But it will take at least a year before the reasons behind the tragedy are known, the federal safety board in charge of the probe said yesterday.

How do they know that?

How do they know it will take a year?

1. They are safe in their job for one year.

2. Thay haven'y a freeking clue and in 1 year you will have forgotten.

Where are the funerals? Where is the weeping? 260 peeps die and nobody tells the meejia?

Sh*t stinks.

That airplane landed safely, and an investigation found the autopilot wiring had been improperly connected by airline maintenance personnel in Tulsa.

Interesting; yes, indeed.

Hey---I'll save you a year''s wait. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess !!!!

My guess? The tail section self-destructed.

My guess is that the tail underwent flow-induced vibration and started wabbling at the tail's natural frequency. Shortly thereafter it snapped off.

Probably contributing factors are 1) Air turbulance and air speed. 2) Previous encounter with turbulance 3) Cheap construction of Airbus's in general.

Since many of the deaths were of ILLEGAL aliens, their ILLEGAL alien families are sort of in hiding. They want to have the funerals in their " HOME LAND ", but are scared witless, that they won't be able to re-enter the USA now.

They always say "it'll take at least a year to complete the investigation". Personally, I think it has something to do with negotiating investigative contracts for maximum income potential.

Even if they know today, or pretty well think they know, it'll still "take at least a year" - there's lotsa loot at stake.

So they're lying, to put it in plain English?

Read the same story on the Wash Times this morning. They are also unusually happy to discount eyewitness reports of "explosions" seen prior to the breakup. Guess the "puff of smoke" on the video was a mere illusion, caused by atmosphereic conditions no doubt. No smoking gun here! Blackbird.

Renowned safety investigator John Purvis said yesterday the wake turbulence and the force generated by the rudder movements should not have been strong enough to snap off the plane's tail.

This may be a minor point but they keep referring to the tail snapping off. From the pictures I have seen, it was the vertical fin that snapped off. The tail is what the vertical fin, which includes the rudder and trim tabs, is attached too. The tail of the airplane is normally used to define the tail empennage.

Maybe Airbus uses a different method of decription, but I doubt it. Since this area of the airplane is going to be the focus of investigation for months and years to come, they need to get it right.

I can't imagine an airplane built so flimsy that the vertical stabilizer would break off with rudder movements. I am ex US Air Force pilot . I tried these maneuvers in flight training to better understand the aircraft,,,, I also had a parachute and higher altitude. And training planes are built to withstand this type of stress for sure.

Why do they think it will only take a year? It has been years since TWA 800, and we still don't know what happened.

I listen to WBAL radio (Baltimore) talk show host Ron Smith. He said yesterday that in a local PA paper (Philly or Pittsburg, I can't remember) there was a report of a cell phone call being received from this plane just after take-off by 911. The newspaper article claimed that the phone caller stated there had been a small explosion onboard the plane and it had been hijacked. Ron Smith talked as though the jerking tail was the result of a cockpit struggle over the plane's control.

I've looked for reports of this paper report on the Freeper page, but couldn't find any. Has anyone else heard of these reports?

One thing we can all be sure of.

Marion Blakey new head of the NTSB, doesn't know a tinkers damn about airplanes or investigating aircraft accidents.

This hack snake in the grass has absolutely no aviation experience, yet she goes in front of the cameras with her NTSB jacket on like she's some kind of expert and then states that there was "no evidence of terrorism".

This is exactly a lie, there is lots more evidence from eyewitness accounts and the unprecedented mid-air break up of the plane to suggest terrorism than there is to suggest mechanical failure.

The real NTSB investigators, in response to reporters questions, have repeatedly stated that they CANNOT RULE OUT TERRORISM.

The NTSB with her at it's head has lost all credibility.

It is never easy for the incoming head of the nation's lead safety agency, but Marion Blakey faces perhaps the toughest on-the-job training in the history of the National Transportation Safety Board.

A career Washington bureaucrat and lobbyist, Blakey was sworn in as the NTSB's chairwoman Sept. 26, barely 2 weeks after terrorists brought down four passenger jets.

I'm kinda inclined to agree with you on that theory TA...I feel pretty certain it was mechanical mal-function...but if one wants to believe it was sabotage you could probably find a way to hyposthesize that belief. SIGHHHHHHH

I don't think so: Any "flutter" or shaking of the rudder or vertical stabilizer so violent as to cause the plane to go out of control would have damaged - reduced to splinters - the vertical stabilizer. Whatever took it off did so in a way that did not damamge the relatively fragile honeycomb srtucture inside the large airfoil while snapping off the VERY strong carbon fiber mounts at the bottom of the airfoil.

John Nance concluded it was air load, and that is the only credible theory I have heard. The reason is that air load would act over the entire surface of the airfoil. Air load could also explain the engines snapping off and the part of the wing that came off. Now what caused the air load? I think the only cause coudl be that the plane was out of control before the vert stab, engines, and part of a wing were torn off due to air load.

Gee-- you sound sane. And logical too!

I can't imagine an airplane built so flimsy that the vertical stabilizer would break off with rudder movements.

What about full control deflections at a speed exceeding Va (maneuvering speed)? At least in small planes, there is a published Va, above which wing/control surface loading is too high with full deflections and can cause structural failure. If the vertical stabilizer was fluttering, that is a bad thing and the sideways movements can simply be casued by the misalligned V.S. leaning to the side before ripping off. Or the pilot overcorrected from the turbulence at too high a speed, and caused or worsened structural damage. Anyone have the published Va for the airbus? Is there one? Was this flight faster than it already?

A300 Uncommanded Rudder Incidents

Since this area of the airplane is going to be the focus of investigation for months and years to come, they need to get it right.

Good Lord, leadpenny, you expect a journalist to get something right?

Naw, they wouldn't want to break with tradition.