AMR 587 Airbus Crash (merged)
wsherif1,
I trust you understand that is procedure to let relevant parties comment on a preliminary report before it is made final, in an accident such as this I would image that the FAA/Airbus/AA/Pilot Unions/ATC Unions would have been consulted prior to its release, they would have been provided a confidential copy of a preliminary report, provided feedback, and the NTSB then taking onboard this feedback amend the preliminary report to come up with the final report.
It’s not uncommon for the preliminary report to change when it becomes final.
If however you are suggesting that NTSB is removing information not at the request of one or more of the interested parties, but a wilful deception of the public, I think you are duty bound to report the same with any evidence you have to the relevant law enforcement agency. If this is true I think you have every right to be angry at the NTSB.
I trust you understand that is procedure to let relevant parties comment on a preliminary report before it is made final, in an accident such as this I would image that the FAA/Airbus/AA/Pilot Unions/ATC Unions would have been consulted prior to its release, they would have been provided a confidential copy of a preliminary report, provided feedback, and the NTSB then taking onboard this feedback amend the preliminary report to come up with the final report.
It’s not uncommon for the preliminary report to change when it becomes final.
If however you are suggesting that NTSB is removing information not at the request of one or more of the interested parties, but a wilful deception of the public, I think you are duty bound to report the same with any evidence you have to the relevant law enforcement agency. If this is true I think you have every right to be angry at the NTSB.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
you are an arrogant person (want to use more extreme language but edited for pprune), cannot beleive that you have ever been near a flight deck, if you have you must have been an extreme nightmare to work with! the hole in your body that is wiped after use is the best discription for you!
you are an arrogant person (want to use more extreme language but edited for pprune), cannot beleive that you have ever been near a flight deck, if you have you must have been an extreme nightmare to work with! the hole in your body that is wiped after use is the best discription for you!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A,
Your comment,
"Watsa matter with here...?"
"Type it all out here, wsherif1, if you dare.
I'm sure we would all like to know...."
O.K. Here is one example of an NTSB cover-up! I would need a fax No.to forward copies of the modified FDR Charts in the NTSB cover-up of the TWA 800 accident.
A section of the the ATC Chairman's factual report on the UA 585 B 737 accident, over the Colorado Springs,CO airport on 3/3/91, was removed. This section of the report pertained to the sworn
statements of the final ATC controller, who was handling the aircraft!
ATC controller's sworn statement, "He glanced up and it appeared that United 585 had changed pitch, possibly up, with a slight movement to the right towards Cessna 875. The nose seemed to come off of final approach course indicating to him the possibility of a go-around. He quickly glanced at Cessna 875 and immediately went back to United 585. At this point, United 585 was already in a straight, vertical nose-down attitude. The wings were silhouetted to the tower, in a plan-form view. There was no rotation or roll. He observed the same silhouette all the way down, but could not state positively if he was viewing the top or the bottom of the aircraft.
The transition from level flight to vertical flight was an instantaneous transition."
Your comment,
"Watsa matter with here...?"
"Type it all out here, wsherif1, if you dare.
I'm sure we would all like to know...."
O.K. Here is one example of an NTSB cover-up! I would need a fax No.to forward copies of the modified FDR Charts in the NTSB cover-up of the TWA 800 accident.
A section of the the ATC Chairman's factual report on the UA 585 B 737 accident, over the Colorado Springs,CO airport on 3/3/91, was removed. This section of the report pertained to the sworn
statements of the final ATC controller, who was handling the aircraft!
ATC controller's sworn statement, "He glanced up and it appeared that United 585 had changed pitch, possibly up, with a slight movement to the right towards Cessna 875. The nose seemed to come off of final approach course indicating to him the possibility of a go-around. He quickly glanced at Cessna 875 and immediately went back to United 585. At this point, United 585 was already in a straight, vertical nose-down attitude. The wings were silhouetted to the tower, in a plan-form view. There was no rotation or roll. He observed the same silhouette all the way down, but could not state positively if he was viewing the top or the bottom of the aircraft.
The transition from level flight to vertical flight was an instantaneous transition."
Last edited by wsherif1; 8th Nov 2004 at 22:30.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh? Again....
Good gosh, not yet another 'conspiracy theory' with regards to TWA800.
And...more or less the same about UAL at COS.
Too much listening to late night radio, I think.
And...more or less the same about UAL at COS.
Too much listening to late night radio, I think.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A,
Your comments,
"Huh? Again....
Good gosh, not yet another 'conspiracy theory' with regards to TWA800.
And...more or less the same about UAL at COS."
You dared me to type it out and I did. There is no conspiracy theory here, it is a statement of the professional, eye witness who was there.
Your comments,
"Huh? Again....
Good gosh, not yet another 'conspiracy theory' with regards to TWA800.
And...more or less the same about UAL at COS."
You dared me to type it out and I did. There is no conspiracy theory here, it is a statement of the professional, eye witness who was there.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411, there's really not much point is debating wsherif1.
In his mind, wake turbulence (or other forms of turbulance) is fully documented as causing failure of flight control surface PCAs, which leads to the uncontrolled flutter of control surfaces that break and bring down airplanes. The pilots are never at fault because they are helpless bystanders, and the NTSB and other government organizations have been covering it up for years, blaming it on other causes. End of story.
In his mind, wake turbulence (or other forms of turbulance) is fully documented as causing failure of flight control surface PCAs, which leads to the uncontrolled flutter of control surfaces that break and bring down airplanes. The pilots are never at fault because they are helpless bystanders, and the NTSB and other government organizations have been covering it up for years, blaming it on other causes. End of story.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety & 411A
Flight safety's comment,
"411, there's really not much point is debating wsherif1."
I have illustrated one occasion when this NTSB cover-up occurred. The United 585 accident over Colorado Springs, CO, where the NTSB removed the sworn statements of the ATC final controller, who described what actually happened. The NTSB recognized the facts and then removed them! You have the facts, from a previous submission. An NTSB cover-up?
I have offerred to forward a copy of the NTSB modified, TWA 800 FDR Chart, by Fax, for your information. (The offer continues.) However, you do not seem to be influenced by the facts, as opposed to the NTSB that does!
Flight safety's comment,
"411, there's really not much point is debating wsherif1."
I have illustrated one occasion when this NTSB cover-up occurred. The United 585 accident over Colorado Springs, CO, where the NTSB removed the sworn statements of the ATC final controller, who described what actually happened. The NTSB recognized the facts and then removed them! You have the facts, from a previous submission. An NTSB cover-up?
I have offerred to forward a copy of the NTSB modified, TWA 800 FDR Chart, by Fax, for your information. (The offer continues.) However, you do not seem to be influenced by the facts, as opposed to the NTSB that does!
Last edited by wsherif1; 11th Nov 2004 at 00:04.
The 'NTSB Wraps Up AA587' article in 'Aviation Week and Space T'. (Oct 25, 2004) is enlightening:
"One of those ultimate (rudder) load violations was on American's Flight 903 in May 1997 and the other was on an Interflug A310 in 1991. Other cases include an Air France Flight 825 incident in December 1999 on an A310 where limit load was exceeded."
"A key document, American says, is a June 19, 1997, Airbus internal memorandum stating that in Flight 903's 'rear fuselage, fin and empennage the ultimate design loads may have been exceeded'. This knowledge did not come to the NTSB or American until the document was revealed after the Flight 587 accident more than four years later".
There are similarities with the ATR-42 icing certification and the cover-up, which involved some ATR-42s in Europe. "The flight accident...and earlier incidents and accidents had made the problem known within ATR (AW&ST July 15, 1996, p.41)." Certain administrators in the ( US) FAA were, long before the crash at Roselawn, aware of problems with some European ATRs during icing conditions, involving aileron "snatch".
"An independent study requested as part of the NTSB Flight 587 investigation showed that at higher speeds, where pilots rarely use the pedals, the rudder of these two types is 3.2-10 times more sensitive (in terms of deflection per incremental force) than other transports.... An NTSB poll of Boeing, Douglas and Airbus histories showed that no other type had this history of fin overload".
"One of those ultimate (rudder) load violations was on American's Flight 903 in May 1997 and the other was on an Interflug A310 in 1991. Other cases include an Air France Flight 825 incident in December 1999 on an A310 where limit load was exceeded."
"A key document, American says, is a June 19, 1997, Airbus internal memorandum stating that in Flight 903's 'rear fuselage, fin and empennage the ultimate design loads may have been exceeded'. This knowledge did not come to the NTSB or American until the document was revealed after the Flight 587 accident more than four years later".
There are similarities with the ATR-42 icing certification and the cover-up, which involved some ATR-42s in Europe. "The flight accident...and earlier incidents and accidents had made the problem known within ATR (AW&ST July 15, 1996, p.41)." Certain administrators in the ( US) FAA were, long before the crash at Roselawn, aware of problems with some European ATRs during icing conditions, involving aileron "snatch".
"An independent study requested as part of the NTSB Flight 587 investigation showed that at higher speeds, where pilots rarely use the pedals, the rudder of these two types is 3.2-10 times more sensitive (in terms of deflection per incremental force) than other transports.... An NTSB poll of Boeing, Douglas and Airbus histories showed that no other type had this history of fin overload".
Last edited by Ignition Override; 13th Nov 2004 at 04:05.
IO,
While ATR, Airbus, DHC, EMB, BAe, SAAB etc are not manufactured in the USA, they fly around when US registered meeting US FAA certification and hold US certification to the US FARs.
The US FARs are not exactly the same as the JAR, DGAC, LBA, TC etc design rules, so to say loads that were allegedly exceeded in one state does not imply that they are exceeded under another certification basis.
Please remember that the A300 of AA587 was certified to US FARs, and held a US type certificate.
An important legal point, manufacturers manufacture aircraft, governments certify aircraft safe for public use, and issues the manufacturer with a certificate stating that aircraft type meets the government set design standards.
Likewise it has been mooted as "cost of doing business" in the media when a large US manufacturer has directed not to touch, replace, inspect some wiring as any disruption to the wiring may cause the insulation to come off.
This is where I see wsherif1 coming from, the government one hand has a charter to promote business, regulate business, and investigate business. At some point there will be a conflict, or a mistake made by government, government rarely admits fault, so who do the victims turn to ?
While ATR, Airbus, DHC, EMB, BAe, SAAB etc are not manufactured in the USA, they fly around when US registered meeting US FAA certification and hold US certification to the US FARs.
The US FARs are not exactly the same as the JAR, DGAC, LBA, TC etc design rules, so to say loads that were allegedly exceeded in one state does not imply that they are exceeded under another certification basis.
Please remember that the A300 of AA587 was certified to US FARs, and held a US type certificate.
An important legal point, manufacturers manufacture aircraft, governments certify aircraft safe for public use, and issues the manufacturer with a certificate stating that aircraft type meets the government set design standards.
Likewise it has been mooted as "cost of doing business" in the media when a large US manufacturer has directed not to touch, replace, inspect some wiring as any disruption to the wiring may cause the insulation to come off.
This is where I see wsherif1 coming from, the government one hand has a charter to promote business, regulate business, and investigate business. At some point there will be a conflict, or a mistake made by government, government rarely admits fault, so who do the victims turn to ?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: YVR
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still torn on this whole rudder overstress/brings the tail off thing. Perhaps it's partly that I'm not a big fan of Airbus, however - here is something to ponder.
http://www.atwonline.com/indexfull.cfm?newsid=4734
US National Transportation Safety Board in a letter to the DGAC has recommended that the French aviation regulator "review the options for modifying the A300-600 and the A310 to provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder inputs at high airspeeds,"
This action flows out of the Safety Board's investigation of the Nov. 12, 2001, crash of an American Airlines A300-600R that killed all 260 persons onboard as well as five people on the ground.
"excessive rudder pedal inputs by the first officer led to the separation of the vertical stabilizer and the crash of the aircraft, it also found that the A300-600 rudder design was a contributing factor to the catastrophe"
http://www.atwonline.com/indexfull.cfm?newsid=4734
US National Transportation Safety Board in a letter to the DGAC has recommended that the French aviation regulator "review the options for modifying the A300-600 and the A310 to provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder inputs at high airspeeds,"
This action flows out of the Safety Board's investigation of the Nov. 12, 2001, crash of an American Airlines A300-600R that killed all 260 persons onboard as well as five people on the ground.
"excessive rudder pedal inputs by the first officer led to the separation of the vertical stabilizer and the crash of the aircraft, it also found that the A300-600 rudder design was a contributing factor to the catastrophe"
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eidolon,
Your comment,
"This is where I see wsherif1 coming from, the government one hand has a charter to promote business, regulate business, and investigate business. At some point there will be a conflict, or a mistake made by government, government rarely admits fault!"
IN NTSB aircraft accident hearings, no one is allowed to speak except the NTSB Staff!
The NTSB is attempting to quell the facts which, they believe, might alarm the flying public. However, when the industry is misled as well, safety of flight is affected, and similar type accidents may be repeated! (And have been!)
Your comment,
"This is where I see wsherif1 coming from, the government one hand has a charter to promote business, regulate business, and investigate business. At some point there will be a conflict, or a mistake made by government, government rarely admits fault!"
IN NTSB aircraft accident hearings, no one is allowed to speak except the NTSB Staff!
The NTSB is attempting to quell the facts which, they believe, might alarm the flying public. However, when the industry is misled as well, safety of flight is affected, and similar type accidents may be repeated! (And have been!)
Last edited by wsherif1; 17th Nov 2004 at 06:04.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
delighted to see 411 is still managing to wind folks up -why rise to it guys?
If this incident involved a Boeing or DC aircraft which crashed after mishandling by a non-US crew, would the NTSB now be telling them to consider modifying their aircraft?
If this incident involved a Boeing or DC aircraft which crashed after mishandling by a non-US crew, would the NTSB now be telling them to consider modifying their aircraft?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
The NTSB Claims,
"excessive rudder pedal inputs by the first officer led to the separation of the vertical stabilizer and the crash of the aircraft, it also found that the A300-600 rudder design was a contributing factor to the catastrophe"
Forget the rudder!
No pilot would kick the rudder back and forth as recorded! No pilot could induce an 0.8 G force on the rudder and shear off both engines from their support structures, through pilot control inputs alone!
However, a 200 mph rotating vortices striking the 27' tall vertical stabilizer, BROADSIDE can! (NASA says that the rotating forces in an aircraft wake vortex can reach 300'/sec., a virtual horizontal tornado!)
The 0.8 G force striking the vertical stabilizer broadside, induced an instantaneous YAW maneuver, which sheared off both engines from the structure, through the forces of INERTIA! The 0.8 G force striking the vertical stabilizer broadside, sheared it off and induced an abrupt "Dutch Roll" into the ground!
The large flat plate surface area of the vertical stabilizer and rudder, become an additional flight control surface, when struck broadside by the clockwise rotating vortices of the Heavy B 747,s
vortex.
The engineers, not aware of the possibility of Broadside strikes on the tail surfaces, have inadvertantly designed a large and a very effective, "Weather Vane"!
However, this is the first accident, of this type, in 100 years of flight! (A perfect formation join-up on the center of a horizontal tornado!)
The NTSB Claims,
"excessive rudder pedal inputs by the first officer led to the separation of the vertical stabilizer and the crash of the aircraft, it also found that the A300-600 rudder design was a contributing factor to the catastrophe"
Forget the rudder!
No pilot would kick the rudder back and forth as recorded! No pilot could induce an 0.8 G force on the rudder and shear off both engines from their support structures, through pilot control inputs alone!
However, a 200 mph rotating vortices striking the 27' tall vertical stabilizer, BROADSIDE can! (NASA says that the rotating forces in an aircraft wake vortex can reach 300'/sec., a virtual horizontal tornado!)
The 0.8 G force striking the vertical stabilizer broadside, induced an instantaneous YAW maneuver, which sheared off both engines from the structure, through the forces of INERTIA! The 0.8 G force striking the vertical stabilizer broadside, sheared it off and induced an abrupt "Dutch Roll" into the ground!
The large flat plate surface area of the vertical stabilizer and rudder, become an additional flight control surface, when struck broadside by the clockwise rotating vortices of the Heavy B 747,s
vortex.
The engineers, not aware of the possibility of Broadside strikes on the tail surfaces, have inadvertantly designed a large and a very effective, "Weather Vane"!
However, this is the first accident, of this type, in 100 years of flight! (A perfect formation join-up on the center of a horizontal tornado!)
No pilot would kick the rudder back and forth as recorded! No pilot could induce an 0.8 G force on the rudder and shear off both engines from their support structures, through pilot control inputs alone!
If you have new facts then introduce them, but rehashing the same old opinions over and over in this thread shed no new light on the subject.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo,
Your comment,
If you have new facts then introduce them.
These are not new facts as they have been present from the beginning of the investigation, but no one has paid much attention to them.
I am referring to the final position of the two engines as illustrated by the debris graphics. Actually the graphics of the engine positions show that the right engine was on the left side of the aircraft's track and the left engine was to the right of the track!
The large inertia force of the instantaneous left Yaw maneuver would toss the right engine to the left of the aircraft's track and the left engine to the right of the track!
As reported, the aircraft was turning at a rate of 10 degrees per second into a dive angle of 30 degrees!
Your comment,
If you have new facts then introduce them.
These are not new facts as they have been present from the beginning of the investigation, but no one has paid much attention to them.
I am referring to the final position of the two engines as illustrated by the debris graphics. Actually the graphics of the engine positions show that the right engine was on the left side of the aircraft's track and the left engine was to the right of the track!
The large inertia force of the instantaneous left Yaw maneuver would toss the right engine to the left of the aircraft's track and the left engine to the right of the track!
As reported, the aircraft was turning at a rate of 10 degrees per second into a dive angle of 30 degrees!
What about those other reported incidents on the A310/300 at American, (German) Interflug and Air France?
First of all, this data was apparently unknown except between Airbus Inc,. Air France and Interflug, but not American.
And if those rudder incidents were NOT caused by their pilots, caused by strong, opposite rudder "kicks" as alleged onboard AA flight 587, THEN, what is the common denominator here? Strange coiincidence (merkwurdiger Zufall?) that it involved German and French airlines, but maybe this was another problem which our "friends" at the (US) FAA did not want any US airlines to read about, as with the ATR-42's "aileron snatch".
Were there any problems with A-310/300 rudder overstresses at South American, Asian/Pac Rim, or African airlines which are unknown outside their maintenance departments (but shared with Airbus)?
This is not an attempt to put down Airbus. I would like to "fly" the A-319/320 one day, but with much more seniority. Really enjoyed visiting the Fedex 300 'front office' during a jumpseat ride years ago, and was impressed with the layout. I'm also well aware of the questions about the B-737 (200) rudder systems.
First of all, this data was apparently unknown except between Airbus Inc,. Air France and Interflug, but not American.
And if those rudder incidents were NOT caused by their pilots, caused by strong, opposite rudder "kicks" as alleged onboard AA flight 587, THEN, what is the common denominator here? Strange coiincidence (merkwurdiger Zufall?) that it involved German and French airlines, but maybe this was another problem which our "friends" at the (US) FAA did not want any US airlines to read about, as with the ATR-42's "aileron snatch".
Were there any problems with A-310/300 rudder overstresses at South American, Asian/Pac Rim, or African airlines which are unknown outside their maintenance departments (but shared with Airbus)?
This is not an attempt to put down Airbus. I would like to "fly" the A-319/320 one day, but with much more seniority. Really enjoyed visiting the Fedex 300 'front office' during a jumpseat ride years ago, and was impressed with the layout. I'm also well aware of the questions about the B-737 (200) rudder systems.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would one of you geniuses like to tell me how vortices that trail off an airplane and head straight for the ground engaged this aircraft? The A300 would have been so high in the air over the 747’s flight path in front of it that it would never have seen the air coming from its wings.