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.
John, and all:
Mary Schiavo is a popular talking head for the TV, but she is almost completely discredited as an air safety expert. Look at how "Scary Mary" is brutalized on the aviation web sites. She is not an engineer, and she isn't a pilot. Yeah, she was DOT inspector general... and she is a lawyer. She is an ambulance chaser and a VERY big fan of very big government. She can identify an airplane three times out of five, if allowed to take the test without time limits.... her reaction is always (1) panic, and (2) scream for government intervention (which also, of course, provides backing for her tort cases).
H & C pointing out if this is an in-flight break-up which would be the apparent "mechanical" cause given the pieces this thing was found in
If, if, if. In a few days we will know more. Yes, it is evident that the plane broke up in the air... otherwise parts couldn't have landed so far apart. Duh. But what is not proven is why the machine broke up. I have suggested numerous possibilities, but I can't stress enough that these are speculation. Scary Mary assumes the factuality a breathtaking speculation, then proceeds to make policy by fiat (or propose to) based on her initial unfounded assumption. To put it in terms she has doubtless been told by a judge before, "counsel assumes facts not in evidence."
then the government should/would be grounding these planes immediatley.
Well, that is her opinion. Which, if aviation experience or engineering knowledge is a gage, is worth as much as the day-old chicken littles running around here! In the real world, which even Mary must visit from time to time, IF they determine that it was a mechanical deficiency and IF that deficiency exists throughout a range of aircraft and IF the safest thing to do is to ground them, they will sure as hell be grounded as long as it takes for the deficiency to be corrected. Notice that Concorde was grounded until TWO systems, each of which would independently have prevented the 2000 accident, were installed, tested, and documented to the satisfaction of the authorities.
Only an idiot would call for the grounding of an aircraft type based on speculation. Has Mrs. Schiavo has made such a call? If so, I consider it further proof of the first sentence of this paragraph.
Break up such as this essentially unheard of in recent American aviation history.
Utter, complete bilge. Unheard of in Mary's education, perhaps, which seems to have been conducted entirely by TV. I have already cited other recent inflight breakups in this thread. Rare yes; but then so are airline crashes of any kind. Unheard of, hell no.
(By the way, I found an incident of suicide hijackers that pre-dates all our current airline security. CAT, 1949. There truly is nothing new under the sun, if your horizons are not constricted by a picture tube).
John, not meant to ping on you, but rather on Mary Schiavo... hope that you do not take this as a personal gouge. I understand that you are only posting what you hear. Listen to all sides, and find the facts on your own if you can, and be your own judge.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
What the "Ken" caller said was that he helped get the rudder onto the police boat. He mentioned the Blue letter A which is painted on the port side of the tail (it's red on the starboard). Mostly on the rudder itself.
The rudder and the stabilizer were both in the water. Apparently the stabilizer was too big/heavy to manually load onto the boats that were involved in the initial salvage attempt. However, he noted the rudder was loaded onto the police boat.
What the government says is not the only thing that should be examined with a critical mind -- everything should be examined with a critical mind.
this is where the stab. attaches to the frame. there is not much support for unusual side-loading.
There is also a small pocket in the forward section, but in a severe yaw, would not support the stress created.
The single engine thrust reversal theory makes increasing sence.
The NTSB suspects this possibility as well.
Whatever you say Psycho!
How do expect anyone to take you serious with a name like that?
The terrorist theory makes the best sense.
If Airplanes can break apart as easily as this one did there would be many, many, many more accidents than actually occur each year. This one won't be covered up. America is starting to wake up since 9-11.
Airbus is made in France and they will have their people right in the middle.
This cover-up garbage is simply ignorant wishful-thinking.
I studied the investigative data on PA-800 and the findings were correct and accurate. I had an in-flight electrical failure similar to that on flight 800 caused by the same wire manufacturer but survived because the failure did not occure in the middle of the fuel cell.
I have no idea how easily this might could be done or even if the control systems are capable of causing an induced oscillation that would rip off a flying surface.
It would explain away many strange occurances such as the airframe rattle appearing, disappearing then reappearing when increased thrust was applied, loss of control, seperation of flying surfaces with very little damage and etc.
Yeah, this is right. In fact the controllers are comfortable putting big planes three miles in trail.
plus the fact that a large plane is not as likely to react to a wake.
This is also true. The DC-9 I mentioned was following close behind a 250,000 pound 757, which at the time wasn't considered "heavy." Some pretty big planes have been smashed by wake turbulence, but you are right that these present facts point away from that.
Small planes may be caught up in the turbulence, sort of like the drag of a large truck you might be following, I think.
Yeah... if you are in a small plane, the wake of a small plane is like hitting a little bump in the road. You can fly in a circle and hit your own wake (indeed, that's one way to judge how accurate your circles are, given no wind). If you are in a big plane, the wake of the small plane is nothing to you. (More than size is involved of course, but it's a good rule of thumb).
The wake of a big plane can, and sometimes does, smash a small plane. But for wake to cause a loss of an Airbus would be without precedent.
It could have been flutter... for instance if some part of the rigging was changed, counterweights removed and not replaced, even repaint of the tail fins. But that is truly idle speculation.
For good info on this, look at these aviation news sites (in alphabetical order):
There are more, but if it's not on one of these three sites, it probably won't ever fly. And if it's big news and does (or did) fly, it'll be on all three (although AvWeb will only report it on their Monday/Thursday news cycle, naturally).
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
If you knew even a fraction of what is involved you would be more objective..
I qualify by 30 years and 25,000 hours of flight experience. And I have seen numerous accidents in the process.
You might as well give up, this one won't be covered up.
America is not as dumb as its governmet thinks it is.
Without evidence to the contrary, I believe your analysis is correct. I might throw in some bad bolts or glue too. Still, with reports of both engines and at least one wing shearing off, the improbability is pretty darn high.
It is unfortunate that the co-pilot called for max-power.
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.