NTSB Briefing, NTSB claiming .3 to .8 g wake encounter caused crash?!?!?!

CNN | 11/15/2001 | me

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

This is Bull $h!t!!!

The NTSB is LYING like rugs!!!

NTSB dude just claimed that .3 to .8 g's encountered during the wake encounter caused the Airbus to break up in flight...

Even a male reported asked "is this even possible".

"Isn't this normal bumping encountered when flying?"

Even the media don't believe them!!!!!

[Eaker]

Bump for later read.

Eaker

[demsux]

when will they release the transcript of the VDR...anyone, anyone?

[Map Kernow]

Most crashes are a combination of factors which, on their own would not cause a crash. It is not a conspiracy, it is simply investigation.

I didn't say it was a conspiracy. I am saying that they're reaching for a comfortable explanation of Flt. 587--at least one that's more comfortable than terrorism. And they're pushing theories in our faces that sound as kooky and far-fetched as any of the anti-government conspiracy theories I've been reading about it.

[EggsAckley]

I don't know much about flying (nothing really,) but I do recall during our 7.1 earthquake, the epicenter of which was a half mile from my house, the house was airborne. The USGS told me that the force under the house was 1.0g.

Don't know how that relates to this, but it does seem like .3 or .8 isn't that much.

[Palmetto]

With all due respect, .3 - .8 lateral G's is far from a slam. Consider that lying on your side in bed, you experience 1G of lateral force.

Not trying to flame here, but a "g" is a term used to describe acceleration.

When you're lying on your side (or anywhere else) you are not moving. No acceleration at all (w/respect to the earth).

[bjs1779]

Crew ordered full power; if in nosedive, it could have reached never-exceed speed if starting from high enough, perhaps transsonic.

I would think a sonic boom would of been reported if that happened.

[Bush2000]

It used to be that people in this country did want to know the truth. We had real men and women back then. Today we have become weak and that is why we were attacked.

I agree. People whine and moan about casualties of war, forgetting of the millions that sacrificed their lives during WWII to give them the freedoms they enjoy. We are a country full of soft, wimpy dilettantes.

[FR_addict]

I don't really believe it, but if wake turbulence can cause this accident, they had better start scheduling the takeoffs and landing further apart than two minutes.

[JmyBryan]

FINALLY! The sabotage advocates seem to think the American public will be more likely to fly knowing that the tails of commercial airliners just fall off every once in a while. Phew! What a relief! Whomever the spook was who came up with this ingenious cover story needs to be promoted to the front of the short bus immediately. You conspiracy advocates need to be a little more creative.

[caa26]

It appears thus far, Flight 587 crashed due to gross negligence in maintaining the aircraft or some form of terrorism. Neither scenario is good for ther airline industry, so I'm not ready to say if the government is covering anything up, yet.

[TADSLOS]

You can get .3 to .8 G's driving down a hilly road.

[Palmetto]

No, half the speed would be 1/4 the accel, or .175 g.

[Solson]

Yesterday, I was still open to the idea of terrorism and/or sabotage. But, the fact the bolts were intact close that for me.

[Dan Day]

0.8g force? That's 20% less than you are stressing your butt right this minute, and it's not held on with carbon fiber. Something is not right. But what?

Your analogy.

Try this one -- lay an airplane on its side on the ground, with a lot of its weight leaning on the tail's vertical stabilizer. And don't do it very gently, either, make sure the weight gets shifted to the tail quite suddenly.

That's a lot of force, in a direction that the tail wasn't designed to have to withstand.

A plane in good shape could probably take that, but for a plane where the tail might have already been of questionable integrity (manufacturing problem, earlier abuse, etc.), all bets are off.

Most cars can take the stresses of being driven hard, but every year many of them fail anyway (broken axles, snapped connecting rods, etc.) because they happen to be the ones which weren't built quite as well as the average car and had an individual flaw that only required a moment of stress to reach the failure point.

[Steve_Seattle]

"most crashes are caused by a combination of factors"

That's my impression, and it seems to me the main factor here would have to be a serious structural defect in the tail assembly, and that the wake turbulence was just the straw that broke the camel's back. If the turbulence were the primary factor, I think we would have seen this kind of accident a long time ago. Planes routinely take off and land at about 2 minute intervals, and I'm sure intervals of less than 2 minutes are fairly common, even if regulations say otherwise.

[Cobra64]

NTSB claiming .3 to .8 g wake encounter caused crash?

Bull sh!t. In the late 1960s I was in a 727 when we hit some very bad turbulence. I floated out of my seat (since then, I always wear my seat belt), and came down real hard. I'd guess the uplift impact imposed thee G's on the aircraft. The stewardesses were on the floor in the aisles. Commercial aircraft are not like some military jets that can impose a 7 G turn, but they're still built to take a lot of punishment.

Yes, this is a cover-up because the media would go crazy in "stirring the pot" of the public. "More panic... gotta have more panic." That's the media's mantra. "Need more stories... we don't care about facts; our focus is RATINGS!"

[Freeper john]

The only way that wake turbulence would be able to cause the rudder to get a g force sideways would be wind force. If you had a 2g force from the left, for example, that air pressure would move the tail to the left. This should cause the airplane tail to move to the right. If it moved to the right then the right side of the airplane will also build up air pressure, which leaves a 2g force, but much lessened by the almost identical pressure on both sides. So g force isn't really applicable to anything in this case. If the plane fell sideways(one wing up 90 degrees), you would have no g force, but would probably lose the rudder. So NTSB is playing games, in my opinion

[thesharkboy]

Working backwards, that means that a 10 mph turn is about .35g.

Actually, the acceleration varies as the square of the speed, so a 10 mi/hr turn with a 40 ft radius would be around 0.17 g.