Is aviation sabotage a real threat?

[Guest]

>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.

[Guest]

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

[KevinAu 441]

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.

[Guest]

>>"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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

[John_Cillis 2,406]

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