vertical stabilizer AA 587
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm surprised that no-one has brought up the case of the Dan Air 707F in Lusaka where the vertical stabiliser also separated. I recall that was due to fatigue damage and resulted in ADs and eventually in the USAF buying a large proportion of the world's civil 707 fleet for their fins to extend the lives of their 135 fleets.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: Lots of different places!
EI EI O.......
Don't know how accurate this is....but I heard a so called "expert" in the know claim that that one engine had 10,000 operating hours, while the other had 640. He then went onto say that he would have "trusted the older one more"??????? !!!!!!!!
DON'T ASK!
(On UK telly this morning, however I don't know what channel it was, sorry)
Terrible terrible events whatever the circs!
Kind regards to all,
C.N
Don't know how accurate this is....but I heard a so called "expert" in the know claim that that one engine had 10,000 operating hours, while the other had 640. He then went onto say that he would have "trusted the older one more"??????? !!!!!!!!
DON'T ASK!
(On UK telly this morning, however I don't know what channel it was, sorry)
Terrible terrible events whatever the circs!
Kind regards to all,
C.N
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
From: Right here (right now)
A tragic accident, regardless of the circumstances behind it. The following item really tore me up:
"According to police, the bodies included a man found holding a baby."
My wife and two young sons just flew to Baltimore on Saturday...
My thoughts and prayers go out to all the families and friends of the souls lost aboard the plane and on the ground.
M2
"According to police, the bodies included a man found holding a baby."
My wife and two young sons just flew to Baltimore on Saturday...
My thoughts and prayers go out to all the families and friends of the souls lost aboard the plane and on the ground.
M2
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,841
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
EI EI O: The following is taken from CNN today but credited as from Airbus and 'aircraftmuseum.com'. However, the 'wire' diagram that was displayed showed an A300 without winglets.
Tail Number: N14053
Owner: Wilmington Trust Company as Trustee
Leased by: American Airlines
Initial service date: July 12 1988
Passenger capacity: 266
Cockpit crew: 2
Maintenance dates:
November 11 2001 - A check
October 3 2001 - B check
December 9 1999 - D check
Next scheduled D - July 2002
Engines: GE CF6-80C-2A5
Left engine - 694 hrs since last overhaul
Right engine - 9.788 hrs since last overhaul
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]
Tail Number: N14053
Owner: Wilmington Trust Company as Trustee
Leased by: American Airlines
Initial service date: July 12 1988
Passenger capacity: 266
Cockpit crew: 2
Maintenance dates:
November 11 2001 - A check
October 3 2001 - B check
December 9 1999 - D check
Next scheduled D - July 2002
Engines: GE CF6-80C-2A5
Left engine - 694 hrs since last overhaul
Right engine - 9.788 hrs since last overhaul
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,025
Likes: 1
From: The Global village
This thread is reminiscent of a car accident when crowds gather around to "Ooh, and ahhh...isn't it shocking." Some of the posters obviously have NO aviation experience, yet insist om making [b]stupid[b] and ludicrously innacurate statements, thus cluttering what started out as an informative posting.
Would the "idiots" please DESIST!
Would the "idiots" please DESIST!
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: U.S.A.
Regarding brainfade`s question about the vertical fin structure: Yes, it is made of CFC (Carbon Fibre Composite).
In the news there have also been suggestions that the pilots tried to dump fuel. There is no fuel dump function on the A300-600, it is not necessary, you can land at any weight.
In the news there have also been suggestions that the pilots tried to dump fuel. There is no fuel dump function on the A300-600, it is not necessary, you can land at any weight.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 1
From: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
>>Don't know how accurate this is....but I heard a so called "expert" in the know claim that that one engine had 10,000 operating hours, while the other had 640. He then went onto say that he would have "trusted the older one more"??????? !!!!!!!!<<
I remember early in my career an oldtimer told me "Son, there's two things I don't trust. One's old airplanes. The other is new airplanes..." Good advice.
I remember early in my career an oldtimer told me "Son, there's two things I don't trust. One's old airplanes. The other is new airplanes..." Good advice.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
From: us
The NTSB reports no bird or foreign object damage to either engine, and no obvious sign of catastrophic engine failure in either engine. The vertical stabilizer was found one half mile east of the fuselage. The rudder was also found today in Jamaica Bay, and the flight data recorder recovered as well and flown to Washington for analysis. Both engines separated from the aircraft before impact.
From the Cockpit Voice Recorder as reported by the NTSB:
107 seconds after takeoff roll: airframe rattle sound.
114 seconds: pilot remark of 'wake encounter'. (Apparently in reference to a Japan Airlines 747 8 miles ahead.)
121 seconds: airframe rattle sound.
125 seconds: call for "maximum power"
127 seconds: a remark about 'losing control'
144 seconds: end of recording.
Speculation is now turning to thinking that the vertical stabilizer separated first from the fuselage. If indeed such separation was the proximate cause of the accident, what caused this to happen is unknown.
In my post above on the radar trace (assuming the radar trace values are accurate), both the rate of climb and the acceleration in speed seems to be more consistent with normally functioning engines than what might be expected if an engine had experienced a major failure. However, a company pilot on the ground at JFK is reported as supposedly saying he saw smoke from one of the engines as the airplane took off.
In any event, the flight data recorder should provide some answers very soon. As Air Force One has these engines, I am certain that both the Air Force and the Secret Service want answers quickly.
[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]
From the Cockpit Voice Recorder as reported by the NTSB:
107 seconds after takeoff roll: airframe rattle sound.
114 seconds: pilot remark of 'wake encounter'. (Apparently in reference to a Japan Airlines 747 8 miles ahead.)
121 seconds: airframe rattle sound.
125 seconds: call for "maximum power"
127 seconds: a remark about 'losing control'
144 seconds: end of recording.
Speculation is now turning to thinking that the vertical stabilizer separated first from the fuselage. If indeed such separation was the proximate cause of the accident, what caused this to happen is unknown.
In my post above on the radar trace (assuming the radar trace values are accurate), both the rate of climb and the acceleration in speed seems to be more consistent with normally functioning engines than what might be expected if an engine had experienced a major failure. However, a company pilot on the ground at JFK is reported as supposedly saying he saw smoke from one of the engines as the airplane took off.
In any event, the flight data recorder should provide some answers very soon. As Air Force One has these engines, I am certain that both the Air Force and the Secret Service want answers quickly.
[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
"I think you'll find the FDR is located on most modern aircraft behind the pressure bulkhead, never yet seen one on the vertical fin, but am willing to accept that some may have it there"
Don't you mean in front of the rear pressure bulkhead? If behind the bulkhead or on the top of the tail, then an Airbus is indeed a strange bird... and nothing like any of the Boeings and MD's I've worked on (and changed DFDR's or CVR's on). I am more inclined to believe that these boxes will be warm and cosy somewhere inside a pressurized area.
If you need to know exactly where it is, post this question on the Tech Log or Engineers forums on this site
Q.
Don't you mean in front of the rear pressure bulkhead? If behind the bulkhead or on the top of the tail, then an Airbus is indeed a strange bird... and nothing like any of the Boeings and MD's I've worked on (and changed DFDR's or CVR's on). I am more inclined to believe that these boxes will be warm and cosy somewhere inside a pressurized area.
If you need to know exactly where it is, post this question on the Tech Log or Engineers forums on this site
Q.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 260
Likes: 5
From: Connecticut, USA
A question from someone who admittedly knows little on these matters: What would be the result if the rudder suddenly and unexpectly deflected to it's maximum deflection during a fairly steep climb? Could this (and perhaps the pilot's efforts to correct) have overstressed the stablizer and torn it off?
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
Quite right, Level 1 or better, it indeed was the horiz stab on the B707 (port side actually, forward attach fitting))and it separated when the flaps were selected to 50...and resulted in an FAA (and CAA) airworthiness directive in short order.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: where I shouldn’t be
jugofpropwash
I regard it as unlikely that the vertical fin would be overstressed during that phase of flight. Bare in mind the inertia of the mass, with exception of a running engine of course is not high enough to cause anything to go beyond it's design stress limit. In addition, the actual point of failure is at 150% of design.
The news this morning mentioned an unidentifiable clicking sound for a short period of time twice before any reaction of the crew was noted. Any A300 driver out thee able to shed some light on the sound?
And on the byby folks, this forum is for professionals of this industry, what ever their opinions or believes, to discuss and speculate about such events. Should anyone feel the need for hard facts and noting else consult www.faa.gov or www.ntsb.gov.
I regard it as unlikely that the vertical fin would be overstressed during that phase of flight. Bare in mind the inertia of the mass, with exception of a running engine of course is not high enough to cause anything to go beyond it's design stress limit. In addition, the actual point of failure is at 150% of design.
The news this morning mentioned an unidentifiable clicking sound for a short period of time twice before any reaction of the crew was noted. Any A300 driver out thee able to shed some light on the sound?
And on the byby folks, this forum is for professionals of this industry, what ever their opinions or believes, to discuss and speculate about such events. Should anyone feel the need for hard facts and noting else consult www.faa.gov or www.ntsb.gov.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
Vertical stabiliser separates due wake turbulence encounter and perhaps other factors..(maintenance?) causing loss of directional control. Aircraft enters stall/spin and sheds engines due to high rotational forces.
Speculation? Yes. But possible and fits the facts as they are reported.
Speculation? Yes. But possible and fits the facts as they are reported.
