Sign in to follow this  
Orlaam

AA Flight 587 Terrorism?

Recommended Posts

Does anyone here feel that American Airlines flight 587 was caused by terrorists? There's a discussion on another site I visit that has quite a few people suspecting this. Personally I don't see this as remotely possible. The tail structure failed, so how could a terrorist cause this? What are your thought on this accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Unless the terrorists had access externally to the empennage, I 100% doubt it. However, I believe in the wake turbulence theory.I don't think terrorists can access anything that could damage the tail structure from inside, and by the .0000000001% chance they were actually on the tail (externally) doing something, I doubt they would be able to cause enough damage without being noticed..My $0.02,Jason :-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combination of fatigue and wake turbulence causing high stress on the fatigued part.If there's terrorism in that it would have the maintenance crew deliberately not mentioning finding fatigue cracks AND ATC deliberately guiding an aircraft with known fatigue problems into that wake turbulence.And if you believe that you're way too gullable to be loose on the street.Want to buy some snake oil? Stock certificates in a cold fusion plant maybe? I have this large amount of Nigerian oil money needs funneling out of the country, but I need $10K and access to your bankaccount to do so, I'm sure a trusty person like you will help me out... :-erks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh belive me, I think it's BS that one would suggest terrorism with 587. People like conspiracy theories too much. I was just wondered if anyone here thought it was at all suspect.By the way, how did ATC have involvement? Did they let the 300 take off too soon before the 747? Should they have been given different instructions per ATC on what direction or altitude to remain at while clearing the 747 vortex? I'm not sure I remember seeing anything that implicated ATC in this accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if ATC were actively involved.If memory serves either one aircraft or the other veered slightly off course causing the A300 to get into the wake of the 747 inadvertently.It's possible of course that the A300 got no warning about the wake turbulence or indeed they should have been told to wait a minute for the wake to subside (which is common practice at Schiphol if they can't stack departures to have heavies depart after lighter aircraft).It's also always easier to blame dead people than living ones.Initial conclusions if I remember placed blame solely on the pilot of the A300 for example. He was dead and couldn't defend himself after all... Only further probing showed signs of fatigue fractures in the rudder which led to the now accepted conclusion that an unusually strong wake from a departing 747 had caused massive structural failure in the rudder of the A300 (the latter seems to be corroborated by the FDR and CVR).Had the aircraft crashed into Kennedy tower, someone would have blamed ATC...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone here noticed how, when an aircraft crashes, the fingers are pointed at the pilot?:-hmmm Unless the plane explodes in mid air (TWA 800) the FAA usually says "The pilot did.." or "The pilot didn't do.."!! The pilot doesn't get off the hook until the TSA and FAA does a month long investigation, if he's lucky. Why is it that most of the time, its the pilot who is blamed? Is it because its easier to blame a dead person, than a service man, or piece of metal or software?? I think that everyone did what they were supposed to do. Wake turbulence can stick around for a long time. And, depending on the weather, it might have still been there 30 min later. Either that or the pilot of the 747 took off sooner than he was supposed to.Theres my 1/4 cent!:-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just another conspiracy theory; someone claims the co-pilot had a shoe bomb, causing the momentary full rudder deflection noted by the CDR. Lots of discussion on the alt.disasters.aviation UseNet newsgroup; fun to watch as long as you don't take it seriously.These are the same people who believe the Pentagon was hit by a missile fired by a military plane on 9-11, that Israel knew in advance the WTC would be hit and that the U.S. government was responsible for the attack (possibly carried out by empty, remote-control aircraft), that American 800 (if I remember the flight number correctly) was hit by a missile, that aircraft are spraying nerve gas or biological agents into their contrails, and that there's a massive, U.S. government coverup of all of these incidents.Nothing that can't be fixed with a little Prozac and a polo mallet...Rich---New York now leads the world's great cities in the number of people around whom you shouldn't make a sudden move. -- David Letterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the V-Stab on the accident A300 was made of carbon graphite composites and doesn't suffer from fatigue as aluminum and steel does. This is why when composites fail they do so catastrophically and without the advance notice that metals can and usually give you.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I'm a Boeing fan, and refuse to ride on an Airbus. Maybe it's ridiculous, I just don't feel safe with the knowledge I have regarding many aspects of their planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I know the contrails thing I was just made aware of a few weeks ago. Talk about silly. The best one I've seen was that Paul Wellstone's plane was brought down by Republicans! I have no doubt that certain things do happen that can be conspiracy related, but not to the degree most people take them. It's known the government covers up it's mistakes, like they tried to do in Waco, however, to suggest all deaths or accidents are covered up is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, it CAN suffer from fatigue and that can be detected.It just doesn't show the same way fatigue in metal does, by visible cracks, until it is too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dead men can't sue (and you can't sue dead men, at least not easily, even in the US)...And in the US sueing people for insane amounts is the national passtime so anything you can do to lay blame on someone or something that can't cause a lawsuit for a billion or so will be the first thing you try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beleive I said "doesn't suffer from fatigue as aluminum and steel does". This does not mean that it doesn't have it's own damage amd fatigue limits, just not as metals do. It's a very complicated material and the means to inspect and find damage not visible to the naked eye is not a firm science and leaves a lot of interpretation to the inspector involved with composites.As for finding fatigue before failure, this is where I prefer metals. You can take two identical composite coupons and there is a good probability they will have different failure modes.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/ng_driver.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lean to believe that bolts, or some other fastener are to blame. Seeing pictures of the tail being removed from the bay show the tail separated very cleanly from the fuselage. Something like a composite material would have failed in a visually jagged manner, more than likely. That's why I think some kind of fastener was to blame, whether the tail be metal or composite. Regardless, the aircraft was at fault, and it should not have happened. Keep in mind that Flight 587 was not exactly a light aircraft either.I doubt terrorists were involved in this, although they were probably loving the theories due to the timing of this incident. The whole saga is so dirty, with American Airlines accusing Airbus of inadequate aircraft design and Airbus accusing American Airlines of inadequate pilot training. I anticipate Airbus will have a hard time selling aircraft to American Airlines in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this