'Wake turbulence' probed in crash of Flight 587

CNN ^ | 11-13-01

[dogbyte12]

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Federal investigators said they are considering whether "wake turbulence" from another airplane may have played a role in the crash of a commercial jet that crashed Monday, scattering debris over a Queens neighborhood and claiming more than 260 lives.

[dogbyte12]

So, does this sound possible? Cover up?

[mlmr]

I have heard of something like this happening before. Experts??

[Husker24]

The plane that supposedly left the turbulance took off 2.5 minutes before flight 587, they said that was slightly more than average time in between flights. I just dont see how turbulance from a plane that took off 2.5 minutes before could tear a plane apart.

[CathyRyan]

I real life I am not an aeronautic engineer, neither do I play one on the net, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I can state I do not believe that bunch of horse hockey for a minute.

[Husker24]

The plane didnt disappear from radar at 2800 feet, the transponder stop sending at 3000 feet, the radar continued to follow the remaines of the plane to the crash site. This is what the NTSB briefing said a few minutes ago.

[Swordmaker]

Turbulence and micro downbursts have been known to crash aircraft taking off or landing if they follow too closely another large plane.

I doubt that this is the case here... those planes that did crash because of the wake of a preceding aircraft were usually much closer to the ground, did not lose parts before impact, and were following less than one minute after the other plane.

[timestax]

That Japan Airways plane was a whole 7 (seven) miles in front of the doomed jetliner. NO way could a jet wake affect another jet 7 miles away.

[rolling_stone]

Uh the birdstrike didn't fly, now jet wake turbulence? How about wind shear? Sugar in the gas tank leftover from Halloween?

[exnavy]

I think P.T. Barnum said it best, "... there's one born every second...".

[OK]

Just to my casual observation it seems utterly ridiculous to think that wake turbulence from a plane a mile away could cause the engines to break off.

[meadsjn]

Streeeeeeetttttttccccchhhh! Reach way out there!

[Mark17]

I have heard of something like this happening before. Experts??

I was an air traffic controller for 20 years. FAA reqirement for wake turbulence separation, is 6 miles behind "heavies." USAF reqirement, is 10 miles separation behind C-5, 747, and a few other assorted "jumbos." If they gave them their standard 6 miles, it usually works fine. They have been doing it for decades. Wake turbulence may have been a factor, but all the experience I have, leans away from that theory, but who knows for sure.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Vibrations throughtout the airframe sound more like an effect due to metal fatigue. Early versions of the Comet broke up in flight due to metal fatigue.

[Cicero]

The article speaks about turbulence that occurs 2-1/2 minutes after Flight 587 took off. It doesn't state exactly how much time elapsed between the takeoffs of the two planes.

It seems to me that this is a real possibility, although I would like to hear how long the interval between takeoffs actually was.

I also heard on PBS the afternoon of the event, that engines are normally inspected every 2,000 hours, and that this one had gone something like 2,500 hours. I don't swear to the exact figure, because I was driving and couldn't make a note of it. I wouldn't think that engine failure would normally account for the engine ripping off, but it's conceivable that that could be the result of turbulance and what is called "positive feedback" from resonance.

[billorites]

"I just dont see how turbulance from a plane that took off 2.5 minutes before could tear a plane apart."

Yes, wake turbulance can persist, under the right circumstances, for several minutes. It can persist with sufficient energy and force to damage an aircraft or precipitate an accident.

I'm not sure that wake turbulence is the most parsimonious explanation for AA587.

Not a theory that should be discounted prematurely. I've encountered a lot more wake turbulence in flight than SAM action or other malevolent stuff.

[longleaf]

Don't these bozos know that it doesn't matter whether they cover it up or not ... if planes keep falling from the sky, tens of millions of people are just not ever going to fly anymore if they don't have to. It would be far better to be truthful with the public.

I have to admit I am such a cynic about the FedGov after the decade of the 1990s, though, that they are like "the boy who cried wolf" at this point. It is fair to say that with me, they can't win. I guess they'll just have to gun me down when I refuse my mandatory smallpox vaccination. I've already had three of them and that's quite enough, thank you.

[justlurking]

Another trial balloon. They are trying to find something that will hold up under scrutiny.

[John H K]

I simply CANNOT BELIEVE the incompetent, covering-up boobs at the NTSB are investigating something as silly as wake turbulence just because the pilot of the plane that crashed mentioned wake turbulence just before the plane went down!

This is time that could be far better spent looking at the possibility that a meteor that a terrorist group knocked out of orbit with a beam weapon hit the plane.

[Clinton's a rapist]

How very clever and witty you are.

[John H K]

How very clever and witty you are.

Beats clueless and stupid.