Witnesses Saw AA 587 Explode in Flames
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Lindfield, UK
Age: 78
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
“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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>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. <
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.
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. <
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.
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'.
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'.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
"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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Portmeirion
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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">
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">
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Brussels
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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">
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">
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sanford, FL, USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.