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!!!!!

[samuel_adams_us]

Exactly! Why would anyone ever want to fly again?

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

.3 g wake...

3/10ths of a unit of gravity a "g".

Wake is wake turbulance

It means he encountered 3/10th of a g during a wake turbulance event. This is nothing, a aeronatuical bump in the road if you will...

The NTSB is either stupid, lying or working for Airbus.

[classygreeneyedblonde]

hmmmmmmmm

[JmyBryan]

Yes - they said the bolts were intact. Broke off behind the bolts.

[Map Kernow]

Yep, they're really hanging their hat on the "wake turbulence" theory, if only because one of the Flt. 587 pilots appears to have mentioned it on the voice recorder.

For all you pilots out there, imagine how you're going to have to announce encounters with turbulence to the passengers from now on: "We're going to go through some turbulence here, ladies and gentlemen....EVERYBODY--SIT DOWN!!!! THE PLANE IS *NOT* GOING TO DISINTEGRATE...REPEAT...[etc.]" Won't that be a kick?

[chemainus]

Everyone write their Congressmen and SCREAM right now !! Enough is enough !!!!! No More Bullshit...

[walden]

Did they mention whether they had done any explosives residue testing yet?

[Darth Reagan]

An AE's help is needed here.

[Stevieboy]

Exactly.

This had better be some freak of mechanical nature or the airline industry's had it for the next 5 years.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Doomed flight hit turbulence left by jumbo jet seconds before crash, NTSB says -AP Breaking News
LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer
(11-15) 14:00 PST (AP) -- NEW YORK (AP) -- American Airlines Flight 587 twice ran into turbulence left by a jumbo jet, including a blast of air that sent it careening sideways just seconds before it crashed, investigators said Thurs...

[classygreeneyedblonde]

thank you...

[samuel_adams_us]

I agree, time to scream! Next thing you know Ford and Firestone will tell us you can't do 70mph on the highway because the tires weren't mean't to stand that kind of speed and it is our fault.

[BillM]

The normal category limits are pretty high. Most people are uncomfortable if loads exceed 1g. Remember, the sense of falling unsupported is one g. I have hit a lot of turbulence in my day but the planes I was flying didn't mind.

[jpthomas]

If they're talking about static loads, the stated .3 to .8 g would be several times too small even at the upper end to cause failure. If, on the other hand, the vortex initiated and sustained a harmonic oscillation of the vertical stabilizer, it could have led to a dynamic instability called flutter. The key issue would be whether the vortex could act as a load factor that stimulated a resonant frequency of the vertical stabilizer. The controls software of the A/C may have contributed to the problem if it didn't properly act to dampen rather than amplify the oscillations.

There's a famous film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge that was built without consideration of resonant frequencies. Shortly after it was completed in 1940, on a windy day, the bridge began to rock up and down, with the waves in the roadway reaching several feet between crest and trough before the whole thing collapsed. It's believed that vortex shedding from a natural formation provided the periodic input that resulted in the bridge's collapse. Go to Tacoma Narrows Bridge Failure for a technical explanation.

[justlurking]

what is a .3g wake?

In this context, it means a ripple in the air caused by a wake vortex from the wing of another plane.

The .3g means that it exerted an acceleration force of 3/10ths the force of gravity (32 feet/sec acceleration).

Can someone do a quick calculation and determine the lateral acceleration generated generated by a 20 mph right turn around the corner? I think it would help people understand the absurdity of this claim.

[jungleboy]

avi8tor - Could you please help this ol hick decipher your posts.

[samuel_adams_us]

Could an explosive planted in the tail of the aircraft do the same thing? Especially one planted on the outside of the aircraft and not on the inside. That way it wouldn't cause a ton of noise for those in the plane, etc. I think the NTSB is run by a bunch of morons.

[Melinator]

You hit more than .3G accelerating down the runway. I say no one should fly anymore if .3 - .8 g will bring these things down in flaming chunks.

What a bunch of liars! Do they actually expect people to believe this crap?

[lawdude]

"In other words, it was a bomb. Why didn't they just say: "Isolated incident....Nothing to see here......""

When did the bomb go off? Was it one of those new Maxwell Smart Silent Boomers? Have you a plausible comment based on some sort of fact, not some friggin tin hat conspiracy BS? Get a life and quit listening to Art Bell!

[Demosthenes]

a wake with impact force on the jet behind it that is equivilent to .3 earth gravities.

for reference, when you SCUBA dive to 33 feet depth, you are experiencing one full additional earth gravity in the from of the pressure exerted by the weight of the water on your body.

When a fighter pilot pulls a sharp loop, inertia/centrifugal force exerts a 2G pull on his body, or, were you to place a scale under his tush during the loop, he'd weigh twice his normal standing weight.