Flight 587 Crash Probe Inconclusive

CNN ^ | May 3, 2002 | CNN

[Fred Mertz]

Yas massah.

[abner]

Fred, I'm with you. The way the tail sheared off, just doesn't make sense. It was away too clean. The darned thing looked brand new. The composite theory, I don't buy that either. I've been working with plastics and composites for years now, and I just don't buy it. The wake vortice theory, that is the most laughable. If any of the theories they have thrown on the wall so far had ANY validity the pilots and mechanics would all walk off of the job in fear of their lives and the liability.

[exit82]

Fred, I'm with you. Guess that puts us in the 10% of the nutcases.

Rokke is well informed, but he knows I disagree with him. Tails like this don't fall off as an initiating event. The eyewitnesses were cops and firemen who lived in the neighborhood--their eyewitness accounts of an explosion-starboard side by the wing-- were deflected almost immediately.They even took an ad out in the NY papers to get their view out. It wasn't until Richard Reid almost a month later that we could enviswion how a plane could be taken out in this manner.

[Fred Mertz]

The answer is complex but in all likelihood was a wake turbulence induced transient followed by a rudder reversal and incorrect pilot control input which busted the tail fin off.

You must work for the gummint.

[Vigilantcitizen]

"Fred, I'm with you. The way the tail sheared off, just doesn't make sense. It was away too clean. The darned thing looked brand new. The composite theory, I don't buy that either. I've been working with plastics and composites for years now, and I just don't buy it. The wake vortice theory, that is the most laughable. If any of the theories they have thrown on the wall so far had ANY validity the pilots and mechanics would all walk off of the job in fear of their lives and the liability.

Bump...

[Capitalist Eric]

Careful- you might introduce facts (or reasonable theories) which contradict the viewpoints of the tinfoil-hat crowd (as personified by Mertz)...

;-)

[Rokke]

Your problem is you get your information from sources that actually understand what they are talking about. You need to spend more time reading the sources the "knowledgeable" 10% do. You know, the ones that talk about chemtrails, alien orgies, and the New World Order.

[Fred Mertz]

Some folks told me you are bright and informed.

Too bad your head is in the sand.

[Young Werther]

I've read Aviation Week for over 40 years. In order to subscribe you must be "in the industry". I'm a space activist and aviation enthusiast.

I remember when they pissed off LBJ when, in 1964, they published all the operating parameters for the YF-12A. LBJ had announced the existence of this aircraft but had given no particulars. The engineers at Aviation Week took the picture from the press release and reverse engineered the aircraft from the helmet in the window! They said that assuming that the helmet size was "average" they could impute the size of the landing gear and with that the gross weight of the aircraft and so on till they had given all the flight parameters including Mach 3 at over 100,000' which was very classified, (but not anymore!!). I trust them.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Photos of plane pieces are at http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/tailcomp.htm

IMHO, the problem wasn't that the fin was made of composite, it was that the attachments were composite. That's an unusual usage and very ill-advised. Bad design, in other words, is my primary suspect for this crash.

But the outwardly petal'd holes in the fuselage (seen in the pictures labeled "Center and aft attachment points (left side)", for example) also need explaining. The shoe-bomb notion is an attractive one and would explain these holes and the loss of the tail, except that there's no place for a passenger to sit under here, except in a bathroom (all of which are verified as empty before takeoff). Jump-seats for crew-members are found here, though.

Hm.

[abner]

The answer is complex but in all likelihood was a wake turbulence induced transient followed by a rudder reversal and incorrect pilot control input which busted the tail fin off

Did you see the photos of the tail fin? What you describe there should have been evidence of shearing of some sort. It looked to me like the bolts just fell out. It looked like it could have been rebolted onto a different fuselage and sent on its way.

I don't necessarily think that it was a shoe bomber. But, with my foil hat firmly in place, I would theorize sabotage at the Miami Airport. The way the eyewitness reports have the thing just coming apart in mid-air and exploding there could have been nefarious activity that might not have been detected at Miami or anywhere else. Enough shaking on take-off, landing and taking off again could cause the "wing-off" and "tail-off" effect in a vortex and hydraulic lines to get cut and do all of the things necessary to cause it to explode.

Just a theory.

[Fred Mertz]

I appreciate your comments and expetise. Thanks for chiming in.

[Rokke]

Actually, the American A300-600 pilots signed a petition asking for their jets to be grounded. American is currently facing a lawsuit over Flight 587 concerning their maintenance standards. Aviation Week magazine did an indepth, independent study during which they determined the loads experienced by flt587 were enough to shear the tail. The NTSB investigation has discovered several suspicious incidents involving Airbus aircraft and their composite tails. Just today it was announced that NASA has started to dissect the tail of flt587 to look for clues as to why it sheared off.
All that, and some folks have already determined the whole thing was caused by a shoebomber. Amazing.

[Fred Mertz]

Actually, the American A300-600 pilots signed a petition asking for their jets to be grounded.

How long have they been in service?

[abner]

No, I haven't determined that it was a shoebomber.

I have determined that they shouldn't rule out terrorism. They can't determine that it wasn't terrorism until the investigation is finished any more than we can conclude that it was terrorism.

Now that you mention it, I remember something about the pilots wanting an investigation. What happened with that? Are the pilots happy with the result? They are still flying, it must be ok.

[Rokke]

If I were really bright and informed, I wouldn't bother reading threads like this one. However, I am smart enough to get my information from sources with a reputation for publishing just the facts, and right now those sources are saying it is too early to state the exact cause, but that all signs point to a failure in the composites of the tail accelerated by either pilot induced or aircraft induced rapid rudder reversals.
Just a suggestion, but scan a few articles in Aviation Week between issues of WorldNetDaily. At the very least, it may help you understand what us ostriches in the 90% are thinking.

[exit82]

If Aviation Week had a study that deduced that the "loads" were enough to take the tail fin off, every one of these planes should be sitting on the ground right now. What loads on a clear day, with a rudder that can't just reverse itself with computer controlled limits to travel, could possibly cause a tailfin to pop off? And you question those of us who aren't buying that theory.

That the tail came off so cleanly, at the very least, shows a design defect so severe as to make all of these planes suspect right now.

Was the turn the pilots made any different than those made by the plane before or the plane after, following the same flight path on takeoff, as is done hundreds of times each day from this airport. But this plane falls apart?

[Young Werther]

There was a letter to the editor by an aviation engineer. From the photos available after the crash he was able to make a statement regarding what, in his opinion, was inadequate engineering for the attachment bolts on the tail fin.

When the Comets started falling out of the sky in the 50s it led the industry to study and identify "metal fatigue". From this came the eddy current tests which can detect these conditions. The aircraft manufacturer then develops a remedy. Since composites don't have the material make-up for using eddy currents a new maintenance test will have to be developed. It'll happen and we'll keep on truckin'(flying!!)

[abner]

It'll happen and we'll keep on truckin'(flying!!)

Flying is still the best way to get from point A to point B. I'm not a big fan of flying, although I can't seem to get away from aviation and aviators... Go figure...

Our latest transport.

[Rokke]

The average age of an A300-600 is 10 years.