 — Veterans Day — at 11 a.m. There was no attack Sunday at 11 a.m. or p.m.

The warning originated in a North African nation that in the past had been associated with international terrorism.

"The problem with the time is that no one could figure out whether it was 11 here or overseas," the intelligence official said. Still, the intelligence report about the possible attack was specific enough to raise concerns, this official said. A second U.S. official confirmed that there were "some reports that something might happen in connection" with Veterans Day.

[Avi8tor]

Ok. One more time. On Monday, I searched the FAA database for incidents involving this aircraft. I found nothing. Today, there's a incident report involving turbulence in 1994. Why wasn't it in the database on Monday?

[jammer]

I did read the story. Fortunately, some of us can consider the implications of accepting yet another trial balloon. My question remains: Are airplanes now disposable? How severe is severe? Is 10 injuries the cutoff? None? How many?

[Colt .45]

"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!!

They found the black boxes from the two aircraft that hit the WTC, plus the fact it was on video tape for all to see moron.

Where is your proof that this was a terrorist act. As for me ... the jury is still out! I am not willing to be a speculator. But like I said before ... if you wanna sandbag your front porch, string concertina wire, dig a bunker and wear your camoflauged tin foil hat ... be my guest! I am not going to lose any sleep over this.

[chemainus]

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. 59 posted on 11/14/01 1:40 PM Pacific by Avi8tor [

[concerned about politics]

Your concern is because it took so long to post it? The incedent in '94 ?
I'm picking your brain. What do you think is wrong?
really, I don't know.
I have never been to that website.

[chemainus]

Where is YOUR proof that it was birds, seven-year old turbulence, immediate turbulence ( even though theplane was 8 miles behind the previous one), disintegrated turbine blades, failed engine pilons etc etc etc balloons all !

[KC Burke]

It's my understanding that the 2'20" gap between planes was more than adequate to not have wing tip vorticies be a major issue. As I got the impression that you are a pilot...what is your estimation of the odds that the pilots, upon the sudden loss of the rear stabilizer section (due to causes as yet unknown), for the first few seconds (as recorded on the voice recorder) might have mistaken the shudder/shake and then twisting uncontrol of that event for the heavy buffeting and shaking of an encounter with non-existant wing tip turbulance?

[BearCub]

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

Wake turbulence can hang around for a long time.

-bc

[Hotspur]

Sorry but I disagree with the paranoid premise that every story about this that comes out is a fictitious "trial balloon" and not an update on the investigation.

I'm as wary of terrorism as the next guy, but this struck me from the start as a terrible accident, not terrorism. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.

Commercial aviation is a bad business; certainly it would be reasonable to assert that the US domestic industry has only been able to eke out a small profit because it scrimped on security costs. 9/11 proved how much it scrimped.

The idea that a plane could have incurred damage beyond normal wear and tear that wasn't caught and which, over time, became prone to catastrophe doesn't strike me as at all far-fetched.

[KC Burke]

Please see #77 and offer any insight that might be appropriate.