Skip to comments.
'Wake turbulence' probed in crash of Flight 587
CNN ^
| 11-13-01
Posted on 11/13/2001 4:53:22 PM PST by dogbyte12
Edited on 04/29/2004 1:59:35 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: flight587
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
So, does this sound possible? Cover up?
1
posted on
11/13/2001 4:53:22 PM PST
by
dogbyte12
To: dogbyte12
I have heard of something like this happening before. Experts??
2
posted on
11/13/2001 4:55:42 PM PST
by
mlmr
To: mlmr
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.
3
posted on
11/13/2001 5:05:54 PM PST
by
Husker24
To: dogbyte12
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.
4
posted on
11/13/2001 5:05:59 PM PST
by
CathyRyan
To: CathyRyan
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.
5
posted on
11/13/2001 5:10:59 PM PST
by
Husker24
To: mlmr
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.
To: dogbyte12
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.
7
posted on
11/13/2001 5:11:59 PM PST
by
timestax
To: dogbyte12
Uh the birdstrike didn't fly, now jet wake turbulence? How about wind shear? Sugar in the gas tank leftover from Halloween?
To: dogbyte12
I think P.T. Barnum said it best, "... there's one born every second...".
9
posted on
11/13/2001 5:14:26 PM PST
by
exnavy
To: dogbyte12
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.
10
posted on
11/13/2001 5:15:03 PM PST
by
OK
To: dogbyte12
Streeeeeeetttttttccccchhhh! Reach way out there!
11
posted on
11/13/2001 5:15:47 PM PST
by
meadsjn
To: mlmr
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.
12
posted on
11/13/2001 5:16:22 PM PST
by
Mark17
To: dogbyte12
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.
To: Husker24
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.
14
posted on
11/13/2001 5:17:27 PM PST
by
Cicero
To: mlmr
"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.
To: dogbyte12
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.
16
posted on
11/13/2001 5:22:45 PM PST
by
longleaf
To: dogbyte12
Another trial balloon. They are trying to find something that will hold up under scrutiny.
To: justlurking
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.
18
posted on
11/13/2001 5:40:55 PM PST
by
John H K
To: John H K
How very clever and witty you are.
To: Clinton's a rapist
How very clever and witty you are.Beats clueless and stupid.
20
posted on
11/13/2001 6:08:34 PM PST
by
John H K
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next 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