Sign in to follow this  
Cactus521

Is aviation sabotage a real threat?

Recommended Posts

This article refers to an incident at Meacham Airport, Ft. Worth. I first became aware of this incident last year when it occurred. An Air Traffic Controller friend of mine at Meacham had told me the story, and pointed me to the news article in the Star Telegram, of Dallas-Fort Worth.http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/3568909.htmThis interesting read http://usread.com/Aviation/Sabotage.htmldiscusses these facts, and poises the conjecture that based on our current unregulated, unmonitored system of Aviation Maintenance, it may be time for a heightened awareness of just who is maintaining our Civil Air Fleet.Make your own opinions.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Sounds goofy. Particularly the 40 Airbuses with rotated bolts. That is far too large a number of planes to be a conspiracy. It/s not like a mechanic can just get up on a tail and start loosening bolts without drawing some attention to himself.

Share this post


Link to post

>>...............based on our current unregulated, unmonitored system of Aviation Maintenance,.............Unregulated? Unmonitored? You have got to be kidding....

Share this post


Link to post

No I'm not kidding. There is a large contingency workforce of folks from other lands, who are willing to work for less. They are brought into this country to do the maint. at costs far lower than the US workforce. They have underlying issues with certifications, with visas, with a lot of topics.Unregulated, Unmonitored...yes.Cheers,bt

Share this post


Link to post

>No I'm not kidding. There is a large contingency workforce >of folks from other lands, who are willing to work for less. > They are brought into this country to do the maint. at >costs far lower than the US workforce. They have underlying >issues with certifications, with visas, with a lot of >topics. >>Unregulated, Unmonitored...yes. >>Cheers, >>bt Do you have alot of those guys at the airline you work at?

Share this post


Link to post

>No I'm not kidding. There is a large contingency workforce >of folks from other lands, who are willing to work for less. > They are brought into this country to do the maint. at >costs far lower than the US workforce. They have underlying >issues with certifications, with visas, with a lot of >topics. >>Unregulated, Unmonitored...yes. >>Cheers, >>bt What airline or repair facility is recruiting personnel overseas and bringing them to the U.S. to work?

Share this post


Link to post

Try the one in the story for one example. B1900 also has spoken to these issues I believe in this very forum. Cheers,bt

Share this post


Link to post

>Try the one in the story for one example. B1900 also has >spoken to these issues I believe in this very forum. >>Cheers, >>bt I reread the article and couldn/t find where it said that Spirit recruited mechanics from overseas and brought them here to work on U.S. aircraft. I did see where it said that Spirit had hired mechanics that had come from overseas though. There is a difference.If you want to get upset about foreign nationals working on our transports, look at the trend towards having heavy checks farmed out to overseas vendors. Northwest is big into that these days. They are doing their heavy checks in Singapore. You see it is much cheaper to fly the plane there than to import workers, send them to school for 2 years and then hire them, particularly when it is more than likely that they will be hiring in at a fixed, union set, scale. BTW, I have heard of 2 other episodes of tampering with aircraft. Both times it was one guy who was upset with the company.

Share this post


Link to post

Since I started this thread, perhaps I'll close it. Interesting comments, my only addition would be a clarification.When I say be aware of the workforce, I mean everyone. White, Black, Red, Yellow, Brown...American, Canadian, Mexican, British, on and on and on.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post

Braun,I don't think the media are that well known for telling the 'facts' or dare I say it, the 'truth', more so since 9/11. The articles are full of conjecture and half truths. Take the tragic A300 crash in NY. This was due to the vertical fin being overstressed, due to the rudder rapidly moving its full travel from one side to the other. What is not known is if it was mechanical failure or the pilot's input that caused the rudder movement and subsequent overstress. The vertical fin in an aircraft is not designed nor certified to take that sort of stress. In fact if the media investigated properly, it would have found that certain aircraft manufacturers subsequently issued notices stating that under certain circumstances it is possible to overstress the vertical fin on their aircraft.The part about the 'bolts' is a red herring. If, after a serious accident/incident there is a 'possibility', no matter how remote that possibility maybe, that a certain component could be at fault, then the regulatory authority may issue a notice asking for these components to be inspected asap. For the media to suggest that there is a link between the A300 and possible sabotage, without looking at the facts, is an insult to the victims of that accident. It takes the spotlight away from the real reasons for the accident.Its about time that the US media concentrated on WHY the attacks of 9/11 could have happened, then maybe, just maybe the world will learn something. 'Aiming' their targets on non-us citizens hinges on racisim, and achieves absolutely nothing - IMHO.Darren

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Darren...every comment, save one, you have made is opinion, and that is understandable. No one knows the real cause of the AA587 crash. Not you. Not the NTSB. Not the FAA. Not I.I would question your one comment:The articles are full of conjecture and half truths. Take the tragic A300 crash in NY. This was due to the vertical fin being overstressed, due to the rudder rapidly moving its full travel from one side to the other. What is not known is if it was mechanical failure or the pilot's input that caused the rudder movement and subsequent overstress. You are guilty of the same conjecture and speculation that you state the media are culpable in. I say to you, there is no "truth" in your statement above other than it is your opinion. To state it otherwise, and to present it as fact as you do does a great disservice to aviation, and the search for truth concerning this tragic crash.Since I started this thread, I would like to comment about "non-US Citizens". In 1963, my family and I immigrated to the US from Canada. Prior to that we had lived in Great Britain. Three great counties. Three great democracies. In those days, living here as a guest was a privilege, not a right. Along with those privileges came responsibilities, including reporting into the US govt. concerning your whereabouts, your employment, your legal status, etc. We accepted this gladly. We understood. We knew that once we earned our citizenship, those burdens would be lifted. That is not the way things are handled now. Our borders are open. Our govt. does not track guest citizens. There is no accountability. This is the thrust of my comments when I started this thread, and that is the message I get from the articles you call into question.IMHOBest,bt

Share this post


Link to post

Braun,Thanks for the replyMy statement on the A300 crash is not my opinion, (in hindsight maybe badly worded). We have had documents at work about it and if you visit the NTSB site, the information is there to see. (I cannot find any mention of possible sabotage) Here is a link on a safety recommendation that had been issued directly as a result of the A300 crashhttp://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2002/A02_01_02.pdfThe point I was trying to make (badly) was that the media across the world, even here in the UK, are failing to report all of the facts. They have been very selective of what they publish, to the point of scaremongering. Best RegardsDarren

Share this post


Link to post

Darren...Thank YOU for the reply.A bit of clarification on my one point. I do not dispute the tail separated from the Aircraft. I DO dispute the statement that that was the cause of the crash. It could have been. What if it was a symptom of events that caused the crash? Some other thoughts on that:http://usread.com/flight587/rudder_timelin...r_timeline.htmlAlso, the current thrust of the NTSB is the rudder movements were Pilot induced. There are MANY that disagree witht that. I'll provide just one example:http://www.airdisaster.com/news/0202/11/news.shtmlMany more can be found at:www.pprune.orgCheers!bt

Share this post


Link to post

Braun,I think I have taken this thread a bit off topic with regard to the A300 crash. I tried and failed to show how the media does not give us the full story. (In the article there was no mention about the investigation into the rudder reversal).We could both discuss this all day long, but it would be better over a beer or two. Best RegardsDarren

Share this post


Link to post

Daren: I agree that we could discuss it until the proverbial or virtual cows come home! :)As to your self-perceived failure to show the angle of media...don't get me started there!!! I will say this, in full support of your statements: "When news becomes business, in the absence of news, news must be madeBest always,bt

Share this post


Link to post

>Darren...Thank YOU for the reply. >>A bit of clarification on my one point. I do not dispute >the tail separated from the Aircraft. I DO dispute the >statement that that was the cause of the crash. It could >have been. What if it was a symptom of events that >caused the crash? Some other thoughts on that: >>http://usread.com/flight587/rudder_timelin...r_timeline.html >>Also, the current thrust of the NTSB is the rudder movements >were Pilot induced. There are MANY that disagree witht >that. I'll provide just one example: >>http://www.airdisaster.com/news/0202/11/news.shtml >>Many more can be found at: >>www.pprune.org >>Cheers! >>bt That usread article was interesting.Hmmm.... The rudder was moving? Go figure. Was the yaw damper on? The pilots usually fly with their feet on the floor? I have never seen ANY pilot fly ANY plane with their feet on the floor during the takeoff/climb segment. Now after cruise with AP on, that is another story. I/ve seen them balance their checkbooks. Ever see a pilot/s checkbook? Sheesh..... BTW, a while back the airline I work for had a fatal accident.I knew the crew and was familiar with the accident aircraft and the particulars of the investigation. I watched the news and was astounded at just how incredibly innaccurate the reports were. Just freaking terrible.Unfortunatly, the average layman out there watching the news had no clue that they were being fed BS because they didn/t know any better. Ever since then I have taken all media written plane crash reports with a HUGE grain of salt, because frankly, the people that really know what they are talking about are involved with the investigation and not reporting on it.

Share this post


Link to post

The pilots usually fly with their feet on the floor? I have never seen ANY pilot fly ANY plane with their feet on the floor during the takeoff/climb segment. Now after cruise with AP on, that is another story.Ya' know, my best bud in the Air Force, was a tanker pilot. He used to tell me you lay off the rudder. That is another reason, that I don

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know anything about whether the bolts were sabotaged, or whether it was shot down, or whether it had collided with a ship from the star Vega, but I do know from driving turbine propelled winged aluminum tubes for the last couple of years that neither I nor anybody I've shared the cockpit will ever leave our feet off the pedals when we're actually hand driving the thing.

Share this post


Link to post

>>"Think about it folks. In the space of 103 seconds, the engines, and the rudder came off that Aircraft. And if the bolts did not do it, you tell me what did. >>Fate or human intervention, those bolts came off. The >multiple "shaking noises" are the plane coming apart at the >seams. Bit by bit. >Check out the pictures of the attachment bolts.http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/tailcomp.htmThey are intact and you can clearly see that they are still safetied. The bolts didn/t come off anything. The areas around the attachment lugs failed.

Share this post


Link to post

And if the bolts did not do it, you tell >me what did. I doubt anybody knows the cause of the wreck yet and maybe we will never know for sure. But if you want , I will be totally irresponsible and take a wild ##### guess. I am guessing that a rudder control component failed and commanded the rudder to swing violently back and forth until the vertical stab failed. Once that happened and directional control was lost the plane was doomed.I think this is plausible because:1. There was a failure of a control component prior to the accident flight. The mechanic fixed it by rebooting the computer. Unfortunatly I can/t remember exactly what that component was but I believe it may have been an AP/YD computer.I don/t believe that pilot input was responsible for the magnitude of the rudder swings. Additionally we know that other A300s have had histories of uncommanded flight control movements. Some of these incidents were induced by improper maintenance and some weren/t.2. The vertical stab may have been weaker than it should have been, causing a failure. Possibly even at forces below design loads. We know that it had a defect that was found and repaired at the factory prior to delivery. You can see this repair in the post crash pictures.The vert stab fractured nicely right along one of it/s edges. The plane also had a previous severe turbulence encounter. The stab was visually inspected after that encounter with no defects noted. However we have to remember that composite structures are a relatively new technology and we may not yet know all of their possible failure modes and what can premeditate them. Once the stab/rudder was lost I would have been shocked if the engines stayed with the plane. They and the pylons aren/t designed to handle massive aerodynamic side loads like those that would have been created.

Share this post


Link to post

They are intact and you can clearly see that they are still safetied. The bolts didn/t come off anything. The areas around the attachment lugs failed.Point well made and appreciated. There is still the question about the engines, and the greater question of how an ATP class aircraft was able to literally come apart at the seams in the space of 103 seconds from rotation to impact. This is not a common event even in the annals of aviation disaster.Another point I would like to make is to acknowledge my speculation and conjecture in making the comments in the post above concerning the bolt failures. I do not know any of this for fact, and to state it as so, does a disservice to the search for truth. I apologize for this faux pas', and will seek to clearly define my rhetoric in the future.Cheers,bt

Share this post


Link to post

PlaneMech:Your guess sounds very plausible.There's been an issue with the AA/JFK crash and that of TWA-800 which has always bothered me. There seems to be almost a fervent zeal by some websites and media members to pin both on terrorism, or sabotage, or government coverup/negligence. It's a zeal argued by strong facts and science, enough to give anyone pause. And lately it's been broadened into a presentation of a more generalized "threat" to aviation, which Braun notes and even I've seen and noted in other usenet posts. Almost a "preemptive strike" in the sense that it will place the seed of doubt in anyone's mind the next time some aircraft failure is the suspected cause of a tragedy.I feel that there's high motivation by anyone invested in Boeing, Airbus the airlines, or their own political future to shift the blame from the aircraft to terrorism. Enough motivation to build very convincing websites and news reports, and to convince highly respected, intelligent people in the theory, lending a sense of credibility to the sites. I don't think there's anyone in this forum who believes the sabotage/terrorist theories who doesn't base that belief out of a sound and intelligent grasp of aviation. I'm merely arguing another possible "conspiracy". And add to that the post 9/11 factor--the victory of "fear" that the terrorists still seem to have over some in our community and over the world in general. You can have people blinded to the chance that these "conspiracy" sites and reports are orchestrated by those with something to gain, financially or politically.Many who follow the sites fail to consider that a conspiracy doesn't have to have Feds in dark suits and sunglasses. I've seen enough shareholders of businesses that would do anything to protect their ****** retirement and golden parachutes, even if it meant trashing the lives and reputations of others. This is what it seems to me in this case.... I admit I'm prejudiced....my father was a government nuclear inspector for 35 years. Whether nuclear science or aviation, the attacks by those with their own agendas have always been part of life, and was part of my father's life. I'll never forget when he had to do a community presentation once. Some overzealous wannabe politician tried to debunk one of his inspection reports, and cry "coverup". My father was brutally honest, and was respected for it. Anyone dare accuse him of a coverup, and I'd deal with them on the street. It wasn't in my father, and it was (and is) something I'd come to blows over. As for his presentation--the politician ended up being the one debunked. I see the same face on these sites as I saw on that politician...someone willing to spin a complex web of information with no real concern for truth.The way these sites portray field inspectors and government investigations is often offensive and ridiculous. These people are human, and do make mistakes. But hardly due to some deep dark conspiracy, but simply because they are human. Push come to shove, I'd bet on their assessment a heck of a lot more than that of a website or media spun story... That's why I am more confident in our government's view of these disasters. Am I certain? Nope....I wasn't there. Anyway, I've said enough gibberish.....-John

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this