NTSB to Rule on Cause of Flight 587 Crash

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON Oct 25, 2004 — If the pilot flying American Airlines Flight 587 had taken his foot off the rudder pedal, the jetliner's tail wouldn't have broken off, the plane wouldn't have plunged into a New York City neighborhood and 265 people wouldn't have died on Nov. 12, 2001.

On those details, the investigators agree.

But the pilot didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than it could bear. Why he didn't and who's to blame for that is the subject of a bitter fight between Airbus Industrie, which made the plane, and American Airlines, which trained the pilot.

That dispute is expected to play out in public Tuesday when the National Transportation Safety Board meets to discuss its findings.

Flight 587 had just taken off from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport for the Dominican Republic when it encountered heavy turbulence caused by a large plane that took off before it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=196935

[Deere_John]

1. So if you fly this plane just a little wrong, it disintegrates in midair?

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but that sounds really, really wrong to me. You're talking about a level of fragility and bad handling characteristics that wouldn't be acceptable in a Yugo.

[TO Kid]

5. Manoeuvring speed

Every aircraft has a published manoeuvring speed, which is the maximum recommended speed at which full deflection of the controls can be made. When you are below this speed the worst that can happen if you overcontrol is a stall, while above this speed structural failure can occur.

[gulfcoastliberal]

7. Yeah but they had just barely taken off...

no where close to even cruising speed. Their fly-by-wire controls are supposed to take these variables into account when making Conrail movements. These planes practically fly themselves.

[Squatch]

16. And, once again, the wonders of fly-by-wire....

http://www.simradar.com/Feature/2315/Airbus_Crash_in_Airshow.html

[TO Kid]

37. Wasn't fly-by-wire

This was an A300, a design from the 70s. The 300 and 310 were conventional- Scarebus introduced FBW technology in the 80s with the A320.

[Squatch]

39. Nope, that crash was the A320

http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml

[Squatch]

20. Also, low airspeed, high angle-of-attack

attitudes, such as this (soon after take-off), are those in which the empennage is most effective. Large rudder deflections at higher speeds are rendered less effective by the "keel effect" of the fuselage. At low speeds, large rudder deflections are more effective, resulting in higher stresses across the rudder, and, in this case, causing eventual shearing strain.

[gulfcoastliberal]

2. This is total bullshit

CNN just showed a segment about this saying there was a SHOE BOMBER on the flight and played 2 interviews with eyewitnesses on the ground who swore they saw the fueselage explode before it went down. One guy said he would take that to his grave. There are so many airbusses flying every day of the year, if this was really a problem, it would've happened more than once, just like the boeing 737 rudder problem that caused at least 2 crashes.

[MacDo]

3. Pilot error

and crappy design. Plain and simple.

[gulfcoastliberal]

6. If pilot error and crappy design are to blame,

I really think this would've happened more than once. Airbus is one of the most prolific airplanes in service and I'd think some of the newly minted commercial pilots in USA and around the world would've made his error all the time. The design is fly-by-wire, not the stick/rudder directly pushing on hydraulic fluid. Control inputs are entered into a computer which takes variables into play before deciding how much movement to create.

[Squatch]

12. There is a reason they call it "Scarebus"

http://www.simradar.com/Feature/2315/Airbus_Crash_in_Airshow.html

[Kellanved]

57. you keep posting this

Most Boeing planes are old and proven designs unlikely to show unexpected behavior. Nonetheless they are more likely to run into trouble, at least according to the FAA.

The video of the 1988 crash is very shocking to look at, but it was one of the very first A320-111. The pilots did perform risky maneuvers without being completely familiar with the plane. The crew had disabled the warning system and set the engines to "idle". When they realized their error, it was too late: the engines sucked in foliage from the trees, not air. It is a wonder that almost all people survived the crash.


According to the statistics, the A320 is among the safest planes ever.

[Nashyra]

15. You don't what the fuck your talking about

This pilot was a friend of my husband's and my husband flew this same aircraft just days before. Before anyone starts spouting off about how they know it was pilot error think twice about how much you really know. There are several ongoing investigations about other details in this crash that have been made public, or made public on a large scale. This is far from over. Sten Molin was an excellent pilot and a wonderful human being.

[MacDo]

19. Sorry about your loss,

but that's why we put Flight Data Recorders on aircraft these days. It keeps all speculation out of the equation. Even fine pilots make mistakes.

[Nashyra]

24. If you think there was no speculation

go google airbus and the rudder. Personaly I don't believe what they are saying, but if it is true then why haven't there been briefings and training. No there is much missing, including the fact that if it is true, Airbus knew and decided not to mention the flawed design, or the problems in the past. One thing I will never believe is that it was Sten' fault. Ever. I don't claim that about all pilots, because I agree with your statement about good pilots making mistakes, but not in this case, not in this case.

[MacDo]

27. It wouldn't be the first time

a company hid a design flaw to keep from losing money. I'm not saying that what caused it, just keeping the door open on all possibilities
Here's a link for an air safety site. Sorry, don't know how to hot link here yet.

http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/HumanErrorVsTerrorism

I'm sure Sten was a very fine pilot, most of them are, but sometimes situations and decisions beyond their control can cause serious consequences. Does it put them at fault? No! I wish training could address all situations a pilot might find himself in, but sadly it doesn't.
Again, I'm sorry for the loss you and your Husband suffered.

[gulfcoastliberal]

49. Exactly right. No maintenance bulletins or groundings

until problem fixed, as they have done on DC-10s, 737s, etc. This "accident report" was written by the CIA. Period.

[GliderGuider]

8. I have to agree

I've flown a bit in my time, and this just doesn't pass the sniff test. It doesn't seem reasonable that repeated rudder deflections should be able to put enough stress on the tail to cause a structural failure. If there was pre-existing fatigue in the metal maybe, but as a design flaw? Not bleeding likely, IMO.

[gulfcoastliberal]

9. The kicker is, the tail on these airbuses is made of a composite polymer

not metal. The tail just popped off. I'm thinking it popped off once explosions near the wing doomed the plane.

[Brundle_Fly]

43. to his credit...

or maybe not.

the guy who said he'd take it to his grave, seemed like the kind of guy who tags the "to his grave" to every statement.

ie

it was 500 feet if it was a foot, and I'll take that to my grave.

or

I can eat 65 apple pies in one sitting, and I'll take that to my grave.

[gulfcoastliberal]

50. Whatever

A lot of people saw explosions, fire, and smoke. Maybe the CIA detonated a LSD cloud.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

56. good comeback

please read the rules.

I apologize for my snotty remark in the now deleted note. I was snippy because I am tired of the CIA being used as an all-purpose boogyman. If the NTSB were to fake a report, they'd do it themselves. Contrary to the cliche's favored by the far left and far right the CIA is not the root of all evil in the US government. (that's the republican party's role)

[gulfcoastliberal]

60. Hey I undesrtand! I have family in the "State Department"

Brother in law of mine said he worked for the State Deaprtment when anyone asked his carreer. He did some hardcore NOC stuff in Europe - gone for months and months at a time. H could never call home, if someone wanted to talk to him (like GF) they called a 3rd party with the agency who set up a communication time, which usually doesn't last longer than a minute or two.

He's A really smart, soft-spoken guy who knows most of if not all the major languages used in Europe. Russian, too. He was stationed in one the the big premiere emnassies - officially. Few if any knew where he was and what he did.

Later they tried to get him to train in Farsi, Pashtum plus start heavy and light weapon training, explosives, etc all that crap. He told them it's time for a new assignmnet -- at a desk operation. He did not want to go no PAK or AFG or god forbid, Iraq. He had just goten married so that also helped his decision. He must have been good cause they practically begged him to go. I bet after being NOC in Europe and seeing crazy shit there, he knew if he accpted iot would be waaaay worse.


But the CIA got into the line of crash investigations after flight 800 (Almost all witnesses saw a streaking missile hi the plane, then it immediately started explodijng and falling.

Check this link for an analysis of the NTSB/CIA producion.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/ciavideo.html

Here's an alaysis on their work.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/CIAVIDEO/ciavideo.html

[ewagner]

4. Pilot error and crappy design?

Maybe.

Stranger things have happened.

but I still have questions.

How many Airbus 300-series have had the same problem?

If Airbus knew about the problem and supposedly notified at least one airline about it, then why didn't the FAA issue an AD (Airworthiness Directive) to address the problem?

It's just not tidy.

Not conclusive.

[Squatch]

10. AD right here...

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/3219BCC71F1AD89586256CCA00700194?OpenDocument

Quote: "The FAA has coordinated this action with the Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, and the DGAC has taken similar action."

[ewagner]

13. Thanks for posting that

but it was out after the incident.....

[Squatch]

14. Unfortunately, a lot of ADs are published after "incidents"

[ewagner]

17. I suppose that's true

but supposedly (in the CNN story this morning) Airbus had notified one of the airlines (American, IIRC) that their pilot training was teaching a technique that was "too aggressive" in rudder pedal use before the incident took place.

Did Airbus have an obligation to notify the FAA also?

Did the Airline (American?) have an obligation to notify FAA?

It is often said that an accident is not because of a single, proximate cause, but a sting of mistakes...a chain of mistakes that add up to catastrophe...

this may be the case here, but it is bizarre and complicated with the report that there was a "shoe-bomber" also on board that plane.

[Squatch]

21. Short answer? Yes.

Under FAR part 141, the professional flight school is obligated to have its syllabus approved by the FAA.

As an engineer, I am more inclined to believe in mechanical failure of the empennage, given Scarebus' previous track record.

[ewagner]

22. Refresh my memory

Didn't Airbus have some problems initially with the fly-by-wire system too?

I vaguely remember seeing a video of an Airbus demonstration flight where they were supposed to do a low altitude flyover at an airshow (Paris, I think) and the Airbus system over-rode the pilot and landed the plane in the trees at the end of the runway.

Do you remember that?

[Squatch]

23. "Landed the plane..."? Pardon me....LOL...

I posted the link to that video that highlights some of those "problems" in this thread.

Result of that "landing" was a loss of life and plane.

[ewagner]

25. Sorry, I didn't see

the earlier link.

I used the term "landed" because that's what the fly-by-wire system THOUGHT it was doing.......

I certainly didn't mean to diminish or minimalize the tragedy of the loss of lives.

btw: that IS the video I remembered. thanks for posting it.

[Squatch]

26. Not to put too fine a point on it, they were demonstrating a

low-speed fly-by in which they were to climb out of the manuever. Regardless, the FBW system overrode the commands of the pilot, which caused the accident. Bad ju-ju in anybody's book.

My pleasure on the video.

[KDLarsen]

29. That was a pilot error in all its glory..

.. the FBW system simply did what it had been programmed to do. The pilot IIRC descended below what had been agreed upon, but he failed to recognize that below a certain altitude, if certain conditions are present, the aircraft will not behave like a conventional aircraft.

As for the tail of AA587, the cause was most likely repeatedly full deflections to either side, which caused enough stress to make the tail snap.

[neebob]

38. I believe the shoe-bomb theory

Here's one of the pages I've been reading this morning: http://www.rockawave.com/news/2004/0923/Front_Page/129.html (found link on buzzflash.com)

When Richard Reid tried to blow up the flight he was on, they made out like it was this crazy isolated event, but here we all are, being careful to wear nice socks and trying to remember which shoes set off the detector and which ones don't - well, that's what I do, anyway. And how much more toast would GWB be with widespread reports that he failed to thwart not one but two terrorist attacks he was warned about?

[Kellanved]

58. none

A300 planes are in commission since 1976. Since that time nine planes suffered fatal incidents.

1976: An Air France Plane was hijacked
1988: An Iranair plane was shot down by USS Vincennes
1992: A Pakistan International Airlines collided with terrain.
1994: An Air China Airbus stalled during final approach
1994: Another Air France plane Hijacked
1997: A Garuda Indonesian Airways plane collided with terrain.
1998: A China Airlines A300-600 crashed in a failed landing attempt.
1999: A Indian Airlines plane was hijacked.
2001: The Queens crash.

So "only" five A300 crashed without third party interference; the Queens crash being the only one not entirely attributed to crew errors. Considering the over 9 million flights A300 planes have performed, that is a very low rate .

[amazona]

11. oh c'mon make it at least a little bit believable!

If this is the story, they might as well just admit it was a terror attack and get it over with. Who is going to believe this? The planes would be unsafe to operate, and they have done just fine for a long, long time. I realize they have to deny that it was terror because of the effect on airline stocks but how the heck is this B.S. story one little bit better?

Sheesh.

They must think we're all complete idiots!

What's next? Oh yeah, TWA 800 went down because someone mailed a package that weighed more than 16 ounces without saying "hi" to the postal clerk! How could I forget that one? Ever since, to this day, I can't mail a package weighing more than 16 ounces without talking to a postal clerk. And this keeps the airliners in the air exactly how again?

[Beetwasher]

18. I Will Always Believe This Was Another Terror Attack

n/t

[reprobate]

28. There are more questions than terrorism or outright failure.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/reports/iceberg.htm

First, the aircraft was thirteen years old and had undergone many, many takeoffs and landiings.

Questions about the long term reliability of composites.

Questions about the flight control computer: , "the yaw damper and a pitch trim control would not engage ... The computer controlling these functions was reset."

There are enough unanswered questions about the incident that none of us should jump to uneducated conclusions.

I'm the original conspiracy theorist, but you first have to eliminate possible couses before accepting the 'impossible'.

[hunter]

30. Hmmm, maybe if they flap their arms and lips hard enough this will fly...

No matter what really happened, most people are thinking shoe bomber.

That was my first thought, and the immediate tidal wave of "not a terrorist act" rhetoric from official sources pretty much cemented my opinion.

[Squatch]

31. So, I take it your real name is "most people"?

[WoodrowFan]

32. welcome to the DU

where there's ALWAYS somebody who sees a plot!

[Squatch]

33. Thanks!

[hunter]

35. I love a world where people are rational...

This planet isn't one of them.

Embrace the chaos that is DU, or you will not survive here.

My favorite hangout on DU is Environment/Energy/Science.

Welcome!

Peace

[Squatch]

36. Chaos, already?

Or, just entropy?

[karlrschneider]

40. Haha...maybe both, or the same?

Welcome to DU...I'm a pilot too (I assume you are) commercial/cfi and aero engineer also since 1963. I'm not sure I'm buying this rudder 'explanation' but I've never driven a "scarebus"...but have been a GIB on a lot of 'em.

[Squatch]

41. The problem with the Scarebus FBW system

is that there is no feedback to the pilot. He could be stomping on the rudder pedal, causing full deflection, without him knowing about it.

Also, spoke with my brother who is another aero engr. He was wondering why the pilot was trying to correct roll moment with the rudder.

Nice to meet another pilot and thanks for the welcome!

[karlrschneider]

46. Hi again...

I wasn't aware the bus didn't have force-feedback (the only large jet I've flown, a 727 did have and it was much older)...:eyes:

There are of course, as you know, times when rudder is effective in countering roll especially if there is an aileron problem - I once had a total aileron failure but was able to land safely using only rudder & elevator - a fast yaw will produce additional lift on the opposite wing and induce rolling moment. In any case, I find it somewhat odd that full control deflection at the obviously low speed that plane was travelling at could cause structural failure. But I haven't studied the report, should do that...I worked with the NTSB on a couple of accidents around here (TUL) in the past and found them to be generally fair and industrious but perhaps a bit too inclined to begin with the hypothesis of pilot error and pay a little less attention to other factors. Which is understandable since dead pilots aren't likely to provide evidence.

[hunter]

42. If you see only entropy here (a fancy word for noise), you will not stay.

It would not be a rational thing to do.

But if you are seeking patterns in this chaos you may stay.

Suppose we had a general poll--

"Was flight 587 brought down by a shoe bomber?"

The answer would be meaningless in terms of the actual causes, but it would tell us quite a bit about people's perception of their government.

The NTSB is an arm of our government. Our government's natural bias might be to favor the Airbus "mechanical failure" explanation, and disfavor the "terrorist" explanation. This adds credence to the conspiracy theories.

As our ability to communicate electronically improves (via the internet, etc.) it becomes clear that the more difficult part of the "communication problem" is the the semantic problem, that is, how precisely transmitted symbols convey the desired meanings.

In the good old days a NTSB ruling would have had more meaning, more credence than it does today. In a world in which our government has lost a great deal of its credibility, I stand by my assertion that they are flapping their arms and lips, trying to make this "ruling" fly.

Most people don't read technical journals, nor do they have any sort of technical training. The bad guys in our government have recognized this, and they use that as a tool to manipulate us. I'm not saying that the NTSB is some nest of bad guys, only that their rulings have less credibility than they used to. Something needs to be done about that.

In the bigger picture and as it relates to DU there have been many cases, perhaps not this one, where "tinfoil hat" sorts of people have alerted the larger population to the bad guys' manipulations.

That's a good thing. It may all look like noise (entropy) to you, but it's not. One reason I keep coming back to DU is that the Signal to Noise Ratio is quite acceptable. There are a lot of smart people here.

[Squatch]

44. Why not pose the question this way:

"Was F587 brought down by <insert favorite bogeyman here>?"

You see, in my profession, I have had mucho contact and collaboration with members of the FAA, NTSB, aircraft industry, you name it. Personally knowing and working with *many* members of said organizations (who also have had input to this particular case), I do trust their findings in this matter, more so than the "post hoc ergo propter hoc, arm-chair quaterbacking" of conspiracists here.

So, I guess if I ignore my years of personal and professional experience with these kinds of things, I would have to say the answer to my question above is an unequivocal "yes, I believe that the tooth fairy did indeed destroy F587."

[hunter]

47. You are going after the wrong people...

I've been on the internet (such as it was) since 1979. The "post hoc ergo propter hoc, arm-chair quaterbacking" conspiracists have always been around...

...Hey, some of them are my friends!

The people you need to direct your anger towards are the ones who deliberately destroyed the credibility of our government. (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are two of them...)

[Squatch]

48. Anger? Where?

[alarimer]

59. I'm with you

I know next to nothing about how planes work but I believe that the people who investigate these crashes as well as train derailments, etc., are professionals with expertise in certain areas. I don't believe that they are tools of the CIA. I don't believe Paul Wellstone was assassinated; I don't believe this plane or the one that crashed off Long Island were brought down by anything other than tragic accident. I will defer to experts on why planes crash but I would guess human error often has a lot to do with them. No matter how good a person the pilot was, he still is human and capable of making mistakes, sometimes fatal ones.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. I know an eyewitness who said smoke was coming form the plane and

it was headed back to the airport.
She was standing on Rockaway beach about 2 miles away.

[WoodrowFan]

52. that's what I'd like to know more about

while I think the idea that the CIA write the report is silly (to be kind) the fact that eyewittnesses saw smoke needs to be explained.

[Corgigal]

45. Doesn't the ATC'er have

some responsibility for this crash also? If the pilot was encountering wake turbulence and was over correcting by manhandling the controls caused the tail popped off, was minimum departure separation maintained? It is 10 miles, because wake turbulence has been shown to move low and wide. What attitude did the Airbus start to hit wake?
Was a hell of a wake, for a believe a clear day without a cloud in the sky. Unless it was a micro-burst but the NTSB would have been able to capture that information.

[saigon68]

53. Hey Capt Mac what's your take?

If you are around let us know.

[NNN0LHI]

54. Shoe...

...bomb.

Don