Pilots of Doomed Jet Unaware Tail Fin Fell Off

Reuters | 10/29/02 | John Crawley

[Bobby777]

what is the actual MPH of 240 knots?

[KellyAdmirer]

Engines are designed to break off when a plane spirals violently.

? How is having no engines on a plane with absolutely no gliding ability supposed to help anything?

[lelio]

So let me get this straight: this is a problem with Airbus planes yet few of them have been grounded to fix it? Something's not right here.

[lelio]

I suppose it gives you a chance to right the plane so you can land on its belly. Also less mass would hit the ground at once, possibly making for a "safer" landing.

[billorites]

"what is the actual MPH of 240 knots? "

About 278 MPH.

[Dinsdale]

How is having no engines on a plane with absolutely no gliding ability supposed to help anything?

It's better then no wings. Something is going to give.

All planes glide, some glide like a rock.

[billorites]

Engines are designed to break off when a plane spirals violently.

Better to lose the engines and keep the wings.

[Monty22]

This whole thing stinks. The hour this happened, they were going on the 'it's not a bomb' stuff instantly. I mean, instantly.

They had no clue.

What they want us to believe is that a bunch of loud noises happened, and the plane just fell apart on its own. I guess it is possible, but c'mon.

[Trust but Verify]

These transcripts are always fascinating in a horrific way. Pilots always strike me as brave and professional all the way to their last breath.

[Slicksadick]

I believe commercial aircraft are required to have at least a 12:1 glide ratio.

[Bobby777]

Reminds me of AA191 out of Chicago ... the no. 1 engine climbed up and over the wing (from the fuel left in the lines) ... it does this to keep from impacting the wing / aircraft ... unfortunately, when it went, it yanked the hydralics out ... the DC-10 had no locking mechanism for the forward slats / rearward flaps ... they retracted creating a lift imbalance ... supposedly the pilots performed the correct "engine out" procedure (they had no way of knowing it had separated) of stalling the aircraft to 160 knots ... however the left wing was stalling already the the aircraft rolled as the right wing lifted due to its slats / flap deployment (high degree of lift for takeoff) ... the aircraft rolled into a near-nosedive ... the whole flight was 45 seconds IIRC ...

however, in the case of 191, it was definitely mechanical failure due to improper attachment of the engines to the pylon and then to the wing ... proper procedure was to attach the pylon to the wing, and then attach the engine to the pylon ...

[oldcomputerguy]

I find it hard to believe that engines are designed to break off. The lone exception being some horrendous forces that would make it the last resort.

Having worked on planes in the USAF, this is the first time I have heard that mentioned.

[exit82]

The tail fell off. But was that the initiating event?

Notice there is not one recollection of the eyewitnesses that said there was an explosion near the fuselage at the right wing which started everything. And with all of the video cameras in the area on buildings, at the airport, etc, there is no video evidence of what happened.

The eyewitness reports have gone down the memory hole. If the tail really fell of and we still don't know why, why wasn't every Airbus grounded? They kept right on flying, didn't they?

I believe this was the first shoe bomber. The bomb blew through the hydraulic control cables below the floor of the cabin, severed the ones with the tail, the tail fin started flapping in the breeze without control and snapped off.

The first shoe bomber caught was three weeks later, Richard Reid.

For some reason, our government has been lying about
Flight 587, like TWA 800 and the OC bombing, since day one.
Tails don't just pop off; and planes don't get hit by vortexes when the takeoff pattern and timing is the same day after day after day.

There have been many previous threads on this subject on FR, which are worth reading.

[Bobby777]

thank you ... I guess I have a hard time believing the tail just fell off ... I'm familiar with wake turbulence and I haven't taken off behind a 747 that I recall (maybe DC-10's and L-1011's) when I flew a lot ... (passenger) ...

I know the 747 generates quite a wake for several miles ... these takeoff intervals are regulated by the tower ... I haven't heard that the minimum separation was violated ...

[billorites]

I find it hard to believe that engines are designed to break off.

The engines are very heavy and massive. The pylons which connect them to the wings are designed to be the weak link to protect the wing. They are strong as regards fore and aft loads, but are designed to fail when a rolling moment (horizontal) is applied.

[Publius6961]

The crew of a doomed American Airlines jetliner apparently was unaware the tail fin had fallen off as they

I could tell this would be an authoritative article after reading this.
Have Americans been dumbed down to the point where they (in addition to the author) is unfamiliar with the common word: "rudder"?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

that's exactly what I was wondering.

[eno_]

Right. That statement is utterly bogus. In fact, AB engine pylons are not deisgned to fail under any circumstances, unlike some Boeings and MDs, which are designed to have the engines come off in a gear-up landing.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list