Posted on 10/17/2002 3:30:07 PM PDT by JohnFiorentino
October 17, 2002
Shame, Shame by Victor Trombettas
Shame ... on whatever "investigators" leaked the five year old story of Sten Molin. Shame ... on the New York Times for printing something not "fit to print", and for not asking the appropriate follow up questions, and for helping to defame, post mortem, a highly respected, much loved young man. The New York Times reported on October 16th that Sten Molin, the First Officer and Pilot of Flight 587, had a "history of overreacting to wake turbulence" when he used to fly the Boeing 727 series back in 1997. There's a spin on words if I've ever seen one ... "a history". "A history" implies "an established record or pattern of behavior". The New York Times reader, having received an incomplete and inaccurate picture of Sten Molin's "history" in the cockpit, would assume that the case had been made that Sten Molin's 10 year history with American Airlines was more than half full of "abrupt" reactions to wake turbulence.
Let's assume for a moment that this new information is true. That in more than 50% of his encounters with wake turbulence, Sten was "awfully aggressive". I have a simple question. After all these years of "abrupt", and "awfully aggressive" rudder use, why hadn't this pilot ever broken any other plane prior to N14053 (the Airbus A300 that was Flight 587)?? Why did this plane break? If this unsubstantiated and isolated rumor is true ... what this tells me as a passenger ... is that a Boeing 727 won't break at the hands of an "abrupt" Pilot. As a passenger I want to ride in such a plane!
Let's continue to assume that Sten Molin had a "history" of "awfully aggressive" reactions. Then why is there not a single previously documented American Airlines report identifying this abrupt behavior? If Mr. Molin was indeed so abrupt would not one American Airlines Captain write him up? A Check Airman? A simulator trainer? Even a flight attendant who had been thrown around in the back of the plane? Any injured passengers? Todd Wissing, an Airbus Pilot who knew Sten Molin says, "no such reports were filed".
Maybe this leaked information was far from the truth of Mr. Molin's "history".
According to the pilots union, Allied Pilots Association (APA), the investigators had at their disposal, reports from American Airlines Captains covering at least 70 flights with Mr. Molin who had "nothing but praise for his piloting abilities." Some Captains have said that when they knew they were going to fly with Sten Molin, they knew they were "going to have a good day".
The Captain who came forward and provided the NTSB with this "new information" that the Times published, was refuted by two flight engineers who flew on those same flights with that Captain and Sten Molin. The engineers, who were interviewed by the NTSB, did not remember Sten being "abrupt" the way the Captain described. When one of the engineers concluded his interview with the NTSB and left the room, the NTSB investigator said, "I don't think we got what we were looking for". What exactly was that investigator looking for??
How did Mr. Molin treat the Airbus A300 simulator which he, like all other pilots, was required to periodically ride in for recurrent training and checking? Like most pilots ... "he never put his feet up on the (rudder) pedals" ... an inside source revealed.
At best, this "new information" about Sten Molin's cockpit behavior is a disputed, five year old complaint from one Captain, that stands alone against the overwhelming mountain of praise from other Captains that Sten Molin was an excellent pilot and very professional. Mr. Molin's "history" was not as the New York Times reported.
But let's move beyond this point of Mr. Molin's history, to the question of ... is this five year old, disputed information really relevant? How could it be useful to the investigators? Is it because they are not sure that Sten moved the rudder, or if those rudder movements were uncommanded? Or is it because they saw no need for Sten to use the rudder? If they are not sure that Sten moved the rudder ... then the Airbus A300's terrible history of uncommanded rudder movements, which can be described as "abrupt" and "awfully agressive", should be explored. If the investigators have already concluded that Sten did move the rudder, then the only reason why the leak could be relevant to the investigators would be if they did not understand why he moved the rudder.
Let's assume that there is sound, scientific data to conclude that Sten moved the rudder .... the question that arises then is ... "why did Sten pump the rudder side to side five times?" There's no evidence in the timeline or the flight recorders that hints as to why, is there? Sure there is ... and it's amazing how this information has never been leaked or discussed. And the data does not clearly point to wake turbulence.
We know there were five rudder movements, the fifth which was followed immediately by "unreliable" rudder data in the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), indicating the demise of the rudder. What attitude changes did the alleged wake turbulence create on 587? Amazing how this information hasn't been leaked either. What is interesting, is that the rudder started moving after Sten called for max power. Calling for max power is highly unusual. It is a recovery procedure; an emergency procedure. The NTSB's George Black Jr. called it so back in November. The fact the equally unusual rudder movements begin a split second later indicate that max power and the rudder movements might have been part of a coordinated recovery attempt by Sten Molin.
But let's stop right here and ask this question. Pretend you are Captain States, sitting next to Sten Molin. Sten Molin discusses with you the possibility of going to max power. If the plane is not in some sort of serious distress or upset that would require max power, wouldn't you say, "excuse me kid ... but why do we need to go to max power? Just calm your little hyper self down"? Sten asked for max power and we have no indications that Captain States rebuked him for his abrupt request for this escape maneuver. Captain States, for all we know, assisted Sten in moving the throttle to max power. I don't want to know what Sten did in the cockpit five years ago! I want to know why he went to max power and the Captain didn't counter him!
Has the NTSB asked American Airlines Captains if Sten also had a "history" of throttling up to max power unnecessarily? This is an important question. If Sten called for max power and the NTSB doesn't know why he did, then they should also be looking for this in his background .. uncalled-for throttle-ups to max power. If, on the other hand, the NTSB knows why he called for max power ... that the plane was indeed in some form of distress or upset ... then wouldn't that explain why he also used the rudder??
So we have this call for max power at 84 seconds after liftoff. A split second later ... the rudder movements begin. The 2nd alleged wake encounter doesn't seem to hit until after the rudder movements begin; after the first of five rudder movements is complete. This of course raises the question "if we don't have a wake encounter yet, why would the Pilot move the rudder?"
What is Captain States reaction to Sten's manipulation of the rudder pedals and the resulting oscillations which will doom the plane? States didn't chide him for the max power call and we have no indication that he chided him for the rudder movements either.
The five rudder movements took at least 6.2 seconds to perform. At any time during those 6.2 seconds the Captain could have put an end to the oscillations induced by the abrupt First Officer either by yelling at him or putting his feet on the rudder pedals himself and countering the movements. He never countered his First Officer. Is it possible this experienced and highly respected Captain sensed the same danger his First Officer did and understood why he was calling for max power and using the rudder? Or is it that the Captain also overreacted? Will this be the next great leak from the investigation ... that the Captain's background is also being investigated? ... looking for times when Captain States winked when his First Officers performed abrupt maneuvers? The evidence indicates the Captain also sensed that something was amiss before the rudder movements, before the 2nd lateral movement (alleged wake).
According to the NTSB, at 86 seconds after liftoff, the crew declared loss of control; only 2 seconds after Sten's call for max power. In other words ... the tail was still attached (the rudder data is still readable until 90.5 seconds after liftoff) ... yet the crew had lost control. What was happening to flight 587 that the "crew" (indicating both men) declared loss of control ... before the loss of the tail? Sten had only completed a maximum of two of the five rudder movements? Anyone care to leak the answer to that question?
Sten Molin had flown on Airbus A300's for at least 3 years. The New York Times article suggested, "Some experts think the pilot may have pushed the rudder all the way in one direction, realized that he had gone too far, pushed all the way back in the other, and then repeated the process in an oscillation that destroyed the plane in flight". This implies that Sten would have been surprised at the performance of an Airbus A300's rudder system at 255 knots. How could he be surprised? Hadn't he ever used the rudder before in an A300 in 3 years?? How could someone who allegedly had a history of aggressive rudder manipulation not use the rudder for 3 years or not be aware of how it would function?? You can't accuse someone of having a history of overusing a tool and then speculate he didn't know how that tool would perform.
The evidence, as we have it today (including eyewitnesses which the NTSB has given zero attention to), indicates that 587 was indeed out of control before the tail broke free just as the Cockpit Voice Recorder indicates.
The NTSB has focused on the final eight seconds before the FDR died. We no longer hear about the 20 seconds before the 8 second period. Assuming the NTSB and the other parties to the investigation are willing to break out of their myopia and consider that the lateral movements and airframe rattles might have been caused by something other than wake turbulence, then they may forever ignore the clues those 20 seconds offer. Those twenty seconds contained the first lateral movement, airframe rattles, a quizzical "wake turbulence" comment by the Captain, the call for the escape maneuver, more rattles, a call for max power ... all this ... before the 2nd alleged wake and the start of the rudder movements. And certainly before the tail broke free.
Shame, shame.
A BUMP for usread.com and the truth!
All released flight data and witness testimony is consistent with a right wing shoe bomber, followed by a loss of integrity of the right wing.
Uh, that's right wing OF THE PLANE.
The aircraft's vertical stabilizer was in process of failure by the time of its arrival.
Chalk it up to fatigue ("fat ig u").
Its flutter aggravated the critical airflow over the rudder which then developed its own flutter; the two harmonically "in" and "out" causing the flight deck crew to try and compensate.
Any of their first moves merely helped the vertical stabilizer to further ruin.
The aircraft (587) was not in the preceding, departing flight's wake.
The composite materials around the root fasteners holding the vertical stabilizer to the airframe, were at various frequencies ... vibrating to failure.
The aircraft's only chance would have been to abandon all hope of making a turn and then use the throttles to gently lower the aircraft to a ditching --- and all that being the course the crew were to take at the first hint of any trouble AND by chance the vertical stabilizer and rudder had completely separated at that first hint ... maybe they would have had a chance.
But the did not, because the departure maneuvers required turns which simple caused the vertical stabilizer to take up variations from its normal relation to the airframe.
The tail wagged the dog, so to speak.
The ship was uncontrolable.
The crew was good but not God.
Of course, I'm biased, John. I think a shoe bomber brought down Flt. 587.
The unreleased video tapes of the aircraft in flight, tapes that the Feds refuse to release to the public, may provide tantalizing pictures that show evidence which can be constued as just such an incident.
Destroying someone financially as well as their professional reputation is part of the job requirement when you are a Federal employee performing an investigation.
Al Qaeda rarely, if ever, takes credit for the terror attacks it sponsors.
Both engines and the tail came off. Nobody has ever questioned the strenght of the engine pylons.
The ONLY explanation for al these large surfaces coming off is air load, which supports the position the plane was out of control BEFORE it came apart.
Mid-air breakup AFTER loss of control is commonplace in air crashes. Anything requires "flutter" or maybe bridstrikecheesewaketurbulencethrustreversers?
Sounds scarier than anything I ever did flying. Including a few close calls.
But they weren't shy about taking credit for 9/11/01, the Cole, the previous attempt on the WTC, etc.
Terrorists have not taken credit for any of the recent acts. Why do you think, say, for the French tanker explo that W said "We believe it's Al Queda." There was no claim of credit. THey don't want publicity anymore, they want to KILL AMERICANS. A thinking person could not possibly continue to believe that since no-one took credit, it was not terrorism.
PS ... Remember when they were saying Richard Reid was not Al Queda...months later they let it out slowly that indeed he was.
Eyewitnesses say there were TWO explosions. The first, the shoe bomb, was detonated at floor level just above the fuel tank which sits near the right wing, The second, bigger explosion, was the fuel tank.
The fuel tank explosion, in my theory, caused a loss of structure to the right wing... I believe it folded back along the fuselage.
The loss of drag on the right side of the plane caused it to "lurch to the left", as revealed by flight data. (BTW, the two explosions were labeled as "shudders" and are heard on the CVR.) This violent lurch to the left, or "fishtail", caused the plane to turn sideways to the wind vector, the sidewards air pressure snapping off the composite tail, which snapped cleanly and was the first piece to fall toward earth.
The plane subsequently broke up...the heavy engines shearing their mounts in the twisting 300 mph wind forces.
Hello, my friend. See my previous for a discussion of how the wind forces took out various parts of the plane in the proper order.
This story lives on like a splinter in your hand, because it has never been satisfactorily explained.
If composite tails fail from "vibrations", we could expect more of these "failures", couldn't we.
In fact, the tail was fine...but was engineered only to take wind force from the front...not the side.
Please do not attempt to discount the TWO EXPLOSIONS seen by many witnesses. Try to factor into your anaylsis how these two EXPLOSIONS could have affected the tail.
IMHO, the explosions caused the plane to "fishtail" (if you read the eyewintess reports, you will find data which supports this...one winteness said the wings were dipping up and down.) The fishtail simply caused massive air forces to be directed at the tail from the side, leading to failure and a clean shearing of the mounting bolts.
LOL So glad you clarified that! Can't be too careful these days when using those two words!
John: Ken, you there?
Ken, yes yes I am.
John: Can you tell us what you saw Ken?
Ken: Alright, I was out on the boat about a hundred twentieth a hundred nineteenth st when un we stopped the boat cause we have an engine..yah know the engine was making weird sounds, so we stopped the boat and we were back by the engine and I heard a popping sound...not like a a a I cant even say it was an explosion, it was more like a pop and then like a whishing sound and then part of the wing came off.
John:Where was the plane at that moment?
Ken: Right over the bay. Right over the bay
John So is it almost right above you?
Ken: Yes, kinda to the north of us, cause we where more to the east channel drive at that time, on that side of Jamaica Bay and um the pieces that came off the wing...flew into the um tail and tore the tail off and as soon as that happened the plane went belly up towards us and towards the east and it just dove straight down, like the uhh the belly of the plane actually turned toward the south and it went straight down into the ground.
John: So you saw some big pieces of this plane come off...
Ken:We was the first ones on the scene and then the police boat came and we helped them pick up parts of the boat..uh..parts a the plane. We actually took up the blue A off of the tail we put that in the boat. Ummm the picture of the....another piece of the whole top of the tail with the flag on it was laying in shallow water. We took up allot of pieces of the boat...the plane we put it on the boat and took them in to the police boat an helped load em onto the police boat but a a the engine
Rosannabreaks in: Well it sounds like you have some crucial information Ken...
His voice rising Ken says: See the engine...everybody keeps saying the engine fell off...if it fell off it fell off on the way down....
John:U Huh
Ken: That plane as soon as its tail came off it just bellied up and went straight down, so yah know people saying yah know the engine came off, but that came off after the fact. Now as far as explosion, something was happening over the bay, something made the wing shatter and took of the tail. and uh the way I seen it , it still looked like it had its engines on as it was going down.
John: Have you spoken to anyone there uh Ken have you talked to any members of the..
Ken Yeh a yeh police I gave the police a guy in a police boat my name and all that and when I was helping em with ya know the parts of the plane
Woman Ken you sound very shacking up , I'm sure this has..
Ken: I'm still shacking, its a its just a terrible sight. Ya know its something ya see on a movie Ya know how the plane..ya just just knew it..that it wouldn't, as it was going down I was saying hit the ocean hit the ocean thinking ya know maybe it cleared, its only 4 blocks wide but the plane just turned over and came straight down. It was..its a sight to see..it was ya know stunned me
Woman Were you able to keep your composure and think clearly at that point?
Ken: Yes, actually actually the things was starting to fly down toward the boat so we backed up a little bit toward the the trestles the A train trestle and then we came back to see if they was any...ah cause at one time I thought I could see a seat but I wasn't even sure, Nothing heavy came down, everything floated down
Woman: Do you think you got everything that was in the water?
Ken Mostly everything that was floating yah. Cause a the police boat came like the within 5 minutes..3 minutes maybe but that plane was gone in 6 seconds, when I heard the popping sound and seen the flames seen the uh wing hit the back tail an that came off it couldn't a been more than 3 seconds for it was down
John: So your saying the wing came off and hit the tail?
Ken: Parts yes...the whole section of the tail was what we recovered. The A the little flag on the top of the tail section that whole section, like the 30 foot top of that was stuck in the sand...in the water about 5 feet of water but there was other pieces floating around..as a matter of fact I took the blue A and we pulled that part on the boat and brought it over to the police boat. They was asking for our help then allot of boats came by allot of police boats
John:Nick your sitting hearing what Ken is saying that if any any questions for him? Nick Well um it sounds like Ken is your describing is a again that something exploded uh to cause these pieces of the wing to come out. Is that what you sug..
Ken: Exactly something happened to that wing that sent pieces of it back to the tail.
John was it the left wing or the right wing Ken do ya know?
Ken ahh see now like my friend..well.. a it bellied up to me and a when it bellied up to the east it a looked like the right wing cause the left wing still looked intact to me. It looked like the right wing had come off..or part of it
John: well that would fit with what the
(over talk..engine..saying..?)Nick: Unnn but again Ken Kinda saying the engine fell off after the fact but still potentially the engine exploding could could cause pieces of the engine to fly I mean what may have happened was a a series of events where pieces if the engine actually flew back and struck the tail or even that pieces of the engine and the wing at the same time so a but a Kens observations of the tail is a very interesting clue
John Do you live around there Ken?
Ken Yes, I live in Hamilton beach right off Jamaica Bay and a thats the whole thing..That plane would have went over Rockaway cause it was still like level until the tail came off and then it just bellied up and spun around and came straight down uh otherwise it would..that tail..as soon as it shattered thats when the plane lost everything
Nick: Now Ken did you see actual flames coming out of an engine that was..?
Ken: There was flames on the belly of the plane..I don't know weather it was the engine or ya know, but the plane bellied up towards us as it was going down and flames in the a..in that vicinity of the engines or whatever like underneath the plane
Well Ken we a thank you for your time
Ken: No Problem
Please answer a question, if you would. IF the right wing failed, and WHEN the plane then spun counter-clockwise, and WHEN a fishtailing plane experienced heavy wind forces from the right, on which side would the sheared tail fall?
Good point. I began calling for them to admit it when Richard Reid was caught.
If you couple this with the hesitancy of Fedgov to postulate that the MD sniper is Al Queda, you have a real pattern of keeping some info from the American people.
But then we all know that is happening...
There are some things I believe Fedgov SHOULD keep from the public, so I.m not that up in arms over this...I just want to find the truth. However, now they can never admit that they covered the explosions up, or else it would shed doubt on their present efforts.
You're right...they were saying "There is NO evidence of terrorism..." BEFORE they had collected any of the evidence. They originally explained the explosions as an engine failure.
JetBlue Pilot Saw American Airlines Crash
Flt. 587 Eyewitnesses insist Expolsion Came Before Tail Broke Off
Unless, of course, it would make someone in government "look bad." [sarcasm off]
I suspect that one of the reasons for the multiple attacks on 9/11 was because of the success of our government in de-fanging the effect of many previous single incident attacks. The economic damage done by a clearly seen terrorist attack was profound. People are prone to wildly overestimate their risk of being affected by an occasional terrorist attack. Look at the behavior of people in D.C. They are afraid to go out for fear of being shot by this "terrorist" -- but yet we each generally face a far greater risk to life by driving down a highway, and most often without thinking about it.
If you were in charge, would you help the terrorist by publishing their success, or would you act to disarm and defeat the terrorist, while intefering with their intent to terrorize the people?
I would close our borders, round up and deport every freaking illegal alien in the US, and make all out war on the terrorists and those who support the terrorists, wherever they might be on this planet, using every weapon at my command.
It may be a good thing that I am not the HMFIC!
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.