Witnesses Saw AA 587 Explode in Flames

[I. M. Esperto]

<a href="http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/38354.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/38354.htm</a>
FLIGHT 587 WITNESSES
BLAST FEDS

By JOHN LEHMANN


January 7, 2002 -- New Yorkers who believe they saw
American Airlines Flight 587 explode in flames before its
tail sheared off have accused crash investigators of ignoring
their eyewitness accounts and prematurely ruling out a
terrorist attack.

Six witnesses, including a recently retired police lieutenant,
an FDNY deputy chief and a former firefighter, have
written to the National Transportation Safety Board,
demanding they be called to testify at a public hearing.

Tom Lynch, 59, a retired firefighter, said he had also
spoken to 18 other people who saw the Airbus A300
flying on fire before it crashed into houses in Belle Harbor,
Queens, on Nov. 12, killing 265 people.

"The NTSB is not publicly acknowledging the many
eyewitness accounts of the in-flight fire or explosion, many
from people who are adamant that the fire occurred before
any tail or engine breakups," he told The Post.

Lynch, who organized the letter, said he was standing on
Rockaway Beach Boulevard when he saw a bright orange
ball of flame streaming from the right side of the plane.

Two or three seconds later, he said, he saw a larger
eruption of flames consuming the entire right side of the
plane's fuselage.

"There were no falling parts until the second explosion of
flames - I'll go to my grave with that," he said.

The witnesses said they were surprised NTSB
Chairwoman Marion Blakey was able to say, only hours
after the crash, that all indications pointed to an accident,
rather than a terrorist attack.

"How could that statement be made while the flight-data
recorder had not been recovered, the crash-investigation
team had not yet showed up and initial eyewitness reports
included many accounts of one or two explosions in flight?"
Lynch said.

Another witness not involved with Lynch's group, Michael
Benjamin, said he saw a huge orange fire engulfing the front
third of the plane's right side wh ile he was driving along
Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn with his wife and two
children.

Benjamin, who works for the Oversight, Analysis and
Investigations Committee of the state Assembly, said he
had attempted to contact the NTSB but had not received a
return call.

Preliminary reports written by the NTSB have not
mentioned in-flight explosions, but have focused on air
turbulence, the composite materials used to build the jet's
vertical tail, and sudden rudder movements.

An NTSB spokesman said more than 200 eyewitness
accounts had been recorded and were being considered as
part of the investigation.

But he said if the NTSB decided to conduct a public
hearing, it would most likely seek opinions from air-safety
and aeronautical-design experts rather than witnesses.

The people who signed the letter, in addition to Lynch, are
retired NYPD Officer James Conrad, FDNY Deputy
Chief Peter Hayden, retired transit cop Richard Kvies,
sales manager John Power and food-services manager Ellie
Scholfield.

Print this story
Previous articles on this topic

[Notso Fantastic]

Surely it was consistent with one or both engines falling off, and fuel igniting from ruptured pipes and possibly tanks? Looking at the clean fractures on the fin mount area, the root cause must be the fin detaching.

[MrNosy]

Witnesses always see aircraft 'explode and crash'. As far as they are concerned that's what aircraft do when they crash!

[stagger]

Just to add to what MrNosy has pointed out. Witnesses usually seem to see aircraft explode and then crash - even in cases where it is later established that there was no fire prior to impact with the ground. Why? Most likely because light travels faster than sound and witnesses see the flames before they hear the impact.

[747FOCAL]

Come on you ninny, we are talking a vetran police officer and fireman here. Not usually given to sensationalism. If they saw fire coming from that plane the tail coming off didn't cause that. There is nothing back there to burn unless you figured out how to light skydrol.

I will say it again there is nothing short of redlining an airframe that will cause stuff to come off from pilot input.

I will say this for the first time I think that it should be made a CRIMINAL act with serious penalties like 10 years of prison for any NTSB or other crash investigator misleading the public. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[Big Tudor]

Hasn't the topic of NTSB impartiality and competance been raised before?

[Kalium Chloride]

I'd have thought that if there was any truth in the 'sabotage' theory then Airbus would be mounting an all-out campaign to steer the investigation in that direction rather than sit back and watch its composite manufacturing come under the spotlight.

[MrNosy]

Eye witnesses have been shown time and time again to be unreliable. They believe what they saw, I'm sure, but it doesn't make it right.

Just call me gullible but I'm willing to believe the NTSB when it comes to the big picture.

[Notso Fantastic]

&lt;If they saw fire coming from that plane the tail coming off didn't cause that. There is nothing back there to burn unless you figured out how to light skydrol.&gt;
1. Actually identifying the seat of a fire on an aeroplane from a distance is very difficult
2. Has anybody said at anytime pre-impact there was a fire in the tail?
3. The fin coming off definitely could have caused the fire. The violent yawing would detach the engines with great damage to the infrastructure and fuel pouring out in great quantities- possibly even from the wing fuel tanks above the engine.
4. I think in this case speculation is best avoided- the professional investigators will make a better job than us!

[The Famous Eccles]

Do you think its possible that the investigators maybe believe it was a terrorist act but in the interest of public panic prevention,economic stability and downplaying terrorist propoganda that they have been "requested" by the powers that be to issue accident findings?

[jugofpropwash]

Seems to me that given the events of 9-11, New Yorkers in particular are going to see terrorist actions even where they don't exist. Hate to say it, but police officers and firefighters still grieving for lost friends might be even more inclined to envision a terrorist act.

Personally, I question whether that tail ever was as structurally sound as it should have been. If there was a repair done during manufacturing to a "found" flaw, might there not have been another flaw that they missed?

[ATC Watcher]

As I said in an earlier post on the same subject, if the investigative authority has the sequence of event fixed on the FDR, witness reports that alter this sequence are generally diregarded, as they are subjective ( I was explained once that the biggst shock one gets when witnessing a crash is often the explosion, this is what the brain recalls , and the brain tend to place this event before anything else when it stores it on the long term memory part of the brain,if the sequence of event is very close to one another )

In our case the Airbus FDR used was one of the most sophisticated around recording hundreds of parameters. Surely the NTSB has determined the correct sequence of failures by now.

As to the cover up, if it was a terrorist atack someone in the middle East would have claimed if not responsibility , at least knowledge,and nothing came up that way in any Arab media as far as I am aware. Unless of course this was the act of a loner US citizen ( like the Tampa copycat last week )

Finally as to why Airbus sit tight and say nothing, this could be explained by the fact that they are planning to switch most of their manufacturing in the future to composite. Most of the A380 will be made in composite, including parts of the fuselage...
I agree that if they had the slightest bit of info indicating it could be a terrorist case , they would probably have leaked it to the media by now.

I also trust the NTSB will dig deep and find the cause if they can.

[PAXboy]

I tend to side with caution on eye witness reports. It may well be that we have experienced police and fire crew but they are not observing and RTA or building fire.

Also, if the a/c was already on fire, their eye would naturally be drawn to that, they would not expect the tail fin to have gone and the question: "Was the tail fin still in place, when you saw the a/c?" might not bring a reliable answer. They (like all/most of us) would never have seen an a/c without a tail fin and the 'usual' image of an a/c in flight might be stronger in their memory ...

On a lighter but related note, I recall reading many years ago, an article about the reliability of eye witness reports. One observer of an a/c impact (no details were given) would not sign his statement until the following words (in italics) were included.

"When he [the pilot] got into difficulties, I heard him give it the gun but he still went in."

The witness insisted on these words because he believed them to be the term that pilots use for applying maximum power. Very sad.

If I am unfortunate enough to witness a prang, I hope that I will think very carefully about what I saw and what I thought I saw.

[stuartbaker]

ATC watcher has it bang on the money about witnesses getting the sequence of events mixed up. I heard this from the head of an Accident Investigation Board.

IMHO he has it slightly wrong on the Airbus front however. Airbus are only advisors to the NTSB, who are responsible for publishing teh definitive report. Any comments they make to the press formally or informally could prejudice that relationship, and I very much doubt if that would be in their best interests.

If you put yourself in the position of the NTSB, the investigation isn't over until it's over. Anything they say can and will be used in evidence against any of the manufacturers or maintenance people or the airline. If they make an interim statement which later turns out to be untrue then whoever cops for the law suit will be pretty pissed off with them. Even if they think they know what happened they can't say much until they've completed their investigation incase something crops up that they hadn't considered. If they rule out everything that we know they're investigating other than one thing then that's a bit of a giveaway.

[Raas767]

Keep in mind that the -600 has a funky fuel system where some of the fuel is actually in the tail and could have ignited when the tail tore off.

[HotDog]

767, I am not familiar with the fuel system in the -600, but even if they do carry fuel in the vertical stabiliser, there was no evidence of fire there whatsoever. Like it has been stated before, why don't you wait until you see the expert report of the investigation of this accident?

[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: HotDog ]</p>

[oncemorealoft]

Signs are that Airbus is taking every opportunity it can under cover to distance itself from the cause(s)of AA587 by spinning to the media. No, they are'nt pushing the terrorism theory but that trusty catch-all of pilot error. Sadly, the NTSB aren't helping much either by feeding tit bits to their favourite media so that they can add up two and two to make anything they damn well like.

Meanwhile even retired-aviation 'professionals' happily stir the pot either oblivious or uncaring of the memories, feelings and reputations of the victimes of this tragedy.

[Greg Baddeley]

Many years back I had a book titled 'Aircrash Detective' Not as sensationalist as the title may have one believe, it was an in-depth look into the workings of AAIB and others. A small exercise in there was to describe your wristwatch - without looking at it first. It's probably your most familiar posession, but could you describe it's appearance, winders, hands, face, etc. from memory? Eyewitness reports can only back up technical evidence, and the fuel inside the fin is a very plausible explanation for what was seen.

[BigGreenPleasureMachine]

PAXboy seems to have a point. the tail could very well have left the a/c before the explosion/fire. someone on the ground mightn't notice a silver panel disappearing into a blue or grey sky, but they'd sure as hell notice the flash of an explosion or the bang that it makes.

Anyway, if you were at rockaway with the a/c climbing out, would you even be able to see the tail normally?

Further to that, we all saw the fin, and it was cleanly broken off and it wasn't scorched.

I reckon we can take the witnesses at their word, its just that they probably only noticed the a/c when the chain of events leading to the crash were well underway.

regards,

BGPM.

[747FOCAL]

That -600 didn't have a tail tank. Yes the tail wasn't scorched and the NTSB pictures of the mount points still had unburned composite even after the fire on the ground.

But:

That plane came in after a long 8 hour flight the day before and now your telling me the tail came off in the first 2 minutes of flight the next day. Doubtful. At that speed going into a flat spin should have caused nothing structurally to fail until it hit the ground. Years from now we will know the truth, maybe.
<img src="redface.gif" border="0">

[Ex Bus Driver]

To: 747FOCAL & raas767;

All of AAL's A-300-600R's have "Trim Tanks" in the horizontal stabilizer, capable of carrying approx. 11,000 pounds of fuel. This tank is normally empty for T.O, and the aft transfer of fuel for the purpose of shifting the C.G. would not have begun so early into the flight. I also do not believe that the loss of the vertical stabilizer would have compromised the integrity of the "Trim Tank" system, since it is in the horizontal stabilizers alone.

Ex Bus (as in A-300-600R) Driver

[Row 12F]

From the first post:

“But he said if the NTSB decided to conduct a public hearing, it would most likely seek opinions from air-safety and aeronautical-design experts rather than witnesses.”

That seems sensible since opinions are extrapolations from reported facts, formed using the expert knowledge and experience of the experts called. But the sources of reported facts include the recollections of witnesses as well as the crash material and associated records.

The evidence presented to an inquiry should include the recollections of witnesses. Such recollections will be different, appear confused and contradictory in detail. But in many instances, evidence from various expert witnesses’ can also be different and contradictory in conclusion.

The fact that various witnesses may have seen different parts of an event should never prevent them from giving such evidence to an inquiry, a trial or a hearing that is trying to find out what is true.

By relying solely on the experts who have examined the crash material, the recordings and data output, it cannot be said the inquiry will have covered every aspect of what happened during those dreadful few minutes if those who actually saw the tragedy unfolding are dismissed as unreliable and ignored.

[Al Weaver]

&gt;Signs are that Airbus is taking every opportunity it can under cover to distance itself from the cause(s)of AA587 by spinning to the media. No,
they are'nt pushing the terrorism theory but that trusty catch-all of pilot error. Sadly, the NTSB aren't helping much either by feeding tit bits to their favourite media so that they can add up two and two to make anything they damn well like.

Meanwhile even retired-aviation 'professionals' happily stir the pot either oblivious or uncaring of the memories, feelings and reputations of the
victimes of this tragedy. &lt;

You seem to have simplified your view to "Them vs Us" arguments wth little room for trust and understanding of the process.

No accident professional accident investigator uses the word "blame" including Airbus. The idea is to establish causal findings including the pilots actions. If you think this is uncaring so be it, but the idea is to identify and implement appropriate corrective actions.

The investigation is not over and I don't even think that they have concluded that the pilots actions ARE causal but just that they might be and it might be a good idea to change the training that contributed.

Overly defensive attitudes in an ongoing investigation also impede the findings as well. With that said I do appalud the arguments in this forum about whether pilot actions could or should affect the structural outcome under those conditions of flight.

[oncemorealoft]

On the contrary, Iomapaseo, I trust and understand the role of the NTSB, operator and manufacturer in the role of the investigation and the need within that to be open and investigate every posibility. I do not in the least find this uncaring as their role is legitimate and necessary but cannot be conducted publicaly.

What concerns me is when the manufacturer, to protect at the expense of others,seems to be working outside of this framework to propagate certain scenarios which distances it from the cause(s.

At the same time some on this forum are only too happy to uncaringly stir up and push any mad-cap conspiracy theory for their own questionable ends and/or perverse 'enjoyment'.

[TraderAl]

NTSB is finally beginning to examine the possibilites of terrorist act for the WTC aircrashes, rather than pilot error. At first the NTSB was disinclined to believe eye witnesses as all know eye witnesses, from pyschological shock and the ability of light to travel fatser than sound, often see explosions and crshes in reverse order. The NTSB was examining in detail the possibility that an explosion at the WTC ocured prior to the airplane crashes, despite the eyewitness claims - many who are firemen and policemen.

However, the NTSB is now starting to examine the possibility of a terrorist act given that "we are at war" and gven the recent "shoe bomber", caught in the act trying to blow a hole in the AC during flight.

The NTSB is starting to consider that their peacetime protocal might not be sufficient during time of war.

[oncemorealoft]

See what I mean <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[Bubbette]

IS this not the exact same response as happened after TWA 800 and Egyptair 990? Well, I guess no one saw the Egyptair flight "explode", but they do say it was downed by missiles. I agree with Mr. Nosy.

[TraderAl]

Oncemore aloft, you happy ostrich, I think even you will grant me that during war there is no "theorey" regarding a conspiracy for the very fact a war is being fought means there is a conspiracy. You will grant there is an active and to date very successfuly organization about which seems to spend a lot of time figuring out how to drop US AC? Do you?

So, I think it makes every sense to put the onus on the NSTB to prove that an attack did not exist first. The NSTB ha smade only one adament "ruling" informal or formal, which they strangely made within hours of the crash - that 587 ws not a terrorist event. Very strange, for then all grant them the cool professional view that the cause may be a year to figure out, which makes sense. But doesnt make sense for a terrorist act.

I think if I were to write two months ago that I think a great likihood exists for an al-Quedda operative to pack plastique in his shoe and try to light it with a match so he coudl blow a hole in the AC, you would disdainfully call this one more pathetic spiel from a conspiracy nut.

Second, you are inadvertenly insulting the "victims" of the WTC of who many would be known by both key eyewitnesses, and who lived in the Rockaway section of town. Ironic as that may be once w look back at history.

Third, you are insulting the professionalism of the key eyewitnesses, who have made a trade of providing accurate eyewitness reporting of crisis and crime. Thank God the judge on the mumerous court cases the cop has had to testify were not so dismissive. Thank God the fireman actually had good eye acuity in regards to how he approached burning buildings, most I imagine with worse light conditions than the morning of 587.

Fourth, 587 was not 20 plus miles at sea, during dusk, and with various thermoclines that can play havoc with sound. I think the speed of light versus the speed of sound is not a major factor in this case. In anycase the light was early morning bright, they were looking with the sun to either their side or behind, and the dispute isnt whether a loud bang was heard or not, but the order of visually sighted occurances.

The examination of the aft fuel tank is interesting, starting to show some consideration of senior professionals in the "crisis trade", the fireman and cop. But there sems to be no burn marks in the area, so scratch that one.

In all, while 587 may very likely not be a war act, it does seem to be that your attitude reflects many professional's attitude in many areas which in turn reflects, perhaps a laudable desire for halycon days, but is in reality a pathetic denial of reality to the extent that this collective attitude likely got us into this mess to begin with. I do hope you "merely" fly a plane and do not work at the CIA, the FBI, or other services which are supposidly protecting us at this moment.

[McGinty]

At the time when the AA 587 crash occured I considered starting up a thread about the complete inconsistency between the reports of explosions that came from the eye witnesses and the evidence from the missing tail that the crash had an aerodynamic origin. It seemed to me that this horrible accident provides a vivid demonstration of the lack of reliability of eye witness evidence of air crashes. I never got around to starting up that thread.

While the eye witnesses themselves may be sober characters with solid backgrounds in the police and fire services, the question that must be asked is why were they looking at that particular aircraft at that particular time?

Living in that part of New York, they must have an aircraft flying overhead from JFK every 90 seconds or so, day after day after day. People living under very busy flightpaths just do not look up at the planes flying overhead -- they ignore them.

For these citizens to have looked up at the plane, there must have been something that had already happened to it to make it different from the hundreds of other overflying planes. Whether it was a flash of light, or the sounds of igniting fuel, airframe breakup, or changed engine noise, something must have already occured to the plane before they glanced up.

It follows that we should view with some scepticism their claims that the crash was directly caused by any "explosion" that they witnessed. Such an "explosion" was likely secondary to the primary cause of the crash, that primary incident being the stimulus for the witnesses to begin looking at the plane in the first place.

[Airbubba]

From the AP report of the KC-130 crash in Afghanistan today:

"Witnesses reported seeing flames shooting from the plane before it slammed into the mountain..."

It is indeed a perennial eyewitness report in aircraft crashes whether true or not.

[Captain104]

Gentlemen, on the first day in a classroom receiving lessons for your future career as a board menber investigating aircraft accidents somewhere in our aviation community(military or civil)the instructor will very likely demonstrate the known phenomina "in his memories the witness nearly always repositions a crashfire AFTER hitting the ground AHEAD of the crash."

I dare say, during the next weeks the proofs will cirle again around those AA-Procedures you all heard about: the recovery out of unusual attitudes by applying full rudder. Believe me, the Airbus A 300-600 got a huge one and after takeoff you better get your feet off the pedals.

[The Prisoner]

Captain of a C150 me thinks. Its interesting to read the speculation on the A300-600 fuel system here, regarding fuel in vertical stab. What baloney.But it shows even the ignorence that exists on this site, even within groups of "informed" individuals.

The fuel on the A300/310 is in the horizontal stab, and is transfered back, after the aircraft climbs through 22000'.No fuel is contained in the trim tank (during refuel)until total fuel onboard exceeds 36000kg.

And yes they do have very big rudders, 'cos ulike your C150, Captain, theres a hell of alot of yaw if one of those very big engines were to go pop.

[McD]

Once again, it's important to clarify that AA does NOT teach "full rudder applicaton" to correct unusual attitudes. The emphasis is on PROPER and CONTROLLED inputs to the flight controls.

[Captain104]

McD,
thank you for the clarification concerning training of rudder application with AA in the past.
Anyway, according reports, that's the area they are working in right now.
By the way, how looks a C150?

[SaturnV]

The witness reports of an in-flight explosion and fire were previously covered in one of the earlier threads on the AA587 crash. (Sorry, I am too weary to go back and search which one.) Some of these same witnesses were quoted in a story by a New York Post columnist. The Post has now apparently editorially decided to resurrect the story and move it from op-ed gossip to news.

This seems to be a case of not letting facts stand in the way of personal conviction. Even better, some would have the NTSB prove a negative before proceeding to determine the true cause.

The Post article itself reveals contradictions in the witness reports. One witness on Flatbush Avenue, probably 4 miles from the crash, states that the whole front third of the plane was engulfed in flame. Other witnesses state flame appeared only on the right side, or that flames were visible before the vertical stabilizer came off.

How to reconcile these witness reports with what is known about the crash?

1.) The takeoff and initial climb were videotaped by a worker at JFK. Nothing out of the ordinary can be seen. (He stopped taping before the crash, and resumed it on seeing the smoke.)

2.) Supposedly, one or more flight crew on either taxiways or the departure runway at JFK observed the entire flight of AA587, and there has been no indication that they saw any explosion or fire.

3.) Both engines have been examined, and there is no evidence of an explosion or malfunction. The FDR shows both operating normally.

4.) The vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, between JFK and the crash site. The vertical stab is not scorched or smudged; it is described as being in nearlu pristine condition.

5.) The CVR records two episodes of a rattling sound. There is no sound of an explosion on the CVR, nor any remarks or exclamations by the crew indicative of an on-board explosion or fire. In this instance, are not their voices and statements the best testimony to an on-board event?

6.) Aside from the two engines, the vertical stab, rudder, and a very few other small pieces found distant from the crash site, there is nothing in the distrubution pattern of the wreckage even suggesting a catastrophic explosion/fire caused this accident. As there is no sign of an explosion in the parts mentioned above, then any explosion must have occurred on some other section of the plane. But if there was such an explosion, why weren't pieces of fuselage skin, insulation, etc. scattered over Belle Harbor?

[747FOCAL]

I was wrong about the trim tanks. I misunderstood my airbus friend when he said there would have been no fuel in the tail. He ment yet. I don't have time to do it nor am I a math god..... but I would like somebody to research and statistically reason the odds of the WTC attacks and this crash happening so close together in the same city. If somebody takes it on please provide thought and substantiation for your answer.

In my brother's, a biologist, words....... How many times does lightning have to strike the same place before you know your being targeted? <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[jugofpropwash]

A note on the eyewitnesses. I live in Connecticut, and was watching tv when the reports of the crash started coming in. Various witnesses called in. Some reported seeing the right side engine fall off, some reported seeing the left side engine fall off. I don't believe that any of the callers I heard claimed that BOTH had fallen. Also, no one said a thing about the tail of the aircraft - the closest anyone came was one individual who claimed that a wing had fallen - in retrospect it would seem that what he actually saw was the stabilizer and/or rudder.

In this case, I would tend to believe the NTSB that this was not a terrorist act, (although they may be trying to blame the pilots for something that might be at least in part due to a structural weakness.) Please note that I am not one who blindly accepts their findings - I still believe that something hit flight 800.

[B.Navez]

I think anyone has been around that subject in all possible ways now, isn't it? My words are: if indeed the final word of this inquiry reveals no signs of a terrorist attack, then lets just hope that the Yanks wont take the argument to ban the airbus fleet from their skies like they once did with the most magnificent line bird ever... the Concorde, whose only mistake was finally not be born in the US! See what I mean?
By the way, Captain 104, a C150 is a twin seat cessna, I am quite surprised to hear of a pilot not knowing that <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[737type]

Guys,

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. That applies to all situations, from air disasters to purse snatching.

There's a famous little experiment that a lot of Psych 101 professors perform with unsuspecting classes. They prearrange for one of the students to just get up in the middle of the class go to the front of the room, do and say something and simply walk out. The class is then asked to describe the whole scene.

You'd be amazed at the descriptions of both the person and the actions that come from these surprised eyewitnesses. (I remember stating her sweater was blue - try green).

It's for this 'phenomenon' that both accident investigatos as well as defense lawyers take "eyewitness" reports with a grain of salt.

But to be fair, I was a little surprised as to how quickly the NTSB flatly stated this was not a terrorist act.

[LMD]

2low2fast,

i didnt realize that concorde was flying supersonic routes over europe.

i also didnt realize that the u.s. had more stringent environmental laws than does europe.

[Captain104]

2low2fast,
C150 question asked as pure irony. Not a hit and not quite obvios, sorry.

[747FOCAL]

Maybe eyewitness accounts are "always" unreliable because the government is always "fibbing". They probably don't know what happened either. :)

[TheGreatLeslie]

Just a quick theory on the engine separation for AA587.
Scenario.
- Vertical Stabiliser fell off for reason or reasons to be determined.
- A/c became unstable vibrations felt in cockpit. (I think from an earlier thread the pilot thought wake turbulence and applied more power to compensate for what he perceived as WT.
-A/c starts yawing uncontrollably, newtons 2 law of motion about rotating objects tend to move 90 degrees out of phase with original changing force. Would be adding extra load on to engine pylons as the yawing motion turns into a pitching motion.
- A/c has kept its horizontal stabilisers so the pitching motion is constrained in the pylons and engine fittings.
- The pitching motion of the engines via newtons 2 law is turned into an additional yawing motion opposite the original motion. This could add to the original or additional yawing motion or act against any additional yawing motion. Either way the increased forces of the pylons would be pulling, twisting in all directions. The additional thrust would have added to this situation. This process would continue until the pylons could not take any more stress.
- One pylon would have to break first detaching the engine and ripping attachments and bits etc.
- With one gone the additional drag on the a/c and perhaps some loss of stability would increase the stress on the other pylon; it would then detach in a similar manner to the first. Quite probably as fuel line were separated from the engine fire may have erupted as full fuel was being pumped to the engines and the fuel lines may have ruptured prior to the final separation of the engine from the a/c

- The rest is, unfortunately, history.

[B.Navez]

LMD,

If you look back at how things turned out then when the Concorde arrived on the market and at the number of options initially taken by US carriers for this bird, then the questions arises, and to me, the answer makes no doubt at all. But, again, this goes far beyond the scope of our topic here, and many of us could fight with each other by pulling out our respective national flag, which, at the moment, is a bit useless. So, under another title, maybe?

<img src="cool.gif" border="0"> lets take it easy <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[747FOCAL]

The Great Leslie - Nothing was recorded on the flight recorders that indicated anywhere near 9g loads in any direction and it would take more than that to rip the engines from an airbus plane. Airbus chose to prove the engines would never come off rather than demonstrate break away capability like a Boeing.

I don't think anybody will ever know the truth including the NTSB. It's happened before and it will happen again.
<img src="frown.gif" border="0">

[TheGreatLeslie]

Thanks for your reply 747focal.

Can you elaborate on 'its happened before and it will happen again' or point me in the direction to find some information.

[747FOCAL]

I meant that the NTSB has not told the whole truth before and they will "fib" again. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[411A]

Small article in the newspaper this morning mentions that "delamination" was found in the fin, further investigations follow.
AirBus....the plastic aeroplane.
Should stick to aluminum...tried and true.
And if AirBus designes its aircraft..."so the engines will never come off"...wonder if "back to the drawing board" is in order. On second thought, they would never admit to a design error or manufacturing defect.

See new thread <a href="http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=017397" target="_blank">AA-587 Composite failure found in the tail</a>

[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: Capt PPRuNe ]</p>