NO SIGNS OF ENGINE FAILURE!

FOX News

[X-Servative]

At the NTSB press conference, they just stated that both engines appear to be intact and that there are no signs of engine failure, according to George Black, NTSB Boardmember.

[JRandomFreeper]

I don't know what caused the crash- nobody on this forum,

The crash was caused by a mechanical failure that caused the plane to come apart in mid-air, rendering it un-flyable. What I want to know is the cause of the mechanical failure.

/john

[Sabertooth]

That big face was very cool.

[NixNatAVanG InDaBurgh]

> I never thought of embarassment as being a motive for Bush to lie to the American people. Sounds like something he would do.

Bush has NOT lied to the American people. The NTSB has and spinners have. I am sure that Bush has been praying to the Dear Lord that this wasn't a terrorist act. But when faced with it, he will respond with forthrightness.
This is embarrassing to the Airlines, to the Congress, and to almost everyone who insisted the airports are secure while fighting with brass knuckles for a political solution to a problem in which politics should play NO PART WHATSOEVER.

[Husker24]

Maybe one of the thrust reversers suddenly engaged.

[CatoRenasci]

I heard the WABC interview with that witness live, as well as several repeats.

[gridlock]

If the tail and engines separated at the same time, one would expect the tail to land significantly behind the engines. The tail is subject to a lot more aerodynamic drag per unit mass than the engines. So while the tail will tumble and "flutter" to the ground, the engines will continue on like a pair of rocks, and will wind up quite close to one another. Think of it as trying to throw a feather compared to throwing a rock. Which goes farther?

Also, if it were an "energetic" separation (think kaBOOM!), then the tail section would have had a negative reletive velocity vector applied, making the distance between tail and engines even greater.

My two cents, everthing came apart simultaneously and fell in accordance with aerodynamic drag.

[eno_]

somebody unscrewed the tail!

Ick, but it sounds like that was it, plus the engines. How many other planes have been sabotaged?

Tail only - OK, metal fatigue. One engine - metal fatigue. Two engines plus the tail plus maybe a piece of wing, and you have to think the "rain of airplanes" threat was not just yankin' our chain.

Any Freepers know if the airplane mechanics are pulling an all-nighter tonight? ANyone know where that plane has been that someone could have sabotaged it? It probably sat overnight at Logan, and Logan has really tight security. Nothing bad ever happens at Logan. Nosireeee. Never. Heck, the nearest guy named "bin Laden" lives in Cambridge, and that's on the other side of the river from Logan... way too far.

[FITZ]

I just meant I hope they check each and every person that could have gotten near that plane. Not just employees but anyone, ground crew, cleaning crew, baggage loaders.

[VA Advogado]

At the NTSB press conference, they just stated that both engines appear to be intact and that there are no signs of engine failure, according to George Black, NTSB Boardmember.

Hard to reconcile your statement with the fact that one of them fell off the plane.

[exit82]

I think we both know the answer to that one, friend!

[Sabertooth]

Ahhh...

Red meat rumors for tinfoil FReepers, eh?

[justlurking]

What is a "security delay."

Probably a random check. The FAA has mandated security sweeps on planes on a random basis. I don't know the criteria for selection, but there's no notice.

[DittoJed2]

Jesus Christ on a unicycle-
They didn't have those around 33 AD and it's best if you not use his name like that. Thank you.

[stands2reason]

Hello! Oh, why, oh, why, didn't I jump to conclusions like you did. Stupid me, I wait for facts. Next time I'll know better. Facts bad, preconceived notions good! I could have saved myself some time if I'd have learned that fact from the Gore 2000 camp, but I didn't listen!

[martian_22]

Gremlins of the Ishmael persuasion?

Given the mechanical problems of flights over the last few days, I'd guess somebody was monkeying with the wrench.

[Regulator]

"Airframe rattling" with torsional motion of the engine on the pylon (what you called "auto-gyration") is consistent with a compressor surge. Surge can be caused by ingestion (the bird theory), failure of the turbine section (leading to no power to drive the gas generator), or off design operation of the throttle (not likely). It would also explain the "puff of smoke" seen by one observer, and any loud "popping" noises, since the mixture ratio in the burner goes rich (so it just starts a fire, instead of the standing flame front normally created).

Surge isn't necessarily accompanied by wholesale failure in the engine. So, the engine might still be intact. Depends on the cause.

Would it lead to the explosion of the wing? Probably only if there were an uncontained turbine failure (hot blades hitting the wing which is full of fuel), or if the torques caused the wing to fail, leading to sparks and fire etc.

By the way, pylon retention shear pins are normally designed to fail under loads considered dangerous to the airframe. The airplane flies just fine without an engine, but not so good without a wing.

[Positive]

I posted the "max power thingy." This comes from the NTSB news conference held around 2PM PST about the contents of the cockpit voice recorder - one of the last comments from the pilots was "max power."

[Noswad]

Wasn't there a report somewhere yesterday that the fuselage ALSO became detached at some point prior to impact?

[contessa machiaveli]

i'm a recently signed on freeper? what's up with all the references to "cheese"? BTW, i do love cheese.