New Clues deepen AA587 Crash Mystery
Don Quixote Impersonator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Clues deepen AA587 Crash Mystery
This turned up on my Aviations Week email alert.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/raa11114.xml
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/raa11114.xml
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CNN reports that NTSB are now saying that JAL separation only 1 min 45 secs. Extract from CNN below:
"A Japan Airlines flight was cleared for takeoff about two minutes and 20 seconds before the American Airlines flight, but it actually took off one minute and 45 seconds ahead of Flight 587, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Marion Blakey said Wednesday.
Blakey said preliminary analysis of the flight paths of both planes showed that the JAL flight was about four nautical miles out from the American Airlines flight and traveling 800 feet higher. Wind conditions at the time of Flight 587's takeoff, she said, were "consistent with a wake vortex encounter".
We do not know if this really contributed in any way to the actual accident, but we are looking at it very closely," Blakey said."
"A Japan Airlines flight was cleared for takeoff about two minutes and 20 seconds before the American Airlines flight, but it actually took off one minute and 45 seconds ahead of Flight 587, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Marion Blakey said Wednesday.
Blakey said preliminary analysis of the flight paths of both planes showed that the JAL flight was about four nautical miles out from the American Airlines flight and traveling 800 feet higher. Wind conditions at the time of Flight 587's takeoff, she said, were "consistent with a wake vortex encounter".
We do not know if this really contributed in any way to the actual accident, but we are looking at it very closely," Blakey said."
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Below is a meld (didn't want to use the word 'composite') of articles in the Nov. 15 NYTimes and Washington Post. Investigators are zeroing in on a vertical stabilizer composite failure as setting in motion the accident sequence. A question to be answered is whether the composite section had a pre-existing condition that caused it to fail below, or even much below, design limits. I was intrigued by Belgique's post in the A-300 engines thread. American tended to use the A300 in the tropical environment of its Caribbean and Central American services.
"The vertical tail section of American Airlines Flight 587 cracked off when its modern reinforced plastic "composite" fittings failed, investigators said today, and the National Transportation Safety Board
announced that American will inspect the tail section of all its similar Airbus A300-600 widebody planes. The Federal Aviation Administration said it was dispatching its chief scientist to examine the composite materials as well.
"Safety Board Chairman Marion Blakey said there was no evidence of physical damage to the vertical tail fin, which was recovered from Jamaica Bay soon after the Airbus crashed into a Queens neighborhood Monday.
"But she presented radar data indicating that wake turbulence from a Japan Airlines 747 that took off just before Flight 587 could have hit the American widebody. The 747's path was to the west and about 800 feet higher than the A300's, she said, with the wind blowing from the northwest at about 12 mph.
"Because the swirling winds that flow from an aircraft's wingtips tend to move down slightly and drift with the wind, the aircrafts' paths "would be consistent with a wake vortex encounter," Blakey said.
"But board member George Black said he was unaware that any civilian aircraft had ever lost a vertical tail fin to wake turbulence.
"Investigators could not explain what outside force, combination of forces, human error or aerodynamic forces could have produced enough force to rip the vertical tail fin and rudder off the plane and rip both engines from the wing.
"The board last night released some preliminary data from the recovered flight
data recorder indicating that the vertical tail fin came off first. Both engines continued to operate normally for a short period after the crew said on the cockpit voice recorder that they had lost control.
Investigators at first believed the plane landed nose-down -- because of the lack of wider destruction that would have resulted had it hit the ground at a shallower angle. That did not explain, however, why they found so many intact or nearly intact bodies so quickly.
"Several sources now believe the explanation may be the speed of descent. The plane, they believe, having lost its heavy engines and vertical tail, made a relatively slow belly flop, nose tilted down and turning sideways. Its engines were found about 800 feet away --with the left and right engines exactly
opposite to where they would have been attached to the plane, indicating the plane might have been upside down or flopping around.
"Blakey announced American's planned inspection of all 24 of the tail fins on its Airbus A300-600 fleet.
"Officials with Airbus, the European manufacturer of large airplanes, were
discussing whether to advise other airlines to do the same.
"She [Blakey] also said the FAA was sending its chief scientist to the Flight 587 scene to study the possible relevance of composite materials. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said that if the scientist and other FAA officials find that more inspections or corrective actions are needed in other parts of the aircraft industry, "the FAA will mandate that immediately."
"Hans Weber, an airline engineering expert in San Diego, said most airliners still have metal tails. He also said that although the composite tails on Airbus planes are made with carbon fiber, the composition of that fiber has been constantly evolving as the plane maker tries to keep costs down.
Composite tail structures are five times more expensive than aluminum -- $1,500 a pound compared with $240 a pound.
"The tail was torn off, leaving the attachment points, which are made of the same composite, still bolted to the plane's
metal frame, investigators said. They have not found any evidence that an explosion or contact with another object in flight caused the damage.
"Among the questions for investigators are
whether the fin separated because of stresses that its design should have been able to handle or if the plane, in the air less than two minutes on a day with light winds and clear air, somehow encountered extreme air conditions.
"Airbus, far more than Boeing, its main rival, relies heavily on composite materials, to save weight and to avoid
corrosion. Experts say that composite materials are stronger per pound than aluminum, and are less prone to fatigue, in which repeated flexing weakens the material.
"But composite materials also can weaken. Sometimes the reinforcing carbon comes lose from the matrix that forms the bulk of the composite, or layers come apart, a process
called delamination.
"According to the maintenance log recovered from the crash site, there had been no major repairs recently, and no items awaited repair.
"The fittings that hold the fin to the fuselage are visually inspected every five years; the most recent inspection for the plane that crashed was in December 1999.
"Before the plane was delivered in 1988, the composite material in one of the six fittings holding the tail in place was found to be delaminating, meaning its layers were
coming apart. It was fixed by adding layers and inserting rivets, and the manufacturer decided that no extra inspections were required afterward.
"One new area for investigators is the composites, which are harder to read for clues than metal parts. They have been
used for years, but usually in doors or panels, not in the plane's skeleton. American Airlines will use a variety of
inspection techniques, including a tap test, in which technicians hit the part and listen for sounds that would indicate a void, said Thomas Haueter, the board's deputy chief of aviation safety.
"The carbon and plastic composites used by aircraft manufacturers tend to be extremely strong and resistant to cracking, and were strenuously tested, Robert T. Bocchieri
said. Dr. Bocchieri is an expert in assessing failures of composite materials and a senior engineer at Applied Research Associates, an engineering firm in Sunnyvale,
Calif.
"Cracks develop in metals or plastics as they age, but cracks tend to be stopped in these materials by the embedded fibers, he said. Still, "aircraft makers have tended to be extremely conservative in their use of
composites," he said.
"Because the materials, when proposed for airliners, were intended for a new domain in which hundreds of lives were at stake, they "were put through massive numbers of cycles of full-scale testing," Dr. Bocchieri said. "They had to simulate the entire life history of the aircraft."
"Airbus has made progressively greater use of composites. It plans to expand their use even further in its A380 superjumbo jet. According to Airbus, each A300 uses 14,600
pounds of composites, and by doing so, saves 3,300 pounds of weight.
"The fin of the A300 is almost all composite. Mr. Black said yesterday that when it was pulled from Jamaica Bay, the fin looked good.
""With the exception of the area where it separated, it is almost in new condition," he said.
"Both the fin and the rudder, the movable panel at the back of the fin, can float, he said. Aviation experts said that both could have traveled a significant distance from the
spot at which they separated from the plane. Thus, although they were found closer to the airport than the main wreckage, investigators are not certain that they were the first to come loose."
"The vertical tail section of American Airlines Flight 587 cracked off when its modern reinforced plastic "composite" fittings failed, investigators said today, and the National Transportation Safety Board
announced that American will inspect the tail section of all its similar Airbus A300-600 widebody planes. The Federal Aviation Administration said it was dispatching its chief scientist to examine the composite materials as well.
"Safety Board Chairman Marion Blakey said there was no evidence of physical damage to the vertical tail fin, which was recovered from Jamaica Bay soon after the Airbus crashed into a Queens neighborhood Monday.
"But she presented radar data indicating that wake turbulence from a Japan Airlines 747 that took off just before Flight 587 could have hit the American widebody. The 747's path was to the west and about 800 feet higher than the A300's, she said, with the wind blowing from the northwest at about 12 mph.
"Because the swirling winds that flow from an aircraft's wingtips tend to move down slightly and drift with the wind, the aircrafts' paths "would be consistent with a wake vortex encounter," Blakey said.
"But board member George Black said he was unaware that any civilian aircraft had ever lost a vertical tail fin to wake turbulence.
"Investigators could not explain what outside force, combination of forces, human error or aerodynamic forces could have produced enough force to rip the vertical tail fin and rudder off the plane and rip both engines from the wing.
"The board last night released some preliminary data from the recovered flight
data recorder indicating that the vertical tail fin came off first. Both engines continued to operate normally for a short period after the crew said on the cockpit voice recorder that they had lost control.
Investigators at first believed the plane landed nose-down -- because of the lack of wider destruction that would have resulted had it hit the ground at a shallower angle. That did not explain, however, why they found so many intact or nearly intact bodies so quickly.
"Several sources now believe the explanation may be the speed of descent. The plane, they believe, having lost its heavy engines and vertical tail, made a relatively slow belly flop, nose tilted down and turning sideways. Its engines were found about 800 feet away --with the left and right engines exactly
opposite to where they would have been attached to the plane, indicating the plane might have been upside down or flopping around.
"Blakey announced American's planned inspection of all 24 of the tail fins on its Airbus A300-600 fleet.
"Officials with Airbus, the European manufacturer of large airplanes, were
discussing whether to advise other airlines to do the same.
"She [Blakey] also said the FAA was sending its chief scientist to the Flight 587 scene to study the possible relevance of composite materials. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said that if the scientist and other FAA officials find that more inspections or corrective actions are needed in other parts of the aircraft industry, "the FAA will mandate that immediately."
"Hans Weber, an airline engineering expert in San Diego, said most airliners still have metal tails. He also said that although the composite tails on Airbus planes are made with carbon fiber, the composition of that fiber has been constantly evolving as the plane maker tries to keep costs down.
Composite tail structures are five times more expensive than aluminum -- $1,500 a pound compared with $240 a pound.
"The tail was torn off, leaving the attachment points, which are made of the same composite, still bolted to the plane's
metal frame, investigators said. They have not found any evidence that an explosion or contact with another object in flight caused the damage.
"Among the questions for investigators are
whether the fin separated because of stresses that its design should have been able to handle or if the plane, in the air less than two minutes on a day with light winds and clear air, somehow encountered extreme air conditions.
"Airbus, far more than Boeing, its main rival, relies heavily on composite materials, to save weight and to avoid
corrosion. Experts say that composite materials are stronger per pound than aluminum, and are less prone to fatigue, in which repeated flexing weakens the material.
"But composite materials also can weaken. Sometimes the reinforcing carbon comes lose from the matrix that forms the bulk of the composite, or layers come apart, a process
called delamination.
"According to the maintenance log recovered from the crash site, there had been no major repairs recently, and no items awaited repair.
"The fittings that hold the fin to the fuselage are visually inspected every five years; the most recent inspection for the plane that crashed was in December 1999.
"Before the plane was delivered in 1988, the composite material in one of the six fittings holding the tail in place was found to be delaminating, meaning its layers were
coming apart. It was fixed by adding layers and inserting rivets, and the manufacturer decided that no extra inspections were required afterward.
"One new area for investigators is the composites, which are harder to read for clues than metal parts. They have been
used for years, but usually in doors or panels, not in the plane's skeleton. American Airlines will use a variety of
inspection techniques, including a tap test, in which technicians hit the part and listen for sounds that would indicate a void, said Thomas Haueter, the board's deputy chief of aviation safety.
"The carbon and plastic composites used by aircraft manufacturers tend to be extremely strong and resistant to cracking, and were strenuously tested, Robert T. Bocchieri
said. Dr. Bocchieri is an expert in assessing failures of composite materials and a senior engineer at Applied Research Associates, an engineering firm in Sunnyvale,
Calif.
"Cracks develop in metals or plastics as they age, but cracks tend to be stopped in these materials by the embedded fibers, he said. Still, "aircraft makers have tended to be extremely conservative in their use of
composites," he said.
"Because the materials, when proposed for airliners, were intended for a new domain in which hundreds of lives were at stake, they "were put through massive numbers of cycles of full-scale testing," Dr. Bocchieri said. "They had to simulate the entire life history of the aircraft."
"Airbus has made progressively greater use of composites. It plans to expand their use even further in its A380 superjumbo jet. According to Airbus, each A300 uses 14,600
pounds of composites, and by doing so, saves 3,300 pounds of weight.
"The fin of the A300 is almost all composite. Mr. Black said yesterday that when it was pulled from Jamaica Bay, the fin looked good.
""With the exception of the area where it separated, it is almost in new condition," he said.
"Both the fin and the rudder, the movable panel at the back of the fin, can float, he said. Aviation experts said that both could have traveled a significant distance from the
spot at which they separated from the plane. Thus, although they were found closer to the airport than the main wreckage, investigators are not certain that they were the first to come loose."
Don Quixote Impersonator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen a photograph somewhere taken by a construction worker on the airport of the aircraft.
It was a fair way away and a bit grainy but the aircraft appeared to be rolling to the left and going through the vertical with the left engine gone and the right at about a 45 degree angle to its normal plane, apparently about to separate. The horizontal stabiliser was still there but could not see the vertical stabiliser.
Has anybody else seen that photo as it seems to confirm the above.
It was a fair way away and a bit grainy but the aircraft appeared to be rolling to the left and going through the vertical with the left engine gone and the right at about a 45 degree angle to its normal plane, apparently about to separate. The horizontal stabiliser was still there but could not see the vertical stabiliser.
Has anybody else seen that photo as it seems to confirm the above.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The possibility of a chain of events - weakened composite structure plus unusual, or extreme, wake turbulence seems to be emerging (and yes, this is all speculation, before anyone flames me!)
There is an interesting training manual for pilots and ATC published by the New Zealand CAA available on the web. It includes a couple of impressive pictures of wake effect of a CX 747-200 landing at Kai Tak. I can't copy these here, so follow this link (you will need Acrobat Reader, go to www.acrobat.com if your computer doesn't have this):
NZ CAA Wake Turbulence Manual
Edited to point out that I wouldn't bother with this link unless you have a broadband connection (and even then it's a big file).
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: J-Class ]
There is an interesting training manual for pilots and ATC published by the New Zealand CAA available on the web. It includes a couple of impressive pictures of wake effect of a CX 747-200 landing at Kai Tak. I can't copy these here, so follow this link (you will need Acrobat Reader, go to www.acrobat.com if your computer doesn't have this):
NZ CAA Wake Turbulence Manual
Edited to point out that I wouldn't bother with this link unless you have a broadband connection (and even then it's a big file).
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: J-Class ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty, there are two videotapes that are apparently in NTSB possession. A construction worker at JFK airport filmed the takeoff and initial climb of AA 587, but had turned the camera off before the aircraft lost control. (He turned it back on once he saw the smoke from the crash.) The second is from a security camera on a bridge which supposedly shows the final moments of the flight, with both engines gone and flames from the wings.
I would be suspicious about another photograph suddenly surfacing, you remember the hoax about the guy atop the WTC with the jet coming toward him.
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]
I would be suspicious about another photograph suddenly surfacing, you remember the hoax about the guy atop the WTC with the jet coming toward him.
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you think guys?
It must have been a Very light Jumbo and a very heavy A300 to be a vortex problem with one minute 45s separation.
The rotate point and subsequent climb gradient of a Jumbo compared to a big twin is generally chalk and cheese.
Perhaps another piece of terribly bad luck in a very sad, and I have to say worrying event.
" RIP & God bless to all concerned "
It must have been a Very light Jumbo and a very heavy A300 to be a vortex problem with one minute 45s separation.
The rotate point and subsequent climb gradient of a Jumbo compared to a big twin is generally chalk and cheese.
Perhaps another piece of terribly bad luck in a very sad, and I have to say worrying event.
" RIP & God bless to all concerned "
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of curiosity, didn't the consortium making up Airbus contract out various parts of its aircraft to different countries? Isn't/wasn't Spain responsible for the tail sections? And, responsible only for contruction, or also, quality control? Just curious.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: by the river
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J-Class, the warning is valid - some file even with broadband.
Very descriptive even though it was probably drilled into everybody to ever saw a King training VCR, but isn't it easy to under-estimate the consequences.
In various threads there are comments on and links to other previous wave, wake and vortex accidents. I think there is enough of a pattern over the loss of the vertical causing the engins to be bucked off, with the then inevitable consequences. If some of the more analytically and technically minded wanted to research.
Of course it is still conjecture and speculation at this time - but the investigators are good at finding all the needles in the haystack. Lets hope we can at least learn from the wreck. RIP
Very descriptive even though it was probably drilled into everybody to ever saw a King training VCR, but isn't it easy to under-estimate the consequences.
In various threads there are comments on and links to other previous wave, wake and vortex accidents. I think there is enough of a pattern over the loss of the vertical causing the engins to be bucked off, with the then inevitable consequences. If some of the more analytically and technically minded wanted to research.
Of course it is still conjecture and speculation at this time - but the investigators are good at finding all the needles in the haystack. Lets hope we can at least learn from the wreck. RIP
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NC USA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In light of the structural failure, regardless of cause- what types of non-destructive testing are available for carbon composites? I ask this specifically with regard to the potential damage from the A/C's previous encounter with severe turbulence.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not acceptable for the cause of this accident be put down to Wake Turbulence. We all encounter it 2 or 3 times a year in varying degrees.
As mention in another thread, it would only take a small amount of movement in the Vertical Stabiliser before the yaw damper would come into play possibly exacerbating the movement and breaking the structure of the VS. The noise of the FD would confirm the vibration.
Assuming that the VS then came off it would no doubt take the hydraulics with it. Does the A300 have quick shut off valves in the flight control hydraulic lines? If not the aircraft would rapidly lose all flight controls and become unflyable.
Even with hydraulics it would have been nigh on impossible to control with climb power on and no VS.
I presume that with high side loads on the engines and pylons that they exceeded their design loads for normal operation and came away.
Surely by now all A300's should be fully checked to ensure that nothing similar is occurring in other aircraft.
As mention in another thread, it would only take a small amount of movement in the Vertical Stabiliser before the yaw damper would come into play possibly exacerbating the movement and breaking the structure of the VS. The noise of the FD would confirm the vibration.
Assuming that the VS then came off it would no doubt take the hydraulics with it. Does the A300 have quick shut off valves in the flight control hydraulic lines? If not the aircraft would rapidly lose all flight controls and become unflyable.
Even with hydraulics it would have been nigh on impossible to control with climb power on and no VS.
I presume that with high side loads on the engines and pylons that they exceeded their design loads for normal operation and came away.
Surely by now all A300's should be fully checked to ensure that nothing similar is occurring in other aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though the investigation into this accident is ongoing, I must say that I agree with all of your postings regarding the probable tail seperation.
After AA lost a DC10 in ORD in 1979 the entire fleet was grounded worldwide to check engine pylon bolts. Given this catastrophe, with structural failure the probable cause, I think FAA and JAA should consider grounding all A300-600 and A310 aircraft until proper checks have been made.
After AA lost a DC10 in ORD in 1979 the entire fleet was grounded worldwide to check engine pylon bolts. Given this catastrophe, with structural failure the probable cause, I think FAA and JAA should consider grounding all A300-600 and A310 aircraft until proper checks have been made.
CBC Radio reported this morning that the fin came lose from its attachment fitting and that the attachment fitting was found still attached to the tailcone. Haven't seen this in print yet.
So how do you inspect for this?
It took decades and sadly, tragedies, to develop inspection procedures to catch deterioration in aluminum structures. I would like to think that this will be the last time we need to revise inspection procedures for composite structures.
So how do you inspect for this?
It took decades and sadly, tragedies, to develop inspection procedures to catch deterioration in aluminum structures. I would like to think that this will be the last time we need to revise inspection procedures for composite structures.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: To: From: To: From:
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trying to do a 411A or a Guv here, but the statement that "board member George Black said he was unaware that any civilian aircraft had ever lost a vertical tail fin to wake turbulence" is completely untrue.
In the early or mid - 70's, a BOAC 707 lost it's vertical stab in an encounter with a rotor off Mount Fuji, Japan. It led to the inflight breakup of the machine, with the loss of all on board.
There are photos (somewhat grainy, but horrifying, nonetheless) in several publications of the machine during it's encounter and the subsequent breakup.
In the early or mid - 70's, a BOAC 707 lost it's vertical stab in an encounter with a rotor off Mount Fuji, Japan. It led to the inflight breakup of the machine, with the loss of all on board.
There are photos (somewhat grainy, but horrifying, nonetheless) in several publications of the machine during it's encounter and the subsequent breakup.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A rotor or mountain wave is not 'wake turbulence', ie: caused by the passage of a preceeding aircraft.
Black is probably correct. Several GA and bizjets have crashed due to wake encounters, but I can't think of a transport-category event.
Here's a link to a description of the BOAC 707 breakup. http://pw1.netcom.com/~asapilot/911.html
Black is probably correct. Several GA and bizjets have crashed due to wake encounters, but I can't think of a transport-category event.
Here's a link to a description of the BOAC 707 breakup. http://pw1.netcom.com/~asapilot/911.html
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Cannot think of a transport aircraft that crashed because of wake turbulence"..... well if you look far enough back you will find the DC-9 that crashed at the old Greater Southwest airport (Dallas) which followed an AA DC-10 on finals. Was a crew trainer I believe, all aboard died in the DC-9.
Further to J-Class posting refereence top NZ CAA wake turb. manual. Those having difficulty downloading may want to try to download DAP sofware (free at mom), this takes care of slow non broadband transmissions. My download took 2 mins.
God rest their souls.
God rest their souls.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) morning radio newscasts today there was an item on the AA587 crash which mentioned that this particular Airbus had experienced severe turbulence some years ago in which some 40 passengers/crew had been injured.
The news reporter went on to mention that the tail of the plane had been repaired as a result of that incident.
I have looked and looked at the various web news sites this morning, and none seem to be reporting that there were repairs to the plane's tail. For example, here is all that the NY Times had to say on this matter:
"The investigators have many areas of inquiry still open. One is that seven years ago, the plane hit turbulence in flight and 47 people on board were injured. Whether this could have produced structural damage that went undetected was not clear, although the plane itself was designed to withstand a degree of turbulence that could result in injuries or deaths."
Maybe I misheard what the CBC Radio reporter said about repairs to the tail of this A300, but if there were any such repairs made following the violent turbulence then this crash may be a repeat of the JAL 747 crash where its tail eventually failed after botched repairs carried out years before.
If the reporter was incorrect, and the tail was not repaired, then there remains the possibility that the tail failed because of undetected fatigue in the composite materials which was initially stimulated by the violent turbulence experienced by this airframe years ago.
The news reporter went on to mention that the tail of the plane had been repaired as a result of that incident.
I have looked and looked at the various web news sites this morning, and none seem to be reporting that there were repairs to the plane's tail. For example, here is all that the NY Times had to say on this matter:
"The investigators have many areas of inquiry still open. One is that seven years ago, the plane hit turbulence in flight and 47 people on board were injured. Whether this could have produced structural damage that went undetected was not clear, although the plane itself was designed to withstand a degree of turbulence that could result in injuries or deaths."
Maybe I misheard what the CBC Radio reporter said about repairs to the tail of this A300, but if there were any such repairs made following the violent turbulence then this crash may be a repeat of the JAL 747 crash where its tail eventually failed after botched repairs carried out years before.
If the reporter was incorrect, and the tail was not repaired, then there remains the possibility that the tail failed because of undetected fatigue in the composite materials which was initially stimulated by the violent turbulence experienced by this airframe years ago.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks 411A, that one had escaped the grey matter. Non-standard separation though ? http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/300572.txt
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McGinty
I think that reporter was combining two separate incidents, both of which have been mentioned here.
Prior to delivery to AA, Airbus fixed part of the fin which had delaminated.
Then in 1994 this aircraft encountered CAT over the Caribbean. FAA classified the damage as 'minor' and I've seen no reference to repairs to the fin resulting from this.
I think that reporter was combining two separate incidents, both of which have been mentioned here.
Prior to delivery to AA, Airbus fixed part of the fin which had delaminated.
Then in 1994 this aircraft encountered CAT over the Caribbean. FAA classified the damage as 'minor' and I've seen no reference to repairs to the fin resulting from this.