posted on November 14, 2001 09:55:18 PM
At first it was speculated by the NTSB that engine failure was to blame (without ruling out terrorism or anything else). After scores of eye-witness reports began to pour in, which stated that "parts were falling off the plane" before it went down, the NTSB said mechanical failure might be to blame (without ruling out terrorism or anything else.) When it became clear from the debris collected that the plane literally broke apart in midair, and that the engines had been fully functioning, the NTSB suggested that "wake-shear" might be to blame (without ruling out terrorism or anything else.) My own 80-year-old Mother remarked last night that she expected the NTSB to glomb onto wake-shear as the cause of the crash -- even though it was initially ruled out in an earlier news report because the departure closest to flight 587's had occurred TWENTY-FIVE MINUTES earlier. Today's reports had reinvented that interval and stated it as something under three minutes.
What the heck are we to believe? The government and the airlines have a vested interest in passing this latest catastrophe off on us -- the flying public -- as a freak accident. Nothing to do with lax security (keep in mind, the NTSB hasn't ruled out that a bomb brought the plane down) or shoddy maintenance due to belt-tightening by the airlines.
That's what they're saying today. What do you think?
posted on November 14, 2001 10:23:13 PM
It crashed.
Don't mix NTSB findings with media surmisals of what they might find. It'll be some months before a report by the board is released and they have not drawn any conclusions nor do they make guesses.
But from the start the media has hungered for any terrorist connection that can be read from anything said. They all seem disapointed that there hasn't been one.
posted on November 14, 2001 10:26:49 PM
Our local news reported that it could have been a flock of birds that caused the crash. I bet we will never know....
posted on November 14, 2001 11:02:01 PM
Yes, Ken, it crashed. The latest cause put forth by the authorites in charge of the investigation into why it crashed is "wake-shear" -- this being the most palatable excuse for a plane breaking up in mid-air that they have been able to serve to a doubting, fearful public.
"Wake-shear" was implicated in the crash of USAir Flight 427, which plunged from the sky on Sept. 8, 1994. Both the NTSB and FAA subsequently issued take-off and landing guidelines that would prevent similar tragedies. As these guidelines didn't cost the airlines any money, they were readily agreed to and have been followed ever since. (You simply stagger take-offs and landings a few more minutes apart.) So doesn't it seem rather odd that in the midst of heightened air traffic awareness, heightened security, heightened EVERYTHING, that we'd have an "accident" caused by a well-known, easily-prevented culprit? Indeed, if "wake-shear" is going to remain the cause of this crash, it'll be the first of its kind since 1994, when viable measures were put into place to prevent such accidents.
At BEST that says it's not safe to fly because we've got incompetent Air Traffic Controllers. At WORST, the public is being fed a bald lie, and the NTSB, FAA, Federal Government, et al, are relying upon us to be too stupid, tired, and overworked to scrutinize their "feeler" findings...
Edited to add, Outoftheblue, please don't join the ranks of those who are willing to say "I bet we'll never know." Those who mean to pull a fast one on ya rely on your being overwhelmed with the enormity of the information to be absorbed.
posted on November 14, 2001 11:18:26 PM
At best, only 2% of all baggage is checked for bmbs before it's loaded onto an airplane. Is that better? Everyone enjoy the holiday trip.
posted on November 14, 2001 11:23:37 PM
Yes, that is in keeping with what *might* have happened to Flight 587. I hope you're staying home during the holiday or driving your HumVee to your destination...
posted on November 14, 2001 11:42:40 PM
It's hard to believe the wake shear theory. What is so strange is the way the plane came apart piece by piece.
I don't see why they're so happy that it wouldn't be terrorist related, because that means planes are still unsafe, even with all the so called safety measures being taken.
You would think these planes were being gone over with a fine toothed comb. So they say, "oh don't worry about it, it was just an accident". Huh, JUST an accident? Maybe they should start checking the mechanics that work on the planes.
It was pretty good precision and aim the way the two planes flew into the towers. Also pretty accurate how this plane happened to fall into that neighborhood.
Things are so strange and confusing right now I guess you can come up with almost any scenario.
posted on November 15, 2001 12:06:41 AM
The airlines are unsafe. They cut every possible corner and fail to make repairs and do maintenance as a method of keeping costs down. Even after a failure is known to have resulted in a fatal incident they are slow to impliment needed correcttive measures. For example, the maintenance procedure which had not been done on the Alaska Air plane in 1999 still has not been completed on all of their fleet, yet they fly. The fix for the problem with a cargo door which brought down flight 800 still has not been performed on the entire fleet of 747s (though it was done immediatelly on both Air Force One planes).
posted on November 15, 2001 12:11:28 AMHi, Chococake! You might have read in the S.F. Chronicle yesterday where NTSB Chairwoman Marion Blakey nonchalantly stated that the crash of Flight 587 was an accident. The "disconnect" came in the next paragraph, which stated that the Airbus A300 broke apart in midair. Uhhh... planes do not break apart in midair. I challenge anyone to come up with a documented case of an Airbus A300 (or any other jetliner, for that matter) simply "breaking apart in midair" -- any case that DOESN'T include the cooperation of a bomb, that is...
"The fix for the problem with a cargo door which brought down flight 800..."
posted on November 15, 2001 12:18:15 AM
Errr, there WAS the convertible 737 in Hawaii. The entire upper portion of the fuselage came off in flight and the passengers, minus one stewardess, were treated to a very unique experience. Then there was the week in New Jersey during which two ailerons and some other flight control surface rained down from different planes. Or the broken turbine blades which chopped away airplane parts on the way to DC, the engine deprture in Chicago,.......I'm sure if I look there's many more.
posted on November 15, 2001 12:41:06 AM
Okay, baby steps...
"there WAS the convertible 737 in Hawaii. The entire upper portion of the fuselage came off in flight and the passengers, minus one stewardess, were treated to a very unique experience."
This plane (miraculously) made a safe landing. It was later determined that undetected stress fractures in the fuselage had caused the catastrophic midair rupture. If you mean to compare this plane's decomposition to that of Flight 587's, you've neglected to explain why the engines didn't fall off along with a substantial portion of the tail/rudder.
"Then there was the week in New Jersey during which two ailerons and some other flight control surface rained down from different planes."
Did these parts displacements result in the loss of entire aircrafts? Planes "drop" parts all the time -- it is suspected that parts dropped from a Continental jet (which flew on without incident) caused the sequence of events that led to the demise of an Air France Concorde last year.
"Or the broken turbine blades which chopped away airplane parts on the way to DC, the engine deprture in Chicago,.......I'm sure if I look there's many more."
Which flight is it that you're mentioning in relation to DC? Did it break into pieces in midair and subsequently crash?
The Chicago flight was engine failure. Again, it did not break into pieces in midair. It crashed, after losing an engine, shortly after take-off.
Yes, if you look some more, you will find the famous Iowa crash -- that plane lost its hydraulics (due to turbine blades having broken free and ruptured the lines) and was technically unflyable, yet it WAS flown -- albeit to a fiery ending in a cornfield adjacent to the airport runway. IT DID NOT BREAK INTO PIECES IN MIDAIR.
Find a plane crash that even remotely resembles Flight 587.
"That's a theory, here's some fact."
I am now going to laugh myself to sleep over the links you edited into your last post. Fetch us some juicy Michael Ruppert for brekkie, eh?
Nighty-night...
[ edited by plsmith on Nov 15, 2001 01:05 AM ]
posted on November 15, 2001 05:46:44 AM
Oh, I see. Your "I challenge anyone to come up with a documented case of an Airbus A300 (or any other jetliner, for that matter) simply "breaking apart in midair" doesn't mean "breaking apart in midair. It means "breaking apart in midair EXACTLY like this one broke apart in midair according to th flamboyant description of your favorite talking head). Forgive me for having given you the benefit of thinking that you meant what you said.
"The Chicago flight was engine failure. Again, it did not break into pieces in midair. It crashed, after losing an engine, shortly after take-off"
Umm, not quite. It crashed after the engine separated, damaged a wing and who knows what, as reported in the third of the sites above:
Date: 05/25/1979
Location: Chicago O'Hare, Illinois
Airline: American Airlines
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10
Registration: N110AA
Fatalities/No. Aboard: 271:271 +2
Details: During takeoff just, as the plane lifted from the runway, the left engine and
pylon separated from the aircraft damaging the wing and hydraulic system which
caused the aircraft to roll and crash. Highest single plane death toll in U.S. aviation
history. Asymmetrical stall and the ensuing roll of the aircraft because of the
uncommanded retraction of the left wing outboard leading edge slats and the loss of
stall warning and slat disagreement indication systems caused by separation of the
engine and pylon. Improper maintenance procedures used by American Airlines when
dismounting the engines for maintenance, putting strain on the engine mounts.
Sounds pretty similar to what happened the other day.
I'm sure that a more extensive analysis could be found in the second site above, as it is the website of the National Transportation Safety Board.
posted on November 15, 2001 09:50:54 AM
Well, I agree that something doesn't "smell right". The only thing that surprised me is that the flight data recorder wasn't "damaged beyond repair". Although, initial claims indicated that it was. Maybe somebody figured out that line doesn't wash anymore.
posted on November 15, 2001 10:21:37 AM
Well, I guess the NTSB could just tell everyone that they won't know the results for XX number of months and leave it at that, or they can tell you their findings, suspicions, assumptions, etc., along the way, which may or may not end up being true.
Really, what's the difference whether it was an accident or a terrorist attack?
posted on November 15, 2001 10:43:44 AM
Doesnt surprise me this happened. Airlines pay their help minimum wage and thats why they dont want federal employees. If the airlines were not so cheap the 9/11 event would never had taken place. Their greed did them in, and I think it happened again the other day. I will never fly with fast food type workers running security.
posted on November 15, 2001 10:44:07 AMReally, what's the difference whether it was an accident or a terrorist attack?
If it was an accident, we know that the airlines aren't doing their jobs...stillbut they could ask for financial assistance from the government because it is plain for everyone to see work needs to be done and if the airlines are going to stay in business they will need financial assistance or so it could be argued.
If it was a terrorist attack, we know that the government cannot keep us safe from random acts of violence (I really don't like calling it "terror" somehow seems to say that such individuals/groups really do suceed at their goals). Again, the airlines could ask for financial assistance they are being targeted. All it takes is one fruitcake to commit an act of violence. You can't watch all the fruitcakes 24/7.
posted on November 15, 2001 11:37:25 AM
blairwitch, I don't understand how more pay can make workers work better. I've found that the high paying jobs produce the biggest slackers. Education and proper training makes a good employee but I'm sure time is a big factor here, making these employees rush through things to get flights out on time. Truthfully, if they were all replaced by well paid people, I doubt there'd be one bit of difference.
And you're right sulyn, nobody can protect us from random acts no matter how ALERT we all are.
posted on November 15, 2001 12:50:13 PM
Hia plsmith nice to see you back BTW.
If it was lack of maintence that wouldn't have anything to do with unskilled labor at minimum wages. Airplane mechanics make high wages and have a lot of training. But, if the airlines won't let them perform their jobs, because they don't want to put out the money for the upkept of the planes then what?
If it was because of violence it's still on the airlines, and it's all because of money. They losing their butts right now because of it. People don't want to fly and pay premium prices to do it if they're not safe.
posted on November 15, 2001 01:50:22 PM" I don't understand how more pay can make workers work better. I've found that the high paying jobs produce the biggest slackers".
Be sure to spread that word amongst schoolteachers now, hear?
Kraft, your posts get more ludicrous each day. An airline's labor cost cutting was the direct cause of at least one major air disaster, that being the dartlike dive of a valujet plane into the florida everglades. The airline had contracted maintenance to a fly by night company which employed unqualified and possiby illegal immigrant workers, and the airline had been so thrilled at their cost cutting manipulations that they failed to monitor quality and safety of work performed as they are required by law to do.
It is also the most likely root cause of the crash of Alaska Air into the pacific ocean, an event which occured after the firing of a maintenance supervisor for reporting the shoddy maintenance practices of that airline.
posted on November 15, 2001 02:33:22 PM
You're missing my point krs. I'm saying that no matter how much you pay someone to do a job, it doesn't mean they will do a better job than a lower paid person. It's their training that makes them good or bad, not how much they are paid.
posted on November 15, 2001 02:41:16 PM
"I don't understand how more pay can make workers work better."
I've heard this every so often when people on tv are discussing this. One person put it something like this - "Have you ever seen someone do a better job just because you raised their salary?"
There's two problems that I can think of, offhand, with hiring people at minimum/near minimum wage.
First, the people you get aren't going to want to stay, they're going to be looking to get a better job. When anyone starts a new job, there's a period of time before they get proficient at whatever new job they're doing. When you hire people at minimum/near minimum wage, a high turnover results as your new hires find better jobs, so you get a workforce that's comprised largely of people of below-maximum proficiency.
Second, you really can't support yourself on a full-time minimum wage job. Adults who try invariably find that they have to take a second part time or full time minimum wage job to get a living wage. Since minimum wage jobs are typically physically demanding (these baggage checkers are standing for 8 hours a day, and have to be alert every minute, and that's different from doing 8 hours of deskwork, for example), what you end up with are people who are doing 60-80 hours a week in 2 physically demanding minimum wage jobs. Those are tired people and no matter how good their work ethic is, they're just not going to be as bright-eyed as you'd want them to be. If you get home and find that they've neglected to give you the fries you ordered, you're annoyed. If you get on a plane and don't get home at all, you're dead.
posted on November 15, 2001 02:47:56 PM
As I recall, that catastrophic Chicago crash led to an immediate grounding of all DC-10s, as engines simply are not expected to fall off jetliners.
In this Airbus A300 crash, we have an entire tail falling off, one of the most (if not THE most) catastrophic strucural failures ever to occur in civil aviation, yet Airbus A300s weren't immediately grounded, and in fact, "inspections" of all of them just began today, several days after the crash.
Odd, all things considered...
posted on November 15, 2001 10:43:11 PM
They didn't have precedence for the chicago incident, nor explanation. This one is explained by the amount of turbulance encountered in the jetash of a 747. The thing shook itself to death in the most stressed phase of flight. If the tail hadn't gone first smething else would have.
To the other in addition to Donny's correct view: you pay people more for a proven record either of training or performance or both. Pay less - expect less, and get less too. In the case of the airlines, they simply filled a required place with a body and prior to now didn't care what more they got.
posted on November 16, 2001 12:06:54 AM
Plsmith, to answer your question, yes I do find the handling of the affair suspicious. The damage and the subsequent spin. Like how the government was so quick to find any excuse other than terrorism. Though if there was a bomb on board, I don't see how it would have caused the tail to fall off like that.
posted on November 16, 2001 01:13:07 AM
Oh, that's easy enough. The gov doesn't want to give them another fifteen billion yet. so sure doesn't need people freaking out over this one, because it'll mean increased welfare to airports and services around the globe. They've still got to give out billions in welfare to payoff Pakistan and those cameled hoards of cutthroat mercenaries they tell you are good guys, not to mention the welfare payouts to pakistan and the other little places that allowed use of airstrips or restrooms and whathaveyou, or seemed maybe would vote the preferred way. Then there's the insurance company welfare to allocate, and a host of other handouts to every one who's not a citizen but has a hand out. He got a buckle today for future billions in welfare to Mexico, but he shied off riding a horse. Can this rancher ride a horse? Oh, that's another subject. Did you know that John Wayne could ride a horse? Credible man, John Wayne.
posted on November 16, 2001 03:29:33 PM
As I understand it, the take-off interval established by the FAA with respect to avoiding wake-turbulence incidents was followed in the case of Flight 587. "Heavy" aircraft -- such as the 747 or Airbus A300 -- are bound by different take-off-proximity guidelines than, say, a 747 taking off ahead of a much smaller LearJet.
The two disturbing issues at this point (for me) are:
1) That Airbus A300 arrived from the factory with a flaw in the way the tail had been attached and was re-worked to "correct" the problem.
2) Someone (maybe Mary Schiavo) said that studies of planes built with composite materials (and the Airbus A300 is one of them) have not been done in regard to their (perhaps different) sensitivity to wake turbulence.
So, here we have a jetliner that was faulty to begin with, and after thirteen years of flight that particular component of theplane falls off. Not only that, but now it comes out that the rules established to specifically avoid wake-turbulence may not apply to aircraft constructed of anything but metal.
posted on November 16, 2001 06:39:02 PM
I watched a show around the first of the year. It was called..."Why do planes crash"
That air travel had been one of the safest ways to travel.
They brought up about how there will be more planes crashing in the future, and that air travel will not be as safe.
There has not been enough money to keep up with inspections, and repairs that need to be done. That there are more planes now reaching and passing 20 years old. When you figure in the stress that each plane goes through each time it is flown, that when they reach that age, they need to be completly overhauled or not flown at all.
They did a study and found that most people would pay higher air fares if they new that the plane they were on had been inspected and repaired with NEW parts, not used, and that more newer planes were available.
With all the price wars and rising costs they had to cut costs somewhere, and they did.
posted on November 16, 2001 10:06:48 PM
"... they had to cut costs somewhere, and they did."
Which just makes it all the more absurd that WE have to bail them out, imo. The airlines (with the exception of Southwest and JetBlue and maybe two others) were in deep trouble long before September 11 -- due to their own gross mismanagement. Now they've been given fifteen BILLION dollars (while reporting losses of less than two billion) AND they've been taken out of the expense-loop regarding airport security (for the next three years).
And as to why the crash of Flight 587 hasn't been and won't be attributed to terrorism (even though it could have been sabotaged during its inspection the day before) -- how many people would fly during the busiest traveltime of the year (Thanksgiving) if even so much as a hint of foul-play was trumpeted for more than three seconds?
posted on November 16, 2001 10:52:40 PM
I agree that something could have been done at the last inspection. That's why I said they should check their mechanics. Does anyone know what the criteria is for their security clearance?
