Flight 587 Probe Focusing On What Made Tail Fall Off

dbaker · 10-29-2002, 11:18 AM

Flight 587 Probe Focusing On What Made Tail Fall Off

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP)--The investigation into the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in New York last year involves many complex technical questions that can be boiled down to a simple query: What caused the tail to snap off?

Quote:

The National Transportation Safety Board's four-day public hearing on the accident begins Tuesday. NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz said the agency probably won't decide the probable cause of the crash until next year.

Not an impressive mark for Airbus, especially since this is the first Airbus crash in North America.

Nugget · 10-29-2002, 07:12 PM

I sure am glad the probe is focusing on why the tail fell off. At first I was worried they'd spend all their time trying to determine why the chicken sandwich served to the passenger in 17C was still a bit frozen in the middle.

merchanb · 11-03-2002, 04:05 PM

No brainer:

1. Clear Air Turbulance. ("Cleared for takeoff" is advisory, not manditory, I ALWAYS waited several minutes before following a large jet.)

2. Pilot rough on pedals to counteract yaw. (Correcting with ailerons is not necessarily intuitive.)

3. Structural inadequacy in the rudder mount itself (saves weight.)

mduell · 11-03-2002, 06:37 PM

1. Clear Air Turbulance. ("Cleared for takeoff" is advisory, not manditory, I ALWAYS waited several minutes before following a large jet.)

Wouldn't that be wake turbulence/wingtip vorticies, not CAT?

And you're fine following a large jet on takeoff as long as you can rotate before they did and out climb them or turn off to the side.

merchanb · 11-03-2002, 08:56 PM

1. Wouldn't that be wake turbulence/wingtip vorticies, not CAT?

*** You’re quite right. My error . . . not CAT.

2. And you're fine following a large jet on takeoff as long as you can rotate before they did and out climb them or turn off to the side.

*** Maybe you're fine, but I'm not. A few minutes isn't going to ruin my schedule and I'd just as soon keep my rudder.

*** I have been very severely rocked by Jet blast long before the spot where they reached V2. Matter of fact, if you're a light aircraft you just might get blown over while sitting still. The wake is invisible and does not necessarily stay over the runway so how do you know where to go? In addition, it can linger several minutes under calm conditions.

*** FAA certified Commercial, Multiengine, Instrument Pilot, Continental Platinum and yes, I have stopped beating my wife.

mduell · 11-03-2002, 09:24 PM

Jet blast != wingtip vorticies, which is usually what tower is warning you about when they say "Cleared to land, caution wake turbulence." I'm just repeating what my CFI instilled in me, you could very well be more right (and probably safer anyway).

And whats the joke about being your wife all about?

merchanb · 11-03-2002, 09:27 PM

1. And whats the joke about being your wife all about?

Simple . . . I don't have one.

10-29-2002, 07:12 PM	#2
Nugget Senior Member ITYT Navigator Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 610	I sure am glad the probe is focusing on why the tail fell off. At first I was worried they'd spend all their time trying to determine why the chicken sandwich served to the passenger in 17C was still a bit frozen in the middle. __________________

11-03-2002, 04:05 PM	#3
merchanb Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: GUM Posts: 136	Flight 587 Probe Focusing On What Made Tail Fall Off No brainer: 1. Clear Air Turbulance. ("Cleared for takeoff" is advisory, not manditory, I ALWAYS waited several minutes before following a large jet.) 2. Pilot rough on pedals to counteract yaw. (Correcting with ailerons is not necessarily intuitive.) 3. Structural inadequacy in the rudder mount itself (saves weight.)

11-03-2002, 09:27 PM	#7
merchanb Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: GUM Posts: 136	1. And whats the joke about being your wife all about? Simple . . . I don't have one. __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-03-2002, 06:37 PM	#4
mduell Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: SBA or PRC Posts: 71	1. Clear Air Turbulance. ("Cleared for takeoff" is advisory, not manditory, I ALWAYS waited several minutes before following a large jet.) Wouldn't that be wake turbulence/wingtip vorticies, not CAT? And you're fine following a large jet on takeoff as long as you can rotate before they did and out climb them or turn off to the side.

11-03-2002, 08:56 PM	#5
merchanb Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: GUM Posts: 136	1. Wouldn't that be wake turbulence/wingtip vorticies, not CAT? * You’re quite right. My error . . . not CAT. 2. And you're fine following a large jet on takeoff as long as you can rotate before they did and out climb them or turn off to the side. * Maybe you're fine, but I'm not. A few minutes isn't going to ruin my schedule and I'd just as soon keep my rudder. * I have been very severely rocked by Jet blast long before the spot where they reached V2. Matter of fact, if you're a light aircraft you just might get blown over while sitting still. The wake is invisible and does not necessarily stay over the runway so how do you know where to go? In addition, it can linger several minutes under calm conditions. * FAA certified Commercial, Multiengine, Instrument Pilot, Continental Platinum and yes, I have stopped beating my wife.

11-03-2002, 09:24 PM	#6
mduell Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: SBA or PRC Posts: 71	Jet blast != wingtip vorticies, which is usually what tower is warning you about when they say "Cleared to land, caution wake turbulence." I'm just repeating what my CFI instilled in me, you could very well be more right (and probably safer anyway). And whats the joke about being your wife all about?