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

Skip to comments.

NTSB Briefing, NTSB claiming .3 to .8 g wake encounter caused crash?!?!?!
CNN | 11/15/2001 | me

Posted on 11/16/2001 1:19:06 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 461-473 next last
To: Map Kernow
Take a couple of Mydol and loosen your turbin, then go take your hostility out on your wife.

Then go to school and learn something so you don't come across so ignorantly.

361 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:52 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
PS: Has anyone else seen a broadcast, site, etc with NTSB person saying what is claimed in post #1 of this thread?
362 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:52 PM PST by MindBender26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
PS: Has anyone else seen a broadcast, site, etc with NTSB person saying what is claimed in post #1 of this thread?
363 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:52 PM PST by MindBender26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Tarakotchi
Really, what kooky and far-fetched anti-government conspiracy theories have you been reading about the crash? On FreeRepublic? Many people feel because of the timing and locale and airline it may have been another act of terrorism, is that a kooky and far-fetched conspiracy theory?

Well, having reviewed a LOT of posts on Flt. 587, I've concluded that some folks have been a little quick on the draw as far as charging conspiracy and cover-up go, and it invites the airline and government codependents to chime in with their tired old "don't confuse the conspiracy nuts with facts" cliches.

But you need to get the thrust of my comment: on the whole, the prize for the wildest imaginations and the most unsubstantiated theories go to the people who keep insisting that this or that mechanical failure theory is possible. Hell, anything within the laws of physics is possible, but 60 days after our country suffered its worst terrorist attack ever, and a week or so after the government announced the likelihood of an imminent further attack, why treat the possible causes of this crash as though this were still peacetime? Why attack concerns about possible terrorist causes of this crash as "conspiracy theories"? I could still be convinced that there was no sabotage and no terrorist involvement, but what seems like the outright propagandizing of a "mechanical failure" scenario makes me very, very suspicious, and I'll keep on being that way, and counsel others to be that way, until I see some more objectivity in this investigation.

364 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:52 PM PST by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
I wasn't really aiming anything at you, just letting the tinhatters know my thoughts on the last post.....no offence, and sorry for the misunderstanding. (psycho)
365 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:53 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Solson
Actually, I-beams have a very great compression loading factor, much higher than the shear loading caused by spans which are the primary reason for the design; the weakest resistance is in a torsional fashion, a twisting from end to end.
366 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:53 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Take a couple of Mydol and loosen your turbin, then go take your hostility out on your wife.

Then go to school and learn something so you don't come across so ignorantly.

Speak for yourself, you fraud. Your post was a lie from beginning to end and you know it. Let those post who know what they're talking about. There're ones among them who support a "mechanical failure" scenario and who do so capably, knowledgeably and without lying.

367 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:53 PM PST by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Another question - does it calculate the force based on the movement (in this case lateral) or by some method measuring the actual pressure placed on the plane at some specific point.

I am pretty ignorant on all of this but the reason I am asking this is is it possible that if the vertical stabilizer was just beginning to become loose during a turn, would the sudden change in the angle from 90 degrees (perfectly perpendicular) be sufficient to reduce the lateral drag enough to allow the plane to shift sideways dramatically enough to cause whatever is measuring the forces to perceive this as additional force rather than the plane moving due to the decreased lateral resistance?

I hope I am phrasing this correctly but I am drawing this from sailing experience where the sail captures more wind when the boat is flat rather than leaning at an angle.

If this were the case then that may mean that the lateral forces were more of a symptom of the plane deteriorating rather than the cause. Then with each attempt to correct for the structural damage that was occuring more damage was actually being inflicted finally resulting in the total separation of the stabilizer.

Just looking for a better understanding.

368 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:54 PM PST by L_Von_Mises
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
It really bugs me to look at that tail section and see how cleanly it came off of the plane. The plane was just past the runway when the darn thing just dropped off. Looks like someone took a saw to it.
369 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:55 PM PST by Faith-Hope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
PS: Has anyone else seen a broadcast, site, etc with NTSB person saying what is claimed in post #1 of this thread?

It is 9:12PM eastern time now. Hannity and Colmes are on Fox News Channel . They said later in the broadcast they would have an "Expert" on who believes the plane crash was an act of terrorism.

Right now they are discussing the Christians who were released.

I don't have an opinion yet on the cause of the crash except that the explanations so far seem weak. -Tom

370 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:55 PM PST by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Sleep Well my Son. Michael Rivero has many folowers
371 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:55 PM PST by MindBender26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: oprahstheantichrist
Swears the Airbus is pure junk. Flying (usually) trash, although that wasn't quite the adjective, and every pilot that's ever flown one knows it. They hate to fly 'em, and the flight attendants hate them as well.

Nice to hear that flight attendants are supporting the explanation that'll discourage fewer people from cancelling their airline reservations. Now can you post the actual statistics on the safety record of this "junk" aircraft? I saw some that indicated the Airbus did not have a safety record that was worse than other manufactures. Anyone know the FACTS? Go ahead, someone: don't be afraid to "confuse" this "tinfoil hat conspiracy nut."

372 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:55 PM PST by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
Did you see these NTSB photos? Good grief! It's time to ground any Airbuses with composite stabs.

A picture is worth a thousand words - Everyone needs to look at these....HOLY $hit!

373 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:55 PM PST by webster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: calvin sun
Could the .3 - .8 g force, TOGETHER WITH a loose tail, have caused the crash. I agree (from reading other comments) that this amount of force is too little to affect a "good" plane. But could it be enough to force off a loose tail, causing other bad things?

With all respect Calvin, don't try to defend them. From what I've read so far here, 0.8g's is nothing abnormal, so what you're saying is, if the plane wouldn't have attempted to fly, the loose tail would not have been a problem?

374 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:56 PM PST by jonathonandjennifer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NAMMARINE
What position do you hold where you work?

Can you get one of the Airbus mechanics to comment?

375 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:57 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
PS: Has anyone else seen a broadcast, site, etc with NTSB person saying what is claimed in post #1 of this thread?

If it's any help, here's the AP story on the conference:

November 15, 2001 at 17:15:25 PST

Doomed Flight Twice Hit Turbulence

NEW YORK- American Airlines Flight 587 twice ran into turbulence left by a jumbo jet, including a blast of air that sent it careening sideways seconds before it crashed, investigators said Thursday.

With their inquiry focused on why the tail fin and rudder sheared off cleanly before the crash, investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board released further details Thursday on the final seconds of the doomed flight.

After the Airbus A300 experienced two turbulent "wake encounters," the rudder stopped sending usable data to the flight data recorder, the jetliner shook violently and then went into a steep dive.

"We have eight seconds we're going to be looking at in extreme detail," said Tom Haueter, the NTSB's deputy director of aviation. He said investigators are not ready to conclude that the tail fin sheared off at that point.

But experts are looking closely at whether the tail's composite structure or the wake of the Japan Airlines jumbo jet may have contributed to the tail failure.

The JAL 747 left from the same runway at Kennedy Airport less than two minutes earlier. Monday's crash killed all 260 people aboard the jet bound for the Dominican Republic and five more people on the ground in Queens.

Within eight seconds of the second wake encounter, Flight 587 began banking hard with its left wing down. The flight data recorder cut off at that point.

NTSB investigator George Black Jr. said investigators were almost certain the tail broke off before the jetliner's twin engines did. While cautioning that investigators are not ready to rule out sabotage, he said the tail "doesn't appear to have been sabotaged in any way."

Black also said the pilots of Flight 587 were probably unaware its tail fin had broken off as they struggled to control the plane.

"They don't have a rearview mirror," he told The Associated Press. "They have no idea they've lost a tail."

In Washington, the Federal Aviation Administration was preparing to order inspections of Airbus A300s, focusing on the tail. The order would cover 90 of the European-built planes used by three U.S. airlines - American, FedEx and United Parcel Service. American has already agreed to do voluntary inspections of its 34 remaining A300s.

"We understand that American Airlines is inspecting their fleet as a very precautionary measure," said a spokeswoman for Airbus in Toulouse, France. "We do not yet know what went wrong."

The tail assembly on the Airbus A300 includes a tail fin and rudder; without those parts, the jetliner would have suffered a loss of stability and turning control.

Besides the effects of turbulence, investigators are looking at the tail's makeup. It is made of composites, or carbon-fiber reinforced plastic that is incredibly strong.

Composite materials started being used for major structural parts in commercial jets in the late 1970s and early '80s. Black said there haven't been any problems with the material, "but then we also haven't lost any tails."

Maintenance records indicate that before the plane was delivered to American Airlines in 1988, one of the six fittings that hold the tail to the fuselage had to be repaired by the manufacturer. The fitting's thickness was increased and it was reinforced with rivets.

The cockpit voice recorder, the plane's other black box, has offered potential clues to investigators.

For example, the co-pilot calls for maximum power about two minutes after takeoff, just after a pair of jet frame rattling noises are heard in the cockpit. Seconds later, the pilots indicate they were losing control.

"When they start talking about max power ... they've gone into recovery mode," Black said. "And they might be recovering from the wrong thing, because they don't know" about the missing tail.

The voice recording ends 19 seconds after the call for maximum power.

With much of its work on the ground done, the NTSB planned to shut down its main investigation in New York by Saturday and return to Washington, Black said.

At the crash site Thursday, large pieces of shattered wreckage were pulled from the neighborhood where Flight 587 plunged to earth and workers with pitchforks and rakes moved methodically through smaller piles of rubble. The crash destroyed or damaged 11 homes.

All the bodies were recovered from the site, with cleanup of the wreckage expected by this weekend, said Marion Blakey, the NTSB chairwoman. The engines were sent to Tulsa, Okla., for a complete breakdown, while other sections of the plane were sent to their manufacturers for inspection, she said.

The airline has changed the flight number from 587 to 619. The flight from Kennedy to the Dominican Republic was so well known among Dominicans that it was referenced in a popular song, "El Avion (The Plane)."

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said a memorial service will be held Sunday for victims of the crash, but specifics were not immediately disclosed.

376 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:57 PM PST by Map Kernow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
PS: Has anyone else seen a broadcast, site, etc with NTSB person saying what is claimed in post #1 of this thread?

365 posts on this thread and you are the first person to ask -- to see the actual quotes? I wonder why the actual quotes were not put in the original post?

377 posted on 11/16/2001 1:21:01 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Map Kernow
Relevant Airbus A.300 safety related information . . .
378 posted on 11/16/2001 1:21:01 PM PST by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
There seems to be a lot of smart people posting here. All that aside, if all it takes is a little wind to tear up a huge aircraft, it doesn't make me feel very good about flying. To me this is more scary than the bomb theory. How many Airbuses in service? How long? What will happen to other airbuses? Are they going to keep them in the air? It makes you wonder about these new airplanes. I guess they don't make them like they used to.
379 posted on 11/16/2001 1:21:01 PM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Map Kernow
The airline has changed the flight number from 587 to 619. The flight from Kennedy to the Dominican Republic was so well known among Dominicans that it was referenced in a popular song, "El Avion (The Plane)."

I don't really understand this--does this mean they have changed the flight number for this run? I didn't realize they had standardized flight numbers that way.
380 posted on 11/16/2001 1:21:02 PM PST by ChemistCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 461-473 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