TWA 800...FOIA battle yielding results

[btacon 1,804]

Hi Kevin...you're right. AA 587 had nothing to do with this thread. I just saw Barry Schiff quoted and posted his quote.I agree there was a mechanical failure at the rudder. I don't agree that the rudders failure would be significant enough to create another event that would stress both pods. I think the real mystery of AA 587 is the sequence of events, not the events themselves. I also think the AA 587 event is another discussion, but not for here. I also think that this thread is going somewhat off topic, and I am as much to blame as anyone else. What I would like this thread to focus on is:* FOIA work being done by Ray Lahr* The "zoom-climb"...fact or falacySorry all,bt

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>>>>actually the A300 was below Va. conventional wisdom BEFORE>>AA587 was full movement of controls below Va was acceptable.>>the difference is AFTER AA587 the phrase ", but not repeated>>or full reversal of controls," is added into the flight>>manuals of transport aircraft. AA587 changed the pilot's>>interpretations of Va.>>Va has nothing to do with the crash and I don't believe I>mentioned it in my post either. But one of the issues that>arised from this accident is what exactly is Va? Va is built>on the intersection of stall speed and load limit. You stall>before you break the plane. I know you know that. What does>the rudder have to do with pulling G's? Nothing. The forces>associated with rudder reversals will break a plane well below>published Va. This was something that has always been known>by manufacturers but never made an issue of or clarified to>operators before this accident. The phrase you quote added to>the manual is mild and will not serve to prevent this from>happening again.the point was common wisdom before this accident was full and abrupt flight control movement (including the rudders) was acceptable below Va. this was stressed in AA's AAMP video by CA Van Sant. that is where the Va reference is coming from and where the FO's possible mentality in using the rudders came from. the FO had a history of aggressive rudder use (he was written up for it while he was on the 727).the rudder limiter on the A300 uses not as much force as the 727 and further contributed to this (as you previously mentioned).www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/presentations/05_systems.pdf

[Guest CRJ700FO]

>* FOIA work being done by Ray Lahr>* The "zoom-climb"...fact or falacyI see no reason why they should not have access to the information, that is exactly the reason of the FOIA. holding back anything just feeds the paranoia and conspiracy theorists.as for the "zoom-climb", the NTSB knows a heck of a lot more about airplanes than I do. they signed off on this, so I accept their expertise and unbiased opinion.

[RFields5421 1]

If it was shot down - it wasn't the US federal government behind it, nor the US federal government running a coverup.Simply because our government is incompetent and incapable of keeping a major secret. It is also incompetent when trying to pull off complex operations.If there was any level of skill present in organizations like the CIA, NSA, NIS, ONI, etc - then Fidel Castro would have died in the early 60's.Last time I checked he was still alive.Being a part of that government and the military system for over 20 years, it has been very obvious to me that there is a very big difference between tactical military information and political information. And it is obvious to even low ranking sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines.The military, and civilian branches, are often asked to keep political information classified - and they don't. It always leaks.The members of the US military are not blind followers of the national leadership. They are smart, know what is going on and will not put up with being made part of the political process.Yes, they follow orders - LEGAL orders. Cover-ups are illegal orders and there is too strong a chain of evidence to support any claim that the military can cover-up any political event successfully.I know some of the guys who were on those ships that night - and there were NO missiles or guns or other weapons fired by the US Navy. Period - end of story !!!Secondly, for a successful cover-up to occur - the Clinton and Bush administrations had to work together. At the highest political levels.Do you really thing there is ANY secret which Karl Rove would not reveal if it could embarress the Clinton administration?

[Guest PARADISE]

A little off subject ( and I agree with what your saying ) but , did you know that Fidel Castro offered assistance to the people of New Orleans after huricane Katrina struck BEFORE our president did?

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

Did you know that our president is a communist also? What do you think "homeland (Motherland)"-Security means...ROFL:-hah ...not entirely joking either.

[Guest PARADISE]

>Did you know that our president is a communist also? What do>you think "homeland (Motherland)"-Security means...ROFL:-hah>...not entirely joking either.:-lol John M

[RFields5421 1]

Well Fidel didn't have that jerk in charge of FEMA so he had an advantage.(Actually I think the first to offer assistance were Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, India and Malaysia - the countries which suffered so much from the tsunami)The 'best part' of the Katrina aftermath (other than my relatives in NO coming through okay and without major damage), was:The government of Mexico provided Army troops and material to assist the US after Katrina - and the US government thought the best place to use them was helping with the refugee center in San Antonio, Texas - almost literally within the shadow of the Alamo.

[KevinAu 441]

>A little off subject ( and I agree with what your saying )>but , did you know that Fidel Castro offered assistance to the>people of New Orleans after huricane Katrina struck BEFORE our>president did?Katrina is one of the biggest conspiracies that has so far slid under everybody's radar. That hurricane was generated by Castro. Katrina only was made to look like a natural phenomena. That is how Castro knew to offer assistance BEFORE our government did.

[btacon 1,804]

"I see no reason why they should not have access to the information, that is exactly the reason of the FOIA. holding back anything just feeds the paranoia and conspiracy theorists"Question: What's to "hold back"? It was an aviation tragedy, not a national security event...or was it?The only folks feeding the paranoia and conspiracy theorists are the folks at the FBI and NTSB who have been (and are remaining) noteably disingenuous. This fact is coming out in drips and drabs over the last few years, largely as a result of the determination of Lahr. Federal courts with Lahr's (and others) claims of dishonesty by govt agencies, and have ordered more reasonable and honest cooperation to Lahr's reasonable requests AND to pay costs in the amount of $142,000.00.http://raylahr.entryhost.com/113-Order.pdfhttp://raylahr.entryhost.com/132.pdfhttp://raylahr.entryhost.com/thanks.htmAs for zoom-climb...in my opinion it never happened. A goofy theory made out of whole cloth by the CIA (actually the NSA made the video for the CIA!)http://twa800.com/lahr/lahr-1-9-06.htm http://raylahr.entryhost.com/Leave-Amend-with-Exhibits.pdf )Just WHAT is the NSA/CIA doing in a civil air tragedy investigation anyway. I don't believe that falls in their charter in any shape, form or fashion. Even the NTSB formally complained about FBI interference in the early days of the investigation:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...erm/twa/twa.htmAs I said at the beginning of this thread, Lahr's FOIA battle is making clear bit by bit that this tale is far from told.bt

[btacon 1,804]

:-)bt

[btacon 1,804]

Kevin...before I end my discussion around AA 587, I'll answer your challenge to challenge the current NTSB finding:http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl...17/200515.shtml"Marshall created his saboteur scenario because he concluded early on that it is not possible for any type of wake turbulence from a preceding jet to rip off the tail of an airplane. Furthermore, he concluded, even with the vertical stabilizer gone, Flight 587 would not have gone out of control in such a way that both engines would also fall off. He pointed to a 1985 incident where a Japanese Boeing 747 with the vertical tail assembly completely torn away continued to fly in large circles for over half an hour before hitting a mountain."Read the whole thing if you choose, and perhaps PM me with your thoughts.Peace,bt

[KevinAu 441]

That's pure crackpot. This guy took the correct assumption that wake turbulence alone could not have crashed this plane into the realm of fiction novels.Those engines are held on by two or three bolts that are designed to break clean away. Those engine pods are designed to separate easily, a safety measure in case of fire. How you can make the assertion that the high slip angles after the separation of the tail would never be able to cause the loss of the engine pods is beyond me. Plenty of planes have lost engine pods without even having to go out of control. Kalitta just lost a 747 engine in Lake Michigan a year or two ago.And just because some other plane somewhere else managed to stay aloft a while longer without a tailfin does not mean that this one or any other will either. An Israeli F-15 lost an entire wing in a collision and still landed safely. Does that mean that an aircraft should not crash because a wing fell off? Maybe planes don't really need tailfins and wings after all. Perhaps tailfins and wings are just lies manufactured by the alluminum makers association to sell product.Again, this was some crack thoery written weeks after the event, before the facts were gathered and before the effects of a rudder reversal came to light, something I bet none of these conspiracy theorists would have even had the imaginative power to come up with. I still haven't seen anything that debunks the rudder reversal cause.

[btacon 1,804]

Thank you Kevinbthttp://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/011120.htmBoth engines were examined at the crash site and at a hangar at Kennedy Airport. No evidence was found of an uncontained engine failure, loss of blades, bird strike or in-flight fire. The thrust reversers were in the stowed position. The engines will be taken to the American Airlines maintenance facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma for a detailed tear-down in a few weeks.

[RFields5421 1]

Anyone who equates AAL587 and JAL123 hasn't been studying the information.AAL 587 was a complete separation of the VS during wake turblence at low altitude.JAL123 was a rear pressure bulkhead failure which blew out part of the rear cone of the aircraft, the rudder and PART of the VS structure. It occured near the top of stable climb in relatively calm air.The failure did not rip the entire VS from the aircraft.There has always been question in Japan about the supposed photo of the aircraft - given that the initial event occured 13 minutes before local horizon sunset - about 8 minutes after actual sunset due to the eastern mountains. The photo was supposed to have been taken near the final moments of the flight - over 15 minutes after local sunset.Portions of the JAL123 VS were found on the ridge which the aircraft clipped before it's final impact. Other portions of the VS were found in Sagami Bay by fishermen, the JMSDF and the US Navy.Aside from listening to the ATC live as it happened, the thing I remember most about the JAL123 was watching the local TV news live video from over the crash site at 5 AM when the sun rose - and the Tokyo Metropolitan Fire Department (which had jursidiction over the 'rescue') state that a search would be launched at 8 am to try and find the crash site.Even then, they insisted on a lengthy ground transit from a roadway down one mountain and up another to get to the scene. It was almost noon before they got someone to the acutal crash site.Some of my USN and USAF buddies who worked in rescue demanded, and received orders, to transfer out of Japan after that crash.