Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NO SIGNS OF ENGINE FAILURE!
FOX News

Posted on 11/13/2001 1:05:28 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: flight587
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 641-647 next last
To: classygreeneyedblonde
If this is a structural problem they need to look at other Airbus A300s and consider grounding them. Why haven't they mentioned this yet? Just mentioning the possible grounding of the planes. Think the EU will go for that? At any rate, they shouldn't wait for another one to crash like they did with the DC-10s after Flt 191...that is, if they really believe themselves when they say it was a mechanical or structural failure.
541 posted on 11/13/2001 7:28:38 PM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

If I had to bet, I would bet that the rumbling describe on the tapes from the black boxes was caused by the engines slowing down due to RPM failure of the Free Turbine(Nf).
The free turbine is what feeds the engine air.
The rumbling could have been either the engines trying to suck in more air and not getting itbecause the free turbine was slowing or the noice caused by failure of the free turbine bearings due to lack of oil.

Time to put on the tin foil hat, the engines could have been serviced with something other than jet engine oil, and still have taken off, The bearings on the free turbine are not sealed and a certain amount of oil loss is expected.
Frankly due to the operating temperature of most jet engines it is impossible to completely seal the bearings of the free turbine, so they are sealed.
There are oil resevoir that feed the engines oil and after every flight these resevoirs are serviced.
if they were filled with somethingbesides oil the oil pressure gauges would still read pressure simply because they only read pressure to begin with.
If for instance they had been serviced with water, the engine oil pressure senders would have still read pressure, and there would still be enough residual oil to allow take off.
but as the water replaced the oil it's effects on the freeturbine bearings would have caused them to seize,
since we are taking about Turbo fan engines instead of tubro jet engines, and tubro fan engines have a large rotational mass attached to the free turbine on the front of the engine, it is not unlikely that the failure of the free turbine would have caused the engines to shear from the wings due to a sudden stop or vibration caused by the failure of the bearings.
As for the tail assembly, it also is bolted on, and could have sheared it bolts due to the same vibration that caused the engines to shear of the wings.

542 posted on 11/13/2001 7:30:15 PM PST by usmcobra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Sabotage would only be an option for an Electro/aeronautical engineer on a technical aircraft such as this.

For get the tin-foil approach.

543 posted on 11/13/2001 7:31:03 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: boris

544 posted on 11/13/2001 7:33:04 PM PST by classygreeneyedblonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: michigander

545 posted on 11/13/2001 7:35:34 PM PST by classygreeneyedblonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
ROFL!!! Love the pic! Love the word plays!

anyone speaking up and taking credit for the act?

546 posted on 11/13/2001 7:37:55 PM PST by ~EagleNebula~
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
I'll admit I don't know much about flying planes, but I'll keep my tinfoil hat tied very securely for now because like others have pointed out, if airbuses are all close to falling apart and there's no ability of the pilot to detect a serious malfunction in the first couple minutes of take-off, then the government should have grounded every last one of them. Even a car doesn't appear to run just fine and then explode 3 minutes down the road.
547 posted on 11/13/2001 7:38:29 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo; mystomachisturning; Iwo Jima
I don't know where it was stated that the rudder was on the runway but I don't believe it to be true.

There was a guy "Ken" that called into WABC radio after docking his boat.  He claimed that he was on Jamaica Bay and helped load some wreckage onto police boats.  One of the things he mentioned specifically was the Blue letter A, which is painted on the rudder.  The rest of the vertical stabilizer was in about three feet of water.  He described it well. 

At first I thought his story was suspect but it has held up given the wreckage pulled from the bay.  A transcript of his call has been posted on a few of these threads.

548 posted on 11/13/2001 7:43:51 PM PST by Incorrigible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
what can a wake do to a plane?

Depends on a lot of things. Powerful vortices are generated by wingtips... the strength of these vortices depends upon the weight and design of the plane, weather conditions (gusty winds break the vortices up), proximity to the ground. Lots of things.

In the worst case, wake turbulence has caused planes to be damaged and even crash, but it would be very irregular for a widebody Airbus to be damaged by this... the previous largest turbulence victim was, I believe, a much smaller DC-9, and that was a freak accident.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

549 posted on 11/13/2001 7:47:31 PM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
You can't compare cars to aircraft.

The engines on most jet airliners turn at RPMs above 30,000. Add all the variables and check the record, yes air craft regularly do come apart in all aspects of flight under such extremes.

550 posted on 11/13/2001 7:56:50 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d
But all I keep hearing are things like "no evidence yet= it definitely wasn't terrorism."

It's the media that spins this new math and -- believe it or not -- some Freepers actually start repeating it. "No evidence yet" actually means -- no evidence yet. It's SOP IMO for all investigations.

551 posted on 11/13/2001 7:59:31 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
The NTSB tested vortise effect in several models to determing the effect.

The results were very predictable and non-effective.

I have also been in wake-turbulence on approach, climb-out as well as cruise. It the very worst, the aircraft rolls slowly no greater than 1 or 2 degrees and yaws only slightly.

552 posted on 11/13/2001 8:02:15 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
no....the rudder was not with the stabilizer. The letter A is a double AA. Most of one A is on the rudder, and a tiny edge and the other A are on the stabilizer. The reason I believe it could be true is that the airport is so near the water. I don't know exactly how far the runway is from the water's edge, but it makes reasonable sense that the rudder separated prior to the stabilizer, imo.
553 posted on 11/13/2001 8:05:23 PM PST by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
Can we send these tinfoil hat types out in a thunderstorm with an antenna so we stop them from reproducing?? They are approaching Liberal ignoramus territory.
554 posted on 11/13/2001 8:05:51 PM PST by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

Comment #555 Removed by Moderator

To: Texaggie79
ROFL
556 posted on 11/13/2001 8:10:32 PM PST by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
The problem with the wake theory is that the plane ahead of the airbus was 8 miles ahead. My understanding is that it would be several miles more than is considered safe, plus the fact that a large plane is not as likely to react to a wake. Small planes may be caught up in the turbulence, sort of like the drag of a large truck you might be following, I think.
557 posted on 11/13/2001 8:10:50 PM PST by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: exit82
You're right. We can find out, but the fear is the airline industry will collapse. And they're right.

The airline industry will collapse if it's not safe.. Lying about terrorist not being involved will postpone the inevitable, but not for long. The lie will be uncovered by a democrat talking (they really do care about lying when it's a Republican doing the lying) or some terrorist will hit another plane, and claim both of them. It's a twofer. Then it all goes.

The people who tell Bush to lie for his country are the same types who told the older Bush to raise taxes to help the people. We know how kind they and the media were dealing with that broken promise.

Bush can't save the airlines if they can't safeguard the citizens who fly them. And he shouldn't. If the airlines can't keep citizens safe, others who can will replace them. It's still a market economy. Let the market work.

558 posted on 11/13/2001 8:11:38 PM PST by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Map Kernow
So, yes. I believe the government could be lying about the cause of the Fl. 587 crash.

Yes the government could be lying about the cause. however I see no evidence to suggest that the government is lying about the cause.

559 posted on 11/13/2001 8:12:38 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

Comment #560 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 641-647 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson