The AA 587 A-300 flipped onto its tail in Toulouse

[SaturnV]

I know Capt PPrune has moved the most recent thread on this crash to the tech forum; however this bit of news in the January 2nd Washington Post raised an eyebrow and is not really tech in nature.

"...investigative sources said an American Airlines pilot assigned to the investigation
remembered he was training at the Airbus factory in Toulouse when a storm blew the same aircraft back on its tail. Sources said his memory proved correct.

"Sources said the plane was almost complete but its engines were not attached to the wing. Without the heavy engines, the plane was tail-heavy. It was sitting outside the factory when the storm hit and it tipped back on its tail. How hard it hit is uncertain.

"An Airbus source said the company inspected the plane thoroughly and found no damage, including in the tail section.

"I'd be surprised if this had anything to do with the crash," the source said."

The full article which discusses the difficulties investigators are having in trying to pinpoint the cause of this crash can be found at:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49388-2002Jan1.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49388-2002Jan1.html</a>

The article does not indicate what part of the AA 597 A300 empennage hit the ground and/or was supporting the fuselage weight. I was a bit surprised that news of this incident was brought to the attention of the NTSB by an AA captain who happened to be there, and not by Airbus.

[ 04 January 2002: Message edited by: SaturnV ]</p>

[Greg Baddeley]

Interesting article; laughably incorrect in places, but it raises some notions. If she tipped on her 4rse at the factory, then the underside of the empennage would have struck the ground, probably so far back as to not affect anything major (those vertical stab attachments are further forward) although there's always the possibility of some frame damage.(Bit like a tail strike) It would be most surprising if any damage that did occur travelled around the frames and up to the fin attaching points. However, if there was a strong gust from the side, then it might be possible to damage a composite fin - but it would have had to have been one mother of a wind to do that!

[DownIn3Green]

I didn't check the above link, but the comment of one "mother" of a wind is correct.

For non-believers check the history of B-727 P4-MMG on the net.

In 1999 this a/c was in a "hurricane" at LeBorget and damaged the belly skins after being "lifted" and impalled on a fence.

All of this is in the Boeing records, but as MMG was not a "French" a/c, there was no "cover-up". P4-MMG's belly skins were replaced in accordance with Boeing's direction as required.

[Semaphore Sam]

Hello nopaxthanx
Interesting, your response to the article by Mr. Phillips. He writes on both aviation and rail matters (Trains Magazine, as well as WP) in a very effective manner, and is no slouch in either. "Laughably" inacurate is not how I would summarize his analysis; all seems fairly straightforward. He only reports on the incident during initial construction; I don't think he has inferred a causal link with the accident.

What IS interesting is that Airbus Ind. did not bring this info forward (maybe it did, but this was never reported, in which case I owe AI an apology); it came from another source (an AA Captain). But, if AI has not deemed such incidents during construction as 'important', are there other potential 'surprises waiting to happen' among the Airbus worldwide fleet? And also, how about Boeing's fleet; any lurking 'incidents' in its composite fleet? How about a review NOW of both companies' records?

[SaturnV]

Correction in the news media: A300 tipped was not AA-587. From the January 5 Washington Post:

"The Airbus A300 that was blown back onto its tail by a storm in France in 1987 was not the American Airlines plane that crashed in New York on Nov. 12, the company said yesterday.

"Airbus Industrie spokesman David Venz said two American Airlines A300s were being built at the factory in Toulouse at the time of the storm. He said a check of Airbus records and interviews with officials who witnessed the incident revealed that the plane that crashed as American Flight 587 two months ago was inside the factory
at the time. The other A300, also being prepared for delivery to American, turned out to be the plane involved in the 1987 storm incident, and it is still flying.

"The Washington Post, quoting sources close to the investigation of the crash, reported on Wednesday that investigators were looking into the incident in the belief that the crashed plane was involved, although it was doubtful the incident had any bearing on the crash.

"The second American A300 was outside the factory at the time the 1987 storm blew through. The engines had not yet been mounted on the plane's wings, leaving it tail-heavy, and the storm rocked it backward onto the concrete.

"Venz quoted two Airbus officials who witnessed the incident as saying the plane settled backward "very gently" and a thorough inspection revealed that no repairs were required. The plane later passed French and U.S. certification tests that noted no anomalies traceable to the incident.

"An exact aircraft identification was delayed because the Airbus headquarters and factory are on a two-week Christmas-New Year's holiday. It took time to locate the proper officials and return them to Toulouse to check the records."

[Smoketoomuch]

Another article, make of it what you will.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/05/nyregion/05CRAS.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/05/nyregion/05CRAS.html</a>
Some snippets;
Investigators looking into the crash of an American Airlines flight in Queens in November have so far found no pre-existing flaw in the jet's tail section and are now focusing on the performance of the pilots, who they believe triggered the airplane's wild rolling and yawing in the seconds before it went down.
The vertical tail of the plane, and the rudder attached to it, were the first parts to break off, and investigators began to look early on at whether that caused the crash, possibly because of some undetected flaw. But now, after extensive testing of the tail, they have found no pre-existing problem.
Several investigators said the training of pilots would be carefully examined. Crews at American were trained in the mid-1990's to use the rudder to recover from "flight upsets," but Airbus, Boeing and the F.A.A. later warned against this practice, saying it could produce dangerous stresses. American said it changed its training in 1999 to de- emphasize use of the rudder. Evidence recovered from the plane's data recorder indicates that the pilots were using the rudder to try and stabilize the plane.

[ 05 January 2002: Message edited by: Smoketoomuch ]</p>

[Tin Kicker]

Well done, Washington Post, nothing like a classic blunder to undo the entire non-existent "story" <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Roadtrip]

Yet more crap reporting from a sensationalistic crap new media.

[Greg Baddeley]

Hmmm........more than Laughably innacurate, then!

[Roadtrip]

For a good video+audio presentation of the damage click on the link below. You'll probably need a hi-speed connection to view it well.

<a href="http://www.connectlive.com/aviationweek/News-AA587_RH.ram" target="_blank">http://www.connectlive.com/aviationweek/News-AA587_RH.ram</a>

[SaturnV]

Roadtrip, thanks for the link. As you say, a good video/audio presentation of the recovered wreckage. (It is full motion video, runnning 5+ minutes, and the video stream was running at a 225kb per second feed into my 'puter.)

[partyreptile]

I am reassured to learn that there was no pre-existing defect to the tail section prior to it snapping off and thus plunging those on board to their final destination. I cannot tell you how relieved I am that there was no unintended flaw present, just the normal flaws found in an Airbus.

[Evo7]

[quote]
I cannot tell you how relieved I am that there was no unintended flaw present, just the normal flaws found in an Airbus.
<hr></blockquote>

Grow up. Moderator!!!