Lost the tailfin and both engines.....?!?

Remind me never to fly an Airbust.

Airbust.

I like that.

Defective bolts and lack of proper inspections.

I don't believe a damned word I hear coming out of the NTSB political hacks....they do one thing best.....LIE !

Alaska Air failed due to substandard Chinese parts....but that was covered up as politically insensitive by the Clintonistas...

In particular, several investigators spoke of being baffled that the vertical tail fin may have broken off first.

"May have"? Of course it fell off first. That's why it was in the water, instead of on land with the rest of the wreckage.

I'm starting to think many newswriters are just plain stupid. This couldn't be what the investigators actually said. They already KNOW the tail came off first, they're only baffled as to WHY. There's no "may have" about it.

Grrrr.

exactly. i thought the "may have" was kinda funny, thats why i quoted that it in the subject.

The FACT that the vertical stabilizer pretty much fell off is amazing in and of itself. Especially since aircraft like this fly through the wake turbulence of a 'heavy' rather frequently. (red herring alert) Then add to it the FACT that BOTH engines separated from the airframe is just so incredible, I can understnad why the experts are baffled. Parts that should fall off (under high aerodynamic stress) are the control surfaces-- elevators, flaps, spoliers, elevons, etc., etc. But to lose the vertical stabilizer AND BOTH engines at the mounts totally blows me away.

Personal theory-- bad design aggravated by poor parts and the stress of too many hours on the Hobbs meter.

This 7000 hour pilot thinks the "wake turbulance" explanation is a joke--the information released to date about wake turbulance just does not relate in any way to what happened.

Neither is it possible to come up with any reasonable explaination that ties loss of the tail, engine one and engine two in separate events that reaches any other conclusion than some force introduced by enemies to make the airplane fall out of the sky.

Further, there is one excellant eyewitness (on the right side of the airplane) and a second very good eyewitness (two individuals in a vehicle) that testify to flames at the base of the wing on both sides. What caused the flames? How would any of the accident to the tail and engines explainations result in these flames?

This may be a tinfoil hat view but given the record of the NTSB, we ought to see really persuasive factual evidence that shows this was an accident or some kind of maintenance error before we believe it.

...within seconds Monday as the plane shuddered and rattled, possibly hit the wake of another plane flying ahead,...

Wake of another airplane is called turbulence.

If flight 587 had been that close to another aircraft, a near miss would have been reported immediately!

If the bolts holding the vertical stabilizer (tail) were defective, the wake turbulence might have triggered their failure. Then, as the plane went into a spin, the G forces caused the engine pylons to break away as designed.

But with all the fallout from 9-11, would American really risk what's left of its business by skimping on maintenance and flying planes that aren't airworthy? At least right now, while things are still really dicey.

The JAL flight was 8 miles ahead of the American flight, which is, I believe, 3 miles more than regs require. I think wake turbulence was the only thing the pilot could think of since I doubt he could believe his plane was coming apart.

First, the Concorde disaster, now this. Trashy French engineering is something people shouldn't bet their lives on.

Heard this morning they were 2 1/2 minutes behind which was the normal time span. And it was a 747 not a 757. 747's wake is usually no problem.

The FACT that the vertical stabilizer pretty much fell off is amazing in and of itself.

I agree, but there is simply no question as to which part came off first. Vertical stabilizer--Jamaica Bay. Both engines--a few blocks away from the rest of the plane. Yet the writers choose to imply tht it merely "may have" broken off first (look at the headline emphasis), when it's utterly obvious that it DID.

Personal theory-- bad design aggravated by poor parts and the stress of too many hours on the Hobbs meter.

I don't know. If this was an accident, then we New Yorkers have the worst luck in the entire damned world.

Or the bolts holding all three were sabotaged for good measure.

It's time to bring out Occams Razor and slice away the BS. This was sabatoge.

If flight 587 had been that close to another aircraft, a near miss would have been reported immediately!

Not at all. Wake turbulence can persist for several minutes and tens of miles behind the aircraft generating it.

An excellent description appears here.

This is not to say that I agree with the theory that wake turbulence was a factor in this crash...

Mike in MD