McGinty,

That's one of the wingtip "winglets".

broadreach

I'm surprised that no-one has brought up the case of the Dan Air 707F in Lusaka where the vertical stabiliser also separated. I recall that was due to fatigue damage and resulted in ADs and eventually in the USAF buying a large proportion of the world's civil 707 fleet for their fins to extend the lives of their 135 fleets.

Danny,
Please put this one also to bed!!
The 'experts' had a good go at it already. There is so much bull$... being thrown around. :rolleyes: :mad:

EI EI O.......

Don't know how accurate this is....but I heard a so called "expert" in the know claim that that one engine had 10,000 operating hours, while the other had 640. He then went onto say that he would have "trusted the older one more"??????? !!!!!!!!

DON'T ASK!

(On UK telly this morning, however I don't know what channel it was, sorry)

Terrible terrible events whatever the circs!

Kind regards to all,
C.N

Guv - wasn't the Dan Air 707 a Horiz Stab?

A tragic accident, regardless of the circumstances behind it. The following item really tore me up:

"According to police, the bodies included a man found holding a baby."

My wife and two young sons just flew to Baltimore on Saturday...

My thoughts and prayers go out to all the families and friends of the souls lost aboard the plane and on the ground.

M2

EI EI O: The following is taken from CNN today but credited as from Airbus and 'aircraftmuseum.com'. However, the 'wire' diagram that was displayed showed an A300 without winglets.

Tail Number: N14053
Owner: Wilmington Trust Company as Trustee
Leased by: American Airlines
Initial service date: July 12 1988
Passenger capacity: 266
Cockpit crew: 2

Maintenance dates:
November 11 2001 - A check
October 3 2001 - B check
December 9 1999 - D check
Next scheduled D - July 2002

Engines: GE CF6-80C-2A5
Left engine - 694 hrs since last overhaul
Right engine - 9.788 hrs since last overhaul

[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: PAXboy ]

This thread is reminiscent of a car accident when crowds gather around to "Ooh, and ahhh...isn't it shocking." Some of the posters obviously have NO aviation experience, yet insist om making [b]stupid[b] and ludicrously innacurate statements, thus cluttering what started out as an informative posting.

Would the "idiots" please DESIST!

Regarding brainfade`s question about the vertical fin structure: Yes, it is made of CFC (Carbon Fibre Composite).
In the news there have also been suggestions that the pilots tried to dump fuel. There is no fuel dump function on the A300-600, it is not necessary, you can land at any weight.

>>Don't know how accurate this is....but I heard a so called "expert" in the know claim that that one engine had 10,000 operating hours, while the other had 640. He then went onto say that he would have "trusted the older one more"??????? !!!!!!!!<<

I remember early in my career an oldtimer told me "Son, there's two things I don't trust. One's old airplanes. The other is new airplanes..." Good advice.

Best talking head comments, not: 1-"Engine was due it's $10,000 check". 2- "Suprising that the fireball was contained so quickly as there was 100,000 gallons of fuel on the A-300."

I asked How many hours since the "A" check?

Facts please or pull the Fire Handles on this one as well!

The NTSB reports no bird or foreign object damage to either engine, and no obvious sign of catastrophic engine failure in either engine. The vertical stabilizer was found one half mile east of the fuselage. The rudder was also found today in Jamaica Bay, and the flight data recorder recovered as well and flown to Washington for analysis. Both engines separated from the aircraft before impact.

From the Cockpit Voice Recorder as reported by the NTSB:

107 seconds after takeoff roll: airframe rattle sound.

114 seconds: pilot remark of 'wake encounter'. (Apparently in reference to a Japan Airlines 747 8 miles ahead.)

121 seconds: airframe rattle sound.

125 seconds: call for "maximum power"

127 seconds: a remark about 'losing control'

144 seconds: end of recording.

Speculation is now turning to thinking that the vertical stabilizer separated first from the fuselage. If indeed such separation was the proximate cause of the accident, what caused this to happen is unknown.

In my post above on the radar trace (assuming the radar trace values are accurate), both the rate of climb and the acceleration in speed seems to be more consistent with normally functioning engines than what might be expected if an engine had experienced a major failure. However, a company pilot on the ground at JFK is reported as supposedly saying he saw smoke from one of the engines as the airplane took off.

In any event, the flight data recorder should provide some answers very soon. As Air Force One has these engines, I am certain that both the Air Force and the Secret Service want answers quickly.

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]

"I think you'll find the FDR is located on most modern aircraft behind the pressure bulkhead, never yet seen one on the vertical fin, but am willing to accept that some may have it there"

Don't you mean in front of the rear pressure bulkhead? If behind the bulkhead or on the top of the tail, then an Airbus is indeed a strange bird... and nothing like any of the Boeings and MD's I've worked on (and changed DFDR's or CVR's on). I am more inclined to believe that these boxes will be warm and cosy somewhere inside a pressurized area.

If you need to know exactly where it is, post this question on the Tech Log or Engineers forums on this site ;)

Q.

A question from someone who admittedly knows little on these matters: What would be the result if the rudder suddenly and unexpectly deflected to it's maximum deflection during a fairly steep climb? Could this (and perhaps the pilot's efforts to correct) have overstressed the stablizer and torn it off?

Quite right, Level 1 or better, it indeed was the horiz stab on the B707 (port side actually, forward attach fitting))and it separated when the flaps were selected to 50...and resulted in an FAA (and CAA) airworthiness directive in short order.

EI-EI-O,

Last 'A' check was the day before.

jugofpropwash
I regard it as unlikely that the vertical fin would be overstressed during that phase of flight. Bare in mind the inertia of the mass, with exception of a running engine of course is not high enough to cause anything to go beyond it's design stress limit. In addition, the actual point of failure is at 150% of design.

The news this morning mentioned an unidentifiable clicking sound for a short period of time twice before any reaction of the crew was noted. Any A300 driver out thee able to shed some light on the sound?

And on the byby folks, this forum is for professionals of this industry, what ever their opinions or believes, to discuss and speculate about such events. Should anyone feel the need for hard facts and noting else consult www.faa.gov or www.ntsb.gov.

Vertical stabiliser separates due wake turbulence encounter and perhaps other factors..(maintenance?) causing loss of directional control. Aircraft enters stall/spin and sheds engines due to high rotational forces.

Speculation? Yes. But possible and fits the facts as they are reported.

Short of little green man from Mars attacking, everything is possible." :D :rolleyes:

Qavion,
You are quite right, the FDR and CVR are located in the Aft accesory compartment, just in front of the bulkhead.
If the fin, for one reason or another, departed the a/c first, I seriously doubt that it would have had such serious implications so fast, and it certainly wouldn´t have caused any engine to "eject" either. It sould be quite easy to determine anyway, it, the V.Stab, is attachted with 6 rather large "pins" 2 in front and 4 aft. I don´t think that it poses any difficulty to examine and establish weather or not it was propperly attached before takeoff.
On the other hand, the fuel found in Jamacia bay would indicate a large fuel leak, and taking into account the maintenance history, it might be plausible the a incorectly installed, or faulty, LP fuel filter leaked, filled up the cowlings and at one point exploded. I´m not an expert, but I have experinced something similar on a CF6-50.
Brgds
Doc

My heart goes out to all those who've lost family and friends in this accident.

As a follow up to an earlier post, does anyone out there know anything about the KQ A310 that went down off Abidjan in Jan 2000? I can find no follow up anywhere almost two years later.

At the 121 seconds after Take-Off did buffetting occur?
As a collegue earlier stated, rupture of the vertical stab is not very likely due to large manual deflections, but what in a case of an actuator-runaway or rupture of the aft-bulkhead (referring to an earlier accident of a JAL 747, this will result in a clean rip-off of the tail..)
The first does not explain engine-involvement, but what if the engine exploded without containment, and debris of that explosion hit the tail of the aircraft just in front of the aft bulkhead, and damaging this bulkhead??

Clearly a large flock of birds -as media state- does not seem to me a cause to this....

My condolances go out to the people involved.

D

In reffernce to Kenya airways last year I got following link I hope it works, not much info though.
Airline Disaster

Middle Marker - I think you will find that in the case of the JAL 747 the aircraft was pressurised and the cabin air then vented through the ruptured rear bulkhead in to the fin. As the fin was not vented it came apart. Subsequent modifications should now prevent this happening. In the case of this A300 I doubt it was sufficiently pressurised after only three minutes of flight to have a significant effect, apart from which, going by the photos', the fin is relatively undamaged. My opinion only.

I found this information on the Airwise web site:

14-Nov-2001 12:56 AM U.S. EST


As work continued into the night on reading the plane's flight data recorder, investigators late Tuesday revealed several new clues about the crash of American Airlines Flight 587, but the information merely deepened the mystery of what caused the accident.


With both of the Airbus A300-600's engines and its vertical stabilizer coming down before the rest of the airplane, early accident-related speculation was on a catastrophic engine failure that triggered collateral structural damage. But investigators have found nothing that backs such a scenario, and the near-pristine condition of the tail pieces indicates that something besides debris caused them to separate from the plane.

Visual inspection of the plane's two engines showed "no physical evidence" of an engine or fan failure, U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Investigator-In-Charge George Black told reporters in the first of two briefings held late Tuesday. Black also confirmed what AviationNow.com reported several hours before the briefing: neither of the General Electric CF6-80C2 engines showed evidence of a bird strike.


"We will have to await tear-down to completely analyze the condition of the engines and any part they might have played in the accident," Black cautioned, adding that both engines will go to American's Tulsa, Okla., maintenance base for disassembly.


While an engine failure seems less remote based on the lack of evidence, other facts clearly indicate that something went suddenly and terribly wrong shortly after Flight 587 left Runway 31 Left at John F. Kennedy Airport Monday morning. All 251 passengers and nine crewmembers were killed when the jet plunged into a residential waterside area of Queens, New York.


In perhaps the most perplexing development Tuesday, the A300-600's vertical stabilizer and rudder were pulled from Jamaica Bay -- about a half-mile from the main debris site -- and both pieces "appear to be complete," Black said. Television images of the tail showed no marks, holes, or other structural damage that would indicate that the tail was knocked off by debris -- such as from a disintegrating engine.


Relying on what Black described as a "second quick look" at the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) tape recovered hours after the accident, investigators have determined the first part of the flight was "normal."


About three minutes into the flight -- or 107 seconds after power was applied to start the A300-600's takeoff roll -- an "airframe rattling noise" was captured on the tape, Black said.


Seven seconds later, one of the pilots mentioned a "wake encounter," but there was no further discussion, Black said.


At 121 seconds, a second rattling sound is heard.


Four seconds later, the first officer called for maximum power to the plane's engines. This could indicate several things, such as setting up engine thrust to help steer the plane -- an option to compensate for a lack of rudder control -- or an effort to climb in preparation for an emergency return to JFK.


At 127 seconds, one of the pilots indicated that control of the plane has been lost.


The recording stopped 144 seconds after takeoff power was first applied.


The vertical stabilizer and rudder were pulled from Jamaica Bay Tuesday, and both of them "appear to be complete," Black said. Television images of the tail showed no marks, holes, or other structural damage that would indicate that the tail was knocked off by debris -- such as from a disintegrating engine.


The CVR information alone doesn't reveal when Flight 587 took off or how long it stayed airborne, Black said. The CVR information will be merged with data from the FDR, air traffic control radar tapes, and other sources to develop a detailed look at the plane's flight profile.


The rattling noises captured on the CVR will surely get significant scrutiny from investigators. Black, who was relaying information from other investigators and has not listed to the tape, could not provide details on the noises.


Aside from the two rattling sounds, Black did not indicate that other unusual noises were captured by the CVR. In the past, onboard explosions -- such as what would occur due to an uncontained engine failure, fuel tank ignition, or bomb detonation -- have often been picked up on recorders.


"Not only are words important on a tape, but sounds are important," Black said.


While no sounds pointing to explosions have been picked up from the CVR analysis sessions, Black said investigators noted "noises" on an air traffic control tower tape of communications between controllers and Flight 587. The noises -- which Black did not describe in detail -- were heard at about the time crew lost control. He did not say what the sounds indicated.


Detailed analysis of the tapes and coordinated timeline of the events will help shed more light on how the clues fit together, Black said. Transcription of the CVR is slated to begin Wednesday, with participation of representatives from France's Bureau Enquêtes-Accidents as well as Airbus.


Flight 587 took off about two minutes and twenty seconds behind a Japan Airlines 747-400, Black said. While investigators will examine that fact in connection with the Flight 587 crew's reference to wake turbulence, Black noted that the separation between the two jets exceeded the two-minute requirement.


Evidence from eyewitnesses has provided some insight on Flight 587's final moments, Black said. Members of two airline crews that witnessed at least part of the American Airlines jet's final flight have been interviewed, and each pilot tells roughly the same story, Black said. Each pilot recounted that Flight 587 "wobbled," spiraled out of control, and went down at a severe nose-first angle, Black said.


Black said a construction worker shot video of Flight 587's takeoff roll, but turned his camera away as the A300-600's gear was retracting. Black did not indicate that the tape showed anything amiss with the plane during the departure, but investigators are hoping to talk with witnesses -- including airline crews -- that were on the ground as Flight 587 taxied out and took off.


Investigators have not determined if any debris was on the runway when Flight 587 took off, but Black said the board hopes to have more definitive information in the coming days.


All major parts of the plane have been recovered, Black said. The vertical stabilizer and rudder were pulled from Jamaica Bay. The rest of the plane, including both engines, came to rest on land.


Flight 587 took off to the northwest and investigators believe it completed about half a turn and was heading southeast when it began to break up. Black said the Airbus stopped sending transponder signals at an altitude of about 3,000 feet, indicating that something -- such as a major structural failure -- cut the unit's power. "Primary" target returns -- indicating aircraft or large pieces of debris without working transponders -- began at that point, Black said.


Tracing the plane's assumed flight path, the vertical stabilizer was the first piece of debris found, followed by the rudder about 200 yards further down the flight path. Both pieces were in the water, about half a mile from the main crash crater.


The plane's No. 1 engine ended up in a gas station parking lot about 700 feet from the crater, while the No. 2 engine came down in about 800 feet from the main crater. All of the debris is "more or less in a line," Black said.


A sweep of a 16-block area around the crash site turned up one additional piece of wreckage, and a helicopter flight over the area indicated that no major pieces remained in the shallow bay waters. Divers made 15 trips into the bay Tuesday and found nothing substantial, Black said.


Examination of the wreckage showed that the plane's flaps were retracted, which would be expected during a climb-out. The horizontal stabilizer jackscrew was in the neutral position, while the rudder trim actuator indicated a 10-degrees left displacement.


Black also released information on Flight 587's two pilots. The captain was a 16-year veteran of American and had 8,050 total flight hours, including 1,723 as the left-seat occupant on an Airbus A300-600. The first officer joined American in 1991 and had 4,400 total flight hours, including 1,835 as an A300-600 first officer.


Tuesday's progress meetings, attended by more than 100 investigators, included updates from most of the subgroups tasked with probing specific aspects of the accident. Progress reports from the maintenance, human factors, flight data recorder, and cockpit voice recorder groups are expected in the next day or two.


The maintenance group has been sent to Tulsa to review the A300-600's records, while the two recorder groups were working to extract detailed information from the plane's CVR and FDR.

:(

Re: the Kenya Airways A310 that crashed off Abidjan( Ivory Coast).
I believe the accident investigation was to be done by the Canadians. Their accident investigation website can be found on the following URL: www.tsb.gc.ca/ENG/

I have just checked the website and their is no reference there yet to the accident.

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: Capt Chambo ]

While drawn to 'Cutest of Borgs' hypothesis, I have to ask whether a half mile difference between wear the engines landed and where the fin landed 'proves' anything about the order of the 'break up'?

Engines will follow a fairly predictable ballistic path, based largely on momentum and gravity whereas a tailfin could 'fly' or 'sycamore leaf' down. I'm inclined to believe that the aircraft broke up after it lost control, rather than before - but then that's speculation, too.

Additional details (from today's Washington Post) which hint at a possible composite failure in the tail section.

"One piece of evidence raises the likelihood that the crew thought the right engine had lost power: The rudder trim setting was found in the crash at a hefty 10 degrees to the left, indicating the crew was using
the long, flat, movable panel at the end of the vertical tail fin to compensate.

"Yet the left engine appears to have torn off first. And some investigators are beginning to suspect that the vertical tail fin and rudder -- found back along the flight path in Jamaica Bay -- actually left the plane before the engines did.

"Investigators found that the fin's attachment points were intact, and that the failure seemed to lie at the base of the fin, which is made up of composite materials. Manufacturers have described the composites as stronger than metal, and the failure raises the possibility that the composites have been overrated."

Jamaica Bay has been searched along the flight path. Visibility in the water is reported as being very good, e.g., tyres can be seen on the bottom, and no other parts of the plane have been spotted there.

I just read this morning's Washington Post article as well. Looks to me like perhaps a rudder trim runaway just after liftoff. The yaw may have been the reason for an engine failure call and then a vertical stab separation.

Oh dear! Yet more speculation! Have you informed the NTSB of your findings Airbubba?
Perhaps the noise and rattles heard on the CVR 127 seconds after takeoff will support your theory - then again perhaps they won't.

I just can't see how a rudder trim runaway, or rudder hardover could cause it to fall off! The aircraft had just got airborne, therefore I doubt the airspeed could have been high enough for this to happen. If it was in the criuse then maybe....

The CVR tape did not indicate that the crew thought that they had an engine failure. It talks of "Wake" and "Losing control" but no engine failure/fire call!! Perhaps this has just not been released yet. There was also no talk of any Warning noises on the flight deck. ECAM or whatever they have. I think it is strange that this has been ommited from the tape, and that no comment was made as to the nature of the problem. The only call seems to be, as I said, of losing control.

However it was just a preliminary report of the tape. I am sure we will find out more in the coming days.

Also, as someone else mentioned,the aircraft would not have sufficient pressure to blow the tail off!
This just gets stranger as the days go on!!
Eff Oh

Here's one where the fin went AWOL first, followed by all the engines...

BOAC 911

Pretty violent turbulence, could a fin really get ripped off by a departing heavy's wake vortices?

Perhaps off topic, but has anyone heard from Wino?

I agree with Mr. Kahn that the fuselage could not be sufficient pressurized at 2800ft to blow the tail of as happenend with the JAL-aircraft...
The sounds might indicate the rupturing of the vertical stab, considering as of that moment no control could be regained.
Fatigue of the materials then?

I disagree with the possibility of wake-turbulence, for 2 minutes behind a departing aircraft won't lead to such an excess in damage...it would be more probable behind an aircraft in landing config, but that's not the point....

Strange situation....somebody blamed martians...may-be??

Cheerz
D

It might be worth putting this on your "favorites" page. http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm

On television this morning, George Black of the NTSB said that the fracture of the vertical stabilizer appeared to be consistent with what might be seen as the result of a side load gust. The television showed close-up video of the stab being hoisted onto the dock and it did appear the fracture was on the left side (the side not visible in the page one photo) in a composite area (the bottom edge of the stab looked rather jagged). A meterials expert is to study the stabilizer in detail today.

The JAL 747 has been reported as being 7 to 8 miles ahead of AA 587. A preliminary analysis indicates that AA 587 was flying within the wake zone of the 747.

The flight data recorder was sufficiently damaged that it is being sent to the manufacturer for readout.

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: SaturnV ]

slim_slag, I remembered reading about BOAC Flt 911 (G-APFE), just re-read it again (Air Disaster Vol.1 Chapter 5, by Macarthur Job).

It states: "The tail fin had fractured at its attachments to the fuselage, the starboard rear attachment fitting having failed at its upper bolt holes in tension....All engine mounting pylons were fractured at their wing mounting points as a result of a predominantly leftward roll (after the separation of the vert. stabiliser)."

All very interesting, I guess we’ll have to wait for the NTSB to complete its investigation to find out the complete chain of events.

I've never flown the A-300 but is seem to recall reading about the take-off being mostly under the control of the autopilots 7 (?) computers. Idf so, could this be a factor?

Also, I understand the side "joystick" has no feel or feedback. Is this a possible factor?

Most of my time is in the Boeings.

Whenever I buy cigarettes in a small corner shop, walk down the street, cash a cheque at a bank or, hopefully, check in for a flight the video cameras record the event – just in case. Why does this not happen for the expensive and relatively dangerous events of planes taking off and landing? It would surely cut down speculation, help investigators and thus it could help to reduce future risks. Any airport managers have a comment, apart from cost?