Skip to comments.
Pilots of Doomed Jet Unaware Tail Fin Fell Off
Reuters
| 10/29/02
| John Crawley
Posted on 10/29/2002 10:32:36 AM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
To: banjo joe
I remember the last three words from the first officer after a midair and seconds before it hit the ground. "I live ya Ma" Heartrending.
drjoe
41
posted on
10/29/2002 1:10:25 PM PST
by
drjoe
To: drjoe
pardon me "I love ya Ma."
42
posted on
10/29/2002 1:13:17 PM PST
by
drjoe
To: banjo joe
"You always hope to pull it out and recover. What they don't tell you in these transcripts are the last two words, just when it's realized that you're out of altitude (and options)..."
My thought's exactly :(
43
posted on
10/29/2002 1:36:03 PM PST
by
wndycndy
To: Trust but Verify
I agree, but have attended safety seminars where the last transmissions w/ ATC are replayed, or CVR transcripts reviewed. It's chilling, but the object lesson stays with you.
To: willyone
I rode on a lot of Southwest birds when I flew ... never was that crazy about the 737 ... liked the DC-9/MD-8x series because they were powerful (had one guy pull out of KC to SL in 37 minutes in an MD-80 ... I was pushed back in the seat nearly the entire trip) ... I preferred the 727 with the large wing area or an L-1011 which I couldn't get except to the coasts ...
on one particular DC-9 from Houston to Oklahoma City, we hit a hard thunderstorm which was a giant black beast swallowing up the clear blue sky ... there was an NAIA basketball team (or NCAA, can't remember) but we were slapped around like plastic toy ... the pilot aborted the landing when we hit 40+ mph crosswinds just seconds before touchdown ...
Compare that to an L-1011 I was on, which was set down on a perfect cool night ... never, and I mean never felt the belly gear touch the ground ... and I've been on passenger jets about 150+ times total ... amazing ... love the Lockheed Tri-Star ...
45
posted on
10/29/2002 1:46:41 PM PST
by
Bobby777
To: drjoe
was that the PSA 727?
46
posted on
10/29/2002 1:49:26 PM PST
by
Bobby777
To: Bobby777
"...what is the actual MPH of 240 knots? ..."
73 Knots is 100 MPH.
To: exit82
".....and planes don't get hit by vortexes when the takeoff pattern and timing is the same day after day after day"
Don't fly a lot, do you ?
48
posted on
10/29/2002 6:46:55 PM PST
by
RS
To: RS
I fly a fair amount each year, thanks. Nothing has been produced saying that the regular separation pattern wasn't followed here. The Airbus 300 is a substantial airplane. A 747 may leave a wingtip vortex that can flip a small Cessna, or irritate a 737, but it isn't going to rip apart an Airbus 300.
That morning was a typical morning. No reports of clear air turbulence--usually not near the ground--nor in the area reported by previous pilots. You're talking about a busy takeoff pattern here from one of the world's busiest airports.Something like that would not have gone unnoticed.
49
posted on
10/29/2002 8:06:03 PM PST
by
exit82
To: Lobbyist
What was the "roaring noise" that filled the cockpit? If the engines had fallen off where was the noise coming from? Okay, put you tinfoil hat down for a second. The engines had just fallen off. Why -- because the plane was in a violent spin. Now as you may imagine planes are shaped for a particular direction of travel through the air -- we call that "aerodynamic" shape -- nice and smooth curves. It really cuts down on air turbulence and drag. Now throw the plane into a violent spin through a 280mph wind -- ever hear a hurricane with 280mph winds? You get a bit of a roaring noise, no? Well, you'll get the same thing when the jet is no longer slipping nicely through the air in its designed for direction. See, the non-aerodynamic profile causes turbulence -- which is powerful noisy. Okay?
50
posted on
10/29/2002 8:12:32 PM PST
by
jlogajan
To: exit82
A buddy of mine taking off from Philadelphia in a Piper Tri Pacer hit wake vortex at 300 ft and was rolled inverted, stayed with it (the roll) to complete the roll. Tower asked if everything was OK....He answered affirmative.
Another buddy on final at Chicago in clouds (IFR) hit wake in a 400 Series Cessna Twin, was rolled inverted, stayed with it completing the roll, stayed on ILS and Glide Path. Wow. Some flying!
To: exit82
I believe this was the first shoe bomber. Your speculation and 25 cents will buy you a cup of coffee.
52
posted on
10/29/2002 8:18:49 PM PST
by
jlogajan
To: KellyAdmirer
How is having no engines on a plane with absolutely no gliding ability supposed to help anythingI thought that seemed a bit odd too. So was the statement that the crew initiated a series of back and forth rudder movements. The obvious question would be "why?". They sure wouldn't be doing it just for the heck of it, especially on climbout.
53
posted on
10/29/2002 8:49:04 PM PST
by
El Gato
To: jlogajan
I wish I could get a decent cup of coffee around here for 25 cents.
54
posted on
10/29/2002 8:53:18 PM PST
by
exit82
To: TailspinJim
Your friends are good pilots--or good tailgaters--only kidding. Hope with your screen name you're not flying with them!
Smaller planes are very susceptible to vortex from larger planes, and it can occur long distances away and much lower in altitude from the plane causing the vortex.
55
posted on
10/29/2002 8:56:49 PM PST
by
exit82
To: TailspinJim
A buddy of mine taking off from Philadelphia in a Piper Tri Pacer hit wake vortex at 300 ft and was rolled inverted, stayed with it (the roll) to complete the roll. Tower asked if everything was OK....He answered affirmative. Except for those ugly brown and yellow stains and really bad smell in the cockpit, one might assume. :)
56
posted on
10/29/2002 9:18:25 PM PST
by
El Gato
To: exit82
"I fly a fair amount each year, thanks. Nothing has been produced saying that the regular separation pattern wasn't followed here"
Believe me, when you run into it ( my last time just happened to be in an A300 out of LAX ) you will know it - and the first report of clear air turbulence allways comes from someone who had no idea that it was there.
57
posted on
10/31/2002 9:34:45 PM PST
by
RS
To: 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.
I'd say a year or two ago, the results of some study group about the TWA Flt. 800
(Boeing 747) concluded that the frequency of a 747 fuel tank blowing up was so rare,
that the rational thing to do was to let 'em fly...and just pay off the families of the
deceased.
While this is apples and oranges, it's a little ironic that while Ford was (rightfully)
slammed in doing for the gas tank of the Pinto, Boeing is allowed to keep 'em in the
air even if there is a hint of exploding fuel tanks. Even without a rear-end collision!)
(...I'm no expert, but my gut tells me that if TWA 800 was actually brought down by
an exploding fuel tank, it's amazing we don't see one light off now and then
while sitting for an hour or so on the tarmac in some hot summer place like
Dallas-Ft. Worth. But that's just my amatueur musing...)
58
posted on
10/31/2002 9:46:21 PM PST
by
VOA
To: kattracks
"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!"
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson