vertical stabilizer AA 587
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vertical stabilizer AA 587
With apologies in advance to CaptPPRune who closed the previous thread on this crash, I thought this picture of the vertical stabilizer as retrieved from Jamaica Bay will be of interest to PPrune members. Jamaica Bay is between JFK and the crash site.
[ 12 November 2001: Message edited for typos by: SaturnV ]
[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/raa41112.xml
This is the URL to the Aviationnow.com website. Looks pretty factual.
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: G.Khan ]
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: G.Khan ]
This is the URL to the Aviationnow.com website. Looks pretty factual.
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: G.Khan ]
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: G.Khan ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most unusual debris pattern. It's difficult to imagine how an apparent uncontained engine failure might cause the vertical stabilizer to separate. (One of the engines found at the Texaco station had a large hole in the side of the cowling).
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed glueball... that picture is pretty worrying, possibly the most telling I've seen so far today. I can't see any trace of impact, tearing, or twisting... the tail looks almost as if it had just been unbolted. Loss of stabilizer -> total loss of control -> overstress -> breakup maybe? I can't conceive of any other scenario that would leave the tail so far from the main impact, apparently cleanly removed, with no obvious sign of damage.
Hopefully we'll know pretty quickly, whatever it was it must have been an impossible situation for the crew... RIP folks.
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Ranger One ]
Hopefully we'll know pretty quickly, whatever it was it must have been an impossible situation for the crew... RIP folks.
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Ranger One ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without wanting to contribute in any way to the theorists I have to agree with Ranger One's assesment, very strange. My deepest condolences to the family members of the Crew and Passengers, may they rest in peace.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall that in the Mid 1970s a C-141 crashed after straying into a thunderstorm in England. The aircraft had rolled into 30 degrees of right bank in an effort to escape the thunderstorm, adding to the stress on the airframe already induced by the storm. At the crash site, number 4 engine and the vertical stabilizer were found together in an open field, hundreds of yards away from the main wreckage. That showed a historical correlation between engine separation and either stress on the vertical stablizer, or perhaps the engine actually striking the vertical stabilizer as it separated from the wing during. Of course, weather was no factor in the AA crash.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: where I shouldn’t be
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Global One
A rather unlikely event. A power plant would not be striking the vertical stab, not even the horizontal after a separation. Looking at the picture, it does seem to be a clear "cut", as Ranger One has mentioned, "un-riveted" almost. I can't come up with any plausible scenario causing such a separation myself either. In any case the vertical stab being separated in such way, found in bay can't have anything to do with a possible uncontained blade separation.
A rather unlikely event. A power plant would not be striking the vertical stab, not even the horizontal after a separation. Looking at the picture, it does seem to be a clear "cut", as Ranger One has mentioned, "un-riveted" almost. I can't come up with any plausible scenario causing such a separation myself either. In any case the vertical stab being separated in such way, found in bay can't have anything to do with a possible uncontained blade separation.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beg to differ on the engine failure/tail theory. When the AA DC10 that lost an engine at Chicago in 1979, the engine flew over the wing and just missed the DC10's tail. In this case the blade failure may have been so severe that it caused the engine to separate and at that angle of attack after take-off the engine would have likely ripped off and over the wing. It may have then struck the tail a glancing blow, with various results.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: where I shouldn’t be
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golf
Would it not be more likely that the Vertical stab together with the empennage be found in the bay if the engine would have struck the tail?
If indeed the engine came loos at the pylons but be otherwise still intact the DC10 scenario seems plausible. However, in this case, first reports state that the power plant suffered an uncontained blade separation literally shredding its interior. In my opinion, this would present a different outcome of the engine trajectory.
Would it not be more likely that the Vertical stab together with the empennage be found in the bay if the engine would have struck the tail?
If indeed the engine came loos at the pylons but be otherwise still intact the DC10 scenario seems plausible. However, in this case, first reports state that the power plant suffered an uncontained blade separation literally shredding its interior. In my opinion, this would present a different outcome of the engine trajectory.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Somewhere between here and there....
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My sincere condolences to all those involved in yet another tragedy.
Question: Is the A check (performed on this a/c on Sunday) of any relevance ??
Question: Is the A check (performed on this a/c on Sunday) of any relevance ??
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in the neck,but holding short
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much as I hate to speculate about the manner of a fatal accident such as this I would just like to ask any driver of a large twin the following:
Catostrophic engine failure at take-off power + no rudder (according to above photo)= what?
I accept we don't know when the rudder separated but if it was while airborne ( engine debris? ) they would'nt have a prayer.
Incidently we can't see if there is damage to the other side of the H/Stabilizer.
R.I.P
[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: westman ]
Catostrophic engine failure at take-off power + no rudder (according to above photo)= what?
I accept we don't know when the rudder separated but if it was while airborne ( engine debris? ) they would'nt have a prayer.
Incidently we can't see if there is damage to the other side of the H/Stabilizer.
R.I.P
[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: westman ]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This picture*, which is not as good a perspective as pictures shown on television, is of the fan section of one engine. This engine is located in the yard of a house on 127th St. Another picture of an engine and cowling (or part of this engine?) posted on the closed thread is that of the engine that landed at a petrol station on 129th St. The engine in the yard is slightly to the left of the flight path; the engine at the station is slightly to the right. The main portion of the aircraft impacted at 131st St. (The streets rise in number going from east to west.) The vertical stabilizer was retrieved from the water several hundred yards or more to the northeast from where these engine parts impacted.
Radar trace information is as follows:
9:14.34 takeoff
9:15.02 1300 feet, 200 mph
9:15.36 "plane begins to climb more rapidly"
9:16.01 2800 feet, 306 mph (last trace)
(The above information courtesy of the New York Times.)
* The image will not post for some reason. Here is the URL address: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20011113/ts/mdf84430. html
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]
Radar trace information is as follows:
9:14.34 takeoff
9:15.02 1300 feet, 200 mph
9:15.36 "plane begins to climb more rapidly"
9:16.01 2800 feet, 306 mph (last trace)
(The above information courtesy of the New York Times.)
* The image will not post for some reason. Here is the URL address: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20011113/ts/mdf84430. html
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]
[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the mayor said that a wing was also in the water north of the main debries, wouldnt that have had to depart the aircraft in flight too?
what are the coast guard saying, they must have had a cutter in jamaica bay, seemed to have no trouble finding wing and vertical stabiliser
incidently does anyone know anything about the investigation into the cause of the A310 crash off of the ivory coast in jan 2000. we are coming up for 2 years since that incident with no word.
what are the coast guard saying, they must have had a cutter in jamaica bay, seemed to have no trouble finding wing and vertical stabiliser
incidently does anyone know anything about the investigation into the cause of the A310 crash off of the ivory coast in jan 2000. we are coming up for 2 years since that incident with no word.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bradford village...........Down here Wishing i was up there !!!
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the wing was found in the bay also couldn't it have been this that struck the tail , correct the photo does make the tail look undamaged but the rudder is missing , could something striking just the rudder cause the whole tail to be torn off , also we don't know what the damage was to the rear of the aircraft below the tail , apparantly it nose dived into the ground suggesting maybe the whole of the tail may have been damaged.
Deepest sympathy to all the relatives
Deepest sympathy to all the relatives
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reports of a wing having come off are apparently in error, with the vertical stabilizer being mistaken for a wing. Jamaica Bay is relatively shallow and I'm quite sure a wing would be easily spotted and recovered by now.
There are edge-on pictures of the stabilizer, and both sides look smooth and relatively undamaged.
There are edge-on pictures of the stabilizer, and both sides look smooth and relatively undamaged.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: london
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to ask for simple explanation - but could someone tell me in layman's terms what is the significance of the vertical stabliser being detached so cleanly - what does this suggest about the reasons for the crash. Pardon my ignorance
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest - if the vertical stabiliser had been hit I (as non-engineer, I hasten to add) would expect there to be evidence of impact damage from whatever had struck it (such as an engine). Also, again as a non-engineer, I mught expect there to be tearing and buckling of the surface where it had ripped free. However, I do not know how the tail surface is attached to the fuselage and so it may be feasible that high enough stress could cause the fasteners (bolt, rivets etc.) to fail and if the vertical stabiliser is strong enough this may leave little or no damage on the stabiliser itself.
Bear in mind that an aeroplane that suffers catastrophic failures may display evidence of damage that simply does not look feasible to the non-engineer but which is actually quite expected as far as the accident investigators are concerned.
So, in answer to your question, I feel that there is non significance yet - the separation has to be taken as one part of a complex sequence of events which will require much more information (such as ADR and CVR info) to explain.
Bear in mind that an aeroplane that suffers catastrophic failures may display evidence of damage that simply does not look feasible to the non-engineer but which is actually quite expected as far as the accident investigators are concerned.
So, in answer to your question, I feel that there is non significance yet - the separation has to be taken as one part of a complex sequence of events which will require much more information (such as ADR and CVR info) to explain.