Posted on 12/05/2001 9:52:52 AM PST by Israel
An American Airlines flight to the Caribbean was forced to land Friday at John F. Kennedy International Airport after the pilot reported problems with one of the Airbus A300 engines, company officials confirmed today.
An American spokesman in Dallas blamed the emergency landing on a flock of birds likely flying south for the winter.
"It was bird strikes. The engine ingested birds, so the pilot diverted to JFK and landed without incident," spokesman John Hotard told WorldNetDaily.
"At this time of year, bird strikes are not uncommon," he added, "and engines are designed to withstand bird strikes."
Investigators initially thought birds may have caused the Nov. 12 crash of American Flight 587, which disintegrated shortly after take-off from JFK. The Airbus A300 was bound for Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The crash killed 265.
Friday's Flight 1019, which departed from Logan International Airport in Boston, was bound for San Juan, Puerto Rico.
After landing at JFK, the Airbus jet was taken out of service and repaired, while passengers and the plane's cargo of mostly "perishables" were put on a later flight to San Juan.
An American Airlines employee at Logan says the problem was reported on the flight-operations computer as "engine vibrations."
"It caused a brief panic at JFK," she said. "When they heard it was an Airbus that was headed for the Caribbean, they said, 'Oh, no.'"
Mechanics want Airbus out of service
bird strikes are not uncommon," he added, "and engines are designed to withstand bird strikes."Another crashed JFK plane may cause New Yorkers to mutiny from the establishment, and beat the crap out of the feds! If only they had not been so fanatical about every immagined fear that some PMS "victim" had, then perhaps they should be listened to. But a known liar should be punished, even if it is the entire government.
AA587 was probably bombed, and TWA800 was probably shot down. Both are otherwise unexplainable without torturing logic. The only thing one can do about it is to keep pointing out the absurdity of the birdstrikewaketurbulencecheapfrechplastictail theories and keep calling Kallstrom the lying weasel he is to deter other "team players" from taking on his role.
An Airbus A321, en route from London Luton to Tenerife Spain, was forced to make an emergency landing at London Stansted Airport today (16Nov) around 0845 after the crew reported problems with one of the engines shortly after takeoff and was forced to shutdown the engine.There is also this (now outdated) bit of information on that same web page
Preliminary flight data released on yesterday from AA587 showed the Airbus A300 was buffeted twice by turbulence from another big aircraft seconds before it began its final disastrous descent. Safety investigators said at a briefing the final turn to the left occurred even as crew controls were set to the right, suggesting the plane was no longer responding to pilot commands several seconds after the second bout of turbulence and just before crashing on Monday. National Transportation Safety Board officials said there was movement noted on the flight data recorder that was consistent with two similar turbulence encounters caused by the wake of another plane. But it remained unclear if the force of the wake turbulence, presumably from a Japan Air Lines Boeing 747 that took off just before the American Airlines plane, was enough to throw the doomed jetliner more than four miles behind it out of control.
...suggesting the plane was no longer responding to pilot commands several seconds after the second bout of turbulence and just before crashing...What it comes down to is: did loss of control cause the plane to get sideways and enable air load to rip off the vert stab and engines? If it did, then what the witnesses saw: flame or explosion near the wing root before the plane came apart, is corroborated.
The other question is: is there any other theory that pulls it all together and explains what happened?
What the NTSB has in front of it is delicate: I don't think anyone has the titanium balls to try "Exploding center fuel tank" again. So what do you call what the witnesses saw?
Regs,
VRN
And then there is the insistence of witnesses that fires or signs of an explosion were the first things to happen. So the Cheap French Plastic Tail theory does not explain both the observed sequence - a witness saw part of a wing come off before the tail, for example, or the subsequent events. What they should be looking for is when the control lines, hydraulic and mechanical, stopped working, and why that happened.
Certain times of the year birds will land and gather on the runways for whatever reason. I've seen planes leave and return quickly with a cracked windshield from hitting birds on the runways. I'd say that although engines are designed to withstand bird strikes I doubt that the engines can withstand ingesting several birds. Just my opinion.
Laid off Airline Employee.
NO . Any airframe that weak could not be certified.
Having NASA analyze airframe instead of FAA is like having the Park Police to investigate Vince Foster.NO
Thanks for posting the airdisaster website. It had information on a TWA flight that crashed less than a mile from my house 40 years ago.
The aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff from Chicago's Midway Airport after a malfunction of the flight controls, which subsequently led to a full upward deviation of the elevator, and a stall.
The volunteer fire fighters from my small town never got over having had to deal with the horror. Three of the volunteers from my block died fairly young of heart attacks. We always wondered if something in connection with that day contributed to their deaths.
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.