Hope that helps.
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'll try to explain:
OK. Got you this time.
It does sound odd, (but I don't understand their data base stuff).The plane number was not there 2 days ago.
If it's "fabricated", then the "end story" will be turbulence because they've already posted " a history", no?
Well, we agree on that. I wrote a long "possible innocent explanation" yesterday in emails to my son and some friends, all of whom yelled, "Terrorism!". I hasten to add that I am not an airplane expert; heck, I can be charitably described as ignorant.
Where you and I disagree is that this doesn't seem to be "updates." It looks to me like they are searching and searching for an explanation that will work. I could be wrong. But, as I wrote elsewhere yesterday, it seems to me just like the American Muslims telling me their religion is peaceful and that they love America--the more they talk, the more they betray the very arguments they are trying to make.
Also, we know that early reports (likely true reports-- the truest reports come immediately after an incident, before the spin!) tell us that the aircraft was 20 second LATE in taking off behind the JAL flight. That would put the Airbus at 140 seconds behind the JAL... 2 minutes and 20 seconds total. Since 2 minutes is optimum space between flights, the turbulence theory would be immediately shot down. But instead, CNN now reports that it was 30 seconds EARLY behind the JAL flight... at 90 seconds total. Very fishy indeed-- and where did CNN get this info?
It would all simply say that Washington wants this crash to be anything BUT terrorism or sabatoge. Why? Well, it spent 15 billion propping up the airline industry. We'd have to spend more for a second terrorist sabatoge act to prop them up. A sabatoge act would cost airlines dearly in increased costs to check out every plane and install new procedures. Secondly, terrorists want terror. And they would get what they want with a second airline disaster.
No, in the end, Washington wants this to be an accident, and it will be an accident whether we want the truth or not. Time will tell, but I say we will never hear this crash to be attributed to sabatoge if it was indeed so.
BTW, I tried your links, and the nasdac.faa.gov server seems to be down right now.
Hope that helps.
arkady
They are beautiful aircraft and nothing else really sounds like the old four engined pistoned birds.
Thanks for the explanation of the handle. A Scrutineer is someone who does the legal and technical inspection of a race car. I was just curious, cuz "Blueflag" comes from sports car racing -- the blue flag is shown to drivers who need to move their cars out of the way of faster, closing traffic.
thanks again.
No, he is saying that there were no incident reports for that registration number (or at least, not one regarding severe turbulence seven years ago).
I just did a search of the 'Net. I found a reference to a similar incident involving a A-300 enroute between Miami and San Juan, PR, in 1996. But, nothing regarding this particular registration number and no previous reference to the incident cited (although I admit that I vaguely remember it).
A search for the registration number yields a few hits on aircraft registries, but no further information about the plane.
I've been trying to keep an open mind, avoiding jumping to a conclusion of either accident or sabotage. But frankly, I'm now beginning to wonder if the fix is in.
U.S. major airlines and big airplanes are about 10X safer than cars on average. (But, of course, planes go 10X faster, so per unit of time, they are about the same). Counting driving to Logan, flying into NYC, and risking my life with Osama the taxi driver from the airport into Manhattan, I'd rather drive. Elapsed time is only a little better by air.
Commuter airlines suck, according to the statistics - they are no safer than driving the same distance, but I don't know by how much air taxis in Alaska and other high-risk categories throw off the number.
So buy a big fat body-on-frame SUV, don't drive when sleepy, and I think you may be at least as safe as flying.
Deserves repeating!
Not a pilot but a sometime Electronic Warfare Officer who saved a few pilots from the enemy and a few more from their own mistakes.
Aircrews can get very confused about what's going on... I recall one crew that very nearly put a BUF in an 'unusual attitude' (very bad, large pieces fall off) trying to avoid a midair with the planet Venus. It strikes me as being at least possible that the 'turbulence' may have been caused by significant portions of the airplane waving in the wind.
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.