Another Plane crashes in New York!!!

Hey have you heard the news another plane has crashed in NY...near JFk and LA Guardia.......many buildings are said to be on fire....don't know wether it is accident or terrorists......

I'm reading about it now. It appears that witnesses said that they saw an explosion coming from the right side of the aircraft shortly after takeoff. The flight was going to my homeland of the Dominican Republic. I checked with my family to see if any family members were going to DR and might of been on that flight. Happy to report, that no family members of mine were on board. Still a tragedy though.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2001/images/11/12/top.smoke.plane.jpg

yep still a tragedy 246 passenger allegedly on board + crew and untold peeps on the ground.........if it isn't terrorist whats the betting some sick terrorist group out there claims it .......

It appears the engine fell off. Mechanical problems. Such a tragic event. I fear more and more everyday about flying. It sucks when shit like this happens. I don't even let my parents fly.

As I get more, I'll post them.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2001/images/11/12/top.wnyw.engine.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2001/images/11/12/top.wabc.fire.jpg

Yeah, I heard about this on the way back from a job site in Litchfield. This is the most detailed information I have gotten my hands on so far. An engine fell off? I have trouble believing that. Sounds like more terrorist activity to me. Guess we'll see as more information unfolds. But this is unbelievable. Why are they so fucking hard on NYC?

I doubt it's a terrorist attack. To low profile to subtle that's not their style. I think it is just coinsidence, mechanical failure.

Why American Airlines again?
Why New York City again?
Why on Veteran's Day?
Why following a weekend where we handed the Taliban a major military defeat?

Hey, G, I hope you're right. I hope it is mechanical failure. But it sure as shit doesn't look that way to me.

I believe it to be mechanical failure. Airbus A300 are problem prone and I've seen this happen before. I don't think we should rush to a terrorist attack until there is definite, conclusive proof that it's otherwise. Remember, the only time a plane can be in trouble is durning take off's and landings. This being during take off, could show something went wrong mechanically. I doubt a terrorist would want to just make an engine fall off considering these aircraft are built to fly with one engine. So let's be patient and see what the officials come up with.:)

yep also heard there was a similar accident in the US in the 80s or 90s, where an engine fell off thus causing the crash......I agree with DVS...wait till the officials come up with conclusive evidence either way...

Latest update! (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/bush.crash/index.html)

This is so sad that NY'ers have to go thru this AGAIN. :( They (and everyone else too) are still trying to come to terms with the events of Sept. 11.....and weird how close this was to the 2 month mark :( Just sad that this happens when people are just starting to have faith in air travel again and on a holiday :(

My thoughts go out to you all who live in NYC.....This was really the last thing you needed.

Glad to here your family etc are OK DVS and no one was on board.

i think it is terrorist, i'm not 100% sure though i'm like 70/30 split on it
it's not like engines fall off planes all the time :rolleyes:

like how often does somethin like that happen..... i think there are lots of people that hate america that work at airports, so somebody could have just messed somethin up on purpose while the plane was still on the ground
inside people

Originally posted by primera man
My thoughts go out to you all who live in NYC.....This was really the last thing you needed.

Glad to here your family etc are OK DVS and no one was on board.

I echo these sentiments. I am sorry for everyone who lost somebody on that flight, but I am also glad that you are not one of them.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

In New Jersey, the Pick 3 lottery numbers were 5-8-7. But at a hotel near Kennedy Airport, the notion that those three numbers would bring anyone luck was lost on the relatives of those who boarded a jet on a perfect fall morn — and never returned.


I just saw this in the newspaper. This is crazy.

one other thing... those planes were designed to be able to take off, fly and land with 1 engine.... so if the engine just popped off the wing then the plane would still be able to fly, that's why i don't really believe that's what happened

Originally posted by gang$tarr
one other thing... those planes were designed to be able to take off, fly and land with 1 engine.... so if the engine just popped off the wing then the plane would still be able to fly, that's why i don't really believe that's what happened

I think you are half right there...they can fly land take off etc with one engine.....if the other engine malfunctions or something...not completly pops of....cause that would cause serious imbalance......I think :eek: :cool:

maybe you're right, i just wrote what i heard some guy on CNN talkin about
but then again, wouldn't the lift under the wings just carry the plane? i dunno, i'm just guessin here

the guy said he thinks somethin happened to the electrical equipment so the pilots couldn't control the plane

So have they not managed to work out whether it was an accident or terrorists yet? :confused:

I don't think so. This could take a long time, perhaps months. When TWA flight 800 crashed in the Atlantic off the coast of Long Island a couple years back, I believe they were trying to determine whether foul play was involved for the better part of a year!

As for this particular crash, I'm just being very skeptical because of the numerous coincidences involved (as I've outlined earlier in this thread). Even if there was no terrorist bombing involved, how do we know that another form of sabotage is not at play here? Perhaps some terrorists did their homework, realized that there is a weak link in the engine mountings of the Aribus A300, and decided that would be a good place to work with to bring a plane down, by undermining the integrity of the mounting apparatus, as officials and investigators would therefore not be as suspicious?

I know this is a little far-fetched to many of you, and I know I should shut up about this until they can make some sort of determination, but to me, seems very far-fetched that this was just "an accident."

Originally posted by gang$tarr
one other thing... those planes were designed to be able to take off, fly and land with 1 engine.... so if the engine just popped off the wing then the plane would still be able to fly, that's why i don't really believe that's what happened

This is my specialty! As an engineer, you design aircraft to survive 10 times whatever the situation. So if you design it to carry for example, 8000lbs, you build it to carry 12,000lbs. Always safe guarding your primary load. Now yes, almost all aircraft are designed in such a way that if the plane loses one engine, it can still remain in the air and land safely at the nearest airport. But such is not the case here. Some facts that I'd like to point out.

1) These aircraft, Airbus, are built in France. Not the U.S. And while aircraft specs are universal the world around, there are subtle differences in manufacturing and products.

2) This is very important. The engine that fell off of the aircraft has two shear pins holding them to a pylon on the wing. These pins are designed to break off should the pilot decide to ditch the aircraft in water. Keeping them on would cause the plane to tip over, thus, killing everyone on board.

3) The Airbus has had a history of mechanical problems. When they first came out, obviously no problems. But as always with time, they come out.

4) Also remember that this aircraft was taking off at the time. Which means that the engines were operating at full capacity, 100% thrust because it was still in a taking of approach. When that engine fell off, you have to remember the other one is still at full thrust. Thus causing the nose of the aircraft to swing in the direction of the wing without the engine.

5) Lastly, the wing sustained damage which then lead to that wing not producing enough lift. Remember, the wings on aircraft are designed in such a way that any imperfection on them can cause problems. Worse yet, during takeoffs and landings. This wing suffered serious damage and could not produce the lift needed.


So in the end, everything happened so fast, the pilots just couldn't correct them in time.:(

DOC....i'm impressed :) :)

If the engine is lost, wouldnt it lose its hydraulics etc in the wing, therefore losing control of steering and landing gear ??

Originally posted by primera man
DOC....i'm impressed :) :)

If the engine is lost, wouldnt it lose its hydraulics etc in the wing, therefore losing control of steering and landing gear ??


Not necessarily. They can lock out function in that wing. Then the other wing and other appendages compensate for the lack of that particular wing.




On another note, this is taken from todays paper. It appears that, flutter, might be the cause.

Click here for story (http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-11-15/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-132163.asp)

A major factor in the destruction of American Airlines Flight 587 may prove to be something called flutter — one of the most dreaded bugaboos of flight, experts said yesterday.


The jet engine which fell from Flight 587 is removed from 128th St. in Belle Harbor, Queens.

Flutter is a vibration so violent it can render an aircraft uncontrollable. In tandem with structural flaws, flutter can conceivably rip off a plane's tail.

"Flutter is the demon of all aviation," said Chuck Leonard, a former National Transportation Safety Board investigator. "Once you get flutter, there's going to be damage done."

NTSB investigators probing Monday's crash in the Rockaways said yesterday that they are focusing on the tail section of Flight 587, apparently the first piece of the aircraft to fall off, and the possible effect of turbulence from a Japan Airlines 747 that took off shortly before the American Airlines jet.

Flutter could be the element that connects those two phenomena — though it would be the first time in aviation history, experts said.

"All these things are pretty remote and take pretty unusual circumstances," said Ken Darcy, a former NTSB investigator who is a consultant at Safety Services International, near Seattle. "But obviously, this accident is unprecedented, so we're looking for very unusual things."

Flutter occurs when a piece of an airplane is pushed in one direction, bounces back the other way and then whipsaws violently back and forth.

Something must trigger the problem, and modern jets like the Airbus A300 are carefully balanced and use rigid materials to prevent turbulence and foreign objects from causing flutter.

One or several of those structural and design elements would have had to fail for the wake from the 747 to have caused flutter in the American Airlines jet's tail.

"Turbulence could make the aircraft unstable," Leonard said. "But then there would have to be an anomaly in the vertical stabilizer."

Leonard said the balance is very delicate and that materials designed to prevent the tail from shaking become less stiff over time.

"Even changing the paint surface can change the mass balancing and create flutter potential," he said.

John Hansman, a professor of aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the plane's systems could have accentuated the effect of turbulence.

The wake could have caused the yaw damper — an automatic feature that makes constant rudder adjustments for side winds — to start a tail flutter, he said.

"If it did encounter wake vortex, and that got the yaw damper moving, that would do something to the tail," Hansman said.

He said tail flutter was cited as a factor in the 1994 crash of a U.S. Airways flight outside Pittsburgh and in the 1991 crash of a United Airlines jet in Colorado Springs.

In both crashes, tail flutter caused rudders to jam all the way to one side, but the tail did not break off, Hansman said.

Connectors Eyed

Other experts said the tail fin on Flight 587 wouldn't have broken free unless something was wrong with the materials that attached it to the fuselage.

The flanges between the tail fin and the fuselage broke off. Such flanges are made of a composite graphite material that NTSB investigators are closely examining.

Hansman said the composite materials endure fatigue better than metals, but they are more easily damaged by impact. "And they can have internal damage that can't be seen," Hansman said.

Even so, the plane was designed so that one or more flanges could crack and the tail would remain intact.

"You'd be talking about a series of undetected cracks or failures," Darcy said.

Peter Goelz, an aviation consultant and former NTSB managing director, said the pilot might not have even known a piece of the tail had fallen off.

"He's got no rear-view mirror," Goelz said. "All he knows is that he has lost control of his aircraft."

Loss of the tail fin does not necessarily doom a flight. Commercial jets have stayed in the air without one.

In 1985, a Japan Airlines Boeing 747 flew circles between Tokyo and Osaka for 70 minutes after that part of its tail fell off. It finally crashed into a mountain, killing 520 people — the deadliest crash in aviation history.

But, Goelz said, if Flight 587 was in the midst of a massive flutter, "a catastrophic event" was inevitable once the tail fin fell off.


Original Publication Date: 11/15/01

Originally posted by DVSNCYNIKL



"Even changing the paint surface can change the mass balancing and create flutter potential," he said.



Wow.......thats pretty amazing how something that small can change a plane.
Nice report DOC.....Cheers

Thank you sir!http://www.theunholytrinity.org/cracks_smileys/cwm/3dlil/rolly.gif

I'm beginning to get that "I'm full of shit" feeling... but that's okay :) Good job DVS.

Besides, I took on some of the biggest brains over at SHO and argued a case for the Honda B16A engine against the Honda B18C engine for forced induction applications.. and I think I may have won (or at least shut 'em down to try and come up with a good rebuttal :D ). So, that makes me feel a little less full of shit :sun: (Here's that thread, in case you're curious: Built B18c vs Built B16a (http://www.superhonda.org/board/showthread.php?threadid=84706).)

I believe that this plane was shot down, most probably by the military. There was a UN meeting and I think something happened to make the military think that the plane was a threat. They weren't about to let another plane hit an important building.

Originally posted by Lizard King
I believe that this plane was shot down, most probably by the military. There was a UN meeting and I think something happened to make the military think that the plane was a threat. They weren't about to let another plane hit an important building.
No kidding! If you get more info on this lead, LK, please let us know.

Originally posted by Lizard King
I believe that this plane was shot down, most probably by the military. There was a UN meeting and I think something happened to make the military think that the plane was a threat. They weren't about to let another plane hit an important building.

i don't think so.... but it is possible
but they need the president himself to give the order to shoot down a plane.... and this plane wasn't heading for any important building, and it didn't do anything suspicious

but everything's a possibility i guess

i just think somebody sabotaged the plain from the ground

Originally posted by Lizard King
I believe that this plane was shot down, most probably by the military. There was a UN meeting and I think something happened to make the military think that the plane was a threat. They weren't about to let another plane hit an important building.



This is definitely not the case. It went down because of the previous planes wake. It didn't do anything suspicious since it was still in a take off pattern. And like G$ said, the order would have to come from the president. Secondly, please rememeber that the tail sections and engines were intact. Had this plane been shot down, it would have not been the case.

DVSNCYNIKL, i know its kind of unrelated, and that im digging up an old topic, but is that "flutter" the same thing as caused maverick and gooses plane to crash in Top Gun??