[dawn53]

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.

[Solson]

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.

[Mixer]

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.

[Grut]

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'.

[Species8472]

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.

[G.Mason]

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.

[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.

[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.

[FReepaholic]

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

[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.......

[concerned about politics]

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

[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....

[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?

[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!

[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.

[exnavy]

WOW, I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a bigger coverup since the Warren com. had bullets changeing direction in mid-air!

[pttttt]

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.

Gee that's reassuring. An airliner structure that can't stand up to the turbulence of the plane taking off before it. I thought it was terrorism. Now we're told that an airliner can fall out of the sky in routine operations.

Also insultingly unbelievable. Maybe it was turbulence from domestic right-wing pro-life demonstrators flapping their arms. Please.

[gore3000]

The problem with this newest explanation is that it in no way accounts for the engine just plain falling off the plane.

[Defender2]

Here's a little lesson in aerodynamics. Todays airplane consist of a fuselage, wings, horizontal stabililizers, vertical stabilizers. the wings provide lift. the horizontal stabilizers provide pitch axis control(elevation). The vertical stabilizer provides Yaw axis control(rudder). The wings provide lift and attached to these wings are ailerons(or spoilers)which provide Roll Control. If an aircraft travelling at speed encounters a severe change in angle of attack in any of the axis's(Pitch,roll or yaw) design gust loads may be exceeded causing certain parts of the aircraft to rip off, such as a vertical stabilizer, wing, radome, wintip. Are you all starting to understand. In other words if certain design roll, pitch or yaw angles or combination of these are exceeded, let's include "G" limitations are exceeded, structural failure may result. Now the Question Remains, what caused a severe rapid change in angle of attack causing the subsequent inflight breakup of the aircraft?

[col kurz]

These are wonderful machines, but like all machines they are used and abused to varying degrees. The longer any machine stays in service is dependent upon design, maintanence expended and severity of service. Many examples in the marine industry where ships of a certain class have given good service for 50+ years while many of their class failed in less then a dozen. I'd say, in this situation, look to design coupled with severity of service.