11/12 Extra: Plane crashes in New York

Okay. Everyone - arm-chair speculate!

Another plane went down in New York, this one in Queens. Here's a picture from CNN:



As of right now, 10:33 AM EST (GMT -5), no one really has any idea what happened. Which is exactly where we were when I found out an hour ago. Witnesses are saying it looked like an engine exploded. I guess the three most popular theories are:

1) Mechanical failure
2) Surface to Air missle (at least, that's what *my* guess is, if it was a terrorist attack)
3) Bomb on board

The plane was American Airlines Flight 587 from New York to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. It was a Boeing Airbus A300. 255 people on board.

More information can be found at: http://robots.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/...ash/index.html

Man. I am so good at stealing Tony's thunder by posting pictures of planes crashing in New York.

Update: As BryanD pointed out below, the A300 is made by Airbus. My apologies for CNN stating it was a "Boeing Airbus A300" - buncha jerks.

[BryanD]

> It was a Boeing Airbus A300

Dang I hate doing this.... but the A300 is made by Airbus, not by Boeing.

The timing makes it suspicious, though it'll probably take a few days/weeks before we know what brought it down.

[CharlieG]

Originally posted by BryanD
> It was a Boeing Airbus A300

Dang I hate doing this.... but the A300 is made by Airbus, not by Boeing.

The timing makes it suspicious, though it'll probably take a few days/weeks before we know what brought it down.

Internal reports say that the airplane on the runway behind the airbus saw smoke coming from the engine

Sounds like mechanical failure

BTW I live in Queens, under one of the flight paths of LGA - a bit of a scare before I heard "Rockaway"

[Undertoad]

Everyone speculate? Okay, I speculate that the public's hair-trigger for stuff like this is going to continue another decade.

How about everyone NOT speculate; how about everyone calm down?

Originally posted by Undertoad
Everyone speculate? Okay, I speculate that the public's hair-trigger for stuff like this is going to continue another decade.

How about everyone NOT speculate; how about everyone calm down?

'Twas a joke, G. Sarcasm. As in, everyone calm the fuck down and wait to see what exactly happened.

It seems as though the pilot of the plane behind the Airbus saw smoke coming from an engine... so it was probably just a mechanical failure.

[Griff]

speculation? Oh oh, I used to build engine controls fer that bird.

[tw]

Originally posted by CharlieG
Internal reports say that the airplane on the runway behind the airbus saw smoke coming from the engine

Sounds like mechanical failure

But an airliner with engine trouble does not scatter its parts across the landscape. The body of the plane drove head first into Rockaway. The tail has already separated and was in Rockaway Inlet - really part of the Bay - is that Sheep's Meadow Bay? The right engine disengaged from the wing. Too many major structural parts separated thereby causing loss of stability. Considering current wartime conditions, this is suspicous even though the authorities are handling it as a mechanical failure.

Maybe it was a mechanical failure. But the failure causes the planes structure to disintegrate in flight.

One problem common to that side of JFK was birds being injested by engines. That side of JFK is a national bird reserve.

[Scopulus Argentarius]

Unfortunate happening! A LOT of souls were lost on this brief flight.

.... The plane was an Ait-Bus(t?) with perhaps mechanical failure with a GE(e?) engine.

In the early to mid 80s, AB were known for trying to fly themselves into the ground when the plane got in a tight spot. It seems that their control systems would tell the pilot FU! and crash the plane. These lmitations were worked out of the system eventually. I believe there was the combination of a GE Engine failing and the plane's CS freaking out.

Well..Maybe not...

Ya think the Airline's execs's ulcers started bleeeding again?

[scampo]

I was watching CNN and a guy was asked about what kind of bird could cause engine failure. He said it would've had to have been a large bird, such as a pelican. He also added that it couldn't of been a small bird because they do tests on engines to see what a bird could do. It got me thinking...how do they test what kind of damage a bird could do?

[jaguar]

dummy bird-type thing i guess. Either that or PETA are gonna have something new to complain about.

[Slight]

originally posted by scampo
...how do they test what kind of damage a bird could do?

With a chicken cannon of course!

From pratt &whittney
Bird strike test
Birds often get sucked into an engine on takeoff, posing a potential safety hazard. Pratt & Whitney simulates bird strikes to ensure that engines keep running normally. Dead birds purchased specifically for this test are shot into an engine set at takeoff thrust. Only an engine that keeps running is ready for service.

[jaguar]

you can image what this i used for after hours. Its liek an oversize nerf gun.
"oh roger......stand over that way a little........"EAT POULTRY BITCH" *sounds of roger hit repeatdly in the groin with dead chickens*

[CharlieG]

Originally posted by tw

<snip> One problem common to that side of JFK was birds being injested by engines. That side of JFK is a national bird reserve.

Yes - It is - It's the Jamacia Bay Widlife Preserve - As I said, I live in Queens. My wife is a "Birder"

Still looks mechanical, but WHY it came apart in air is a GOOD question, in particular if BOTH engines came off - The other question is the vertical stabilizer (as you said)

[russotto]

Originally posted by CharlieG


Still looks mechanical, but WHY it came apart in air is a GOOD question, in particular if BOTH engines came off - The other question is the vertical stabilizer (as you said)

Apparently the pylons which hold the engines on have been problems in the past. Combine catastrophic engine failure (which is going to cause a lot of a torque!) with pylons that are perhaps already suffering metal fatigue, and you have an engine which comes off.

[tw]

Originally posted by russotto
Apparently the pylons which hold the engines on have been problems in the past. Combine catastrophic engine failure (which is going to cause a lot of a torque!) with pylons that are perhaps already suffering metal fatigue, and you have an engine which comes off.

Those pylons, as designed even in the 707, are suppose to break free if engine vibration causes too much stress. If the right engine failed as claimed, then the engine vibration should have intentionally sheared the engine from wing without damage - as designed.

However in Chicago about two decades ago, the airline was using an unapproved method (using a fork lift) to reinstall engines. It is suspected to have cracked the pylon. On takeoff, the engine sheared off the wing. BUT someone failed in design. All three hydralic lines were routed in the same place, where the disengaging engine broke all three. The aircraft flipped over and crashed upon takeoff.

If the cause was engine failure, then the failure must have been horrific. Engine parts must have flown inside the plane to have been seen coming out the left side. Engine parts must have also chopped the tail off.

What could cause such failure? One possibility is that a mechanic left a tool in the engine induction during the 1 hour mechanical problem delay. Not likely. But then either is such engine failure.

BTW, the same engine also caused the failure of Flight 232 that landed in Sioux City without hydralics. Why? Again, someone designed all three hydralic lines together in the tail. The engine explosion took out all three hydralic systems.

In another failure, a B-1 bomber was taken out by a bird. The bird hit the fuselage where it also took out all hydralic lines. That is a $2(?)billion aircraft shot down by a bird.

How much problems are birds? A recent study determinesd that birds see and easily avoid oncoming aircraft. The problem is that some birds get the 'I'm too good to be hurt' attitude also displayed by humans. Research suggests that birds sometimes test their luck - try to get too close - and fail.