Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
7 Years Ago Today - AA 587 Crash  
User currently offlineA332 From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7581 times:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Pries - ATR Team


On November 12, 2001, about 09:16 eastern standard time, American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus Industrie A300-605R, N14053, crashed into Belle Harbor, a New York City residential area, shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York. Flight 587 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight to Las Américas International Airport, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, with 2 flight crew members, seven flight attendants, and 251 passengers aboard the plane. Ed States served as the captain, and Sten Molin served as the first officer.

The plane's vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and fell into Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site. The plane's engines subsequently separated in flight and fell several blocks north and east of the main wreckage site. All 260 people aboard the plane and 5 people on the ground died, and the impact forces and a post-crash fire destroyed the plane.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin



* Another tragic day in aviation history... this particular incident inflicting more pain in the fresh wounds of the 9/11 attacks. I still can't believe it's already been 7 years.

[Edited 2008-11-12 13:14:26]


Bad spellers of the world... UNTIE!
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7568 times:



Quoting A332 (Thread starter):
* Another tragic day in aviation history... this particular incident inflicting more pain in the fresh wounds of the 9/11 attacks. I still can't believe it's already been 7 years.

It doesn't seem possible that it's been 7 years already, but the calendar doesn't lie. Indeed, another sad day to remember.



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineNWA320 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7522 times:

A sad day indeed. My dad's friend, an AA pilot, flew the aircraft the day before the crash.

User currently offlineTCX757330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7389 times:

Hi

Just brings home to you how fast time goes and how quickly it can be taken from you.

My thoughts to passengers and the families of the passengers and crew on board AA587

TCX757330


User currently onlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1048 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7321 times:



Quoting A332 (Thread starter):
The plane's vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and fell into Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site. The plane's engines subsequently separated in flight and fell several blocks north and east of the main wreckage site.

How did the vertical stabilizer fall off? Was it not attached properly?
And also, how would the vertical stabilizer separating off make both engines fall off the plane?


User currently offlineDelta763 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7273 times:

Quoting AT (Reply 4):
How did the vertical stabilizer fall off? Was it not attached properly?

Heh... depends on who you ask.

AA blamed Airbus for poor engineering and Airbus blamed AA for maneuvering the plane beyond its limits.

Not sure who the NTSB sided with.

[Edited 2008-11-12 15:45:50]

User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7207 times:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf

There is the report.

For some odd reason "seconds from disaster" had that on today.

While there was a lot of finger pointing going on, one of the comments on the previously mentioned program an investigator commented after looking at the FDR that he had never seen the rudder input as a response to wake turbulance. The other information I gleemed was that the aircraft was responding to the large rudder inputs not the wake turbulance.


Okie


User currently offlinePITops From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1442 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7043 times:

Yeah I watched the Seconds from Disaster show this morning. The show was very interesting to say the least. Said the pilot was using the rudder because of the wake turbulance but said that the pedals react differently in the air then they do on the ground. To get full movement on the ground, the pedals need to be moved 4 inches. In the air, it only takes about an inch or so. The pilots didn't know this since it wasn't in the flight manuals from Airbus. So when the aircraft entered the turbulance and the FO was trying to maneuver out, he was applying more power then needed for the rudder. The plane reacted to the rudder movements causing the pilot to think the turbulance was indeed stronger then it really was. After a few seconds, the carbon composite parts snapped off the frame causing the tail fin to fly off the aircraft.


Ground Ops, Southwest Airlines, CMH
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6971 times:

Such a freaky crash, it still leaves me nervous to fly the AB6 to this day.

That said, were you guys aware of this (real) video, which shows the actual takeoff?
It doesn't catch the crash, though if the camera had stayed on the plane another 15 seconds or so, it would've.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Wr-EjIDBo

[Edited 2008-11-12 20:03:39]

User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6844 times:



Quoting AT (Reply 4):
How did the vertical stabilizer fall off? Was it not attached properly?

It was attached properly (in the sense that it conformed to the certification). It came off because the load on the tail exceeded the ultimate load it was designed for. The argument over who is responsible is really about whether that was the right value to design for.

Quoting AT (Reply 4):
And also, how would the vertical stabilizer separating off make both engines fall off the plane?

Without a vertical stabilizer, you don't have yaw stability. So the plane becomes uncontrollable and tumbles/spins/etc. That's a situation the pylons were never (and should never) be designed to handle. You get very large gyroscopic forces on the engine mounts when you try to yaw (or pitch) a running engine quickly.

Quoting PITops (Reply 7):
Said the pilot was using the rudder because of the wake turbulance but said that the pedals react differently in the air then they do on the ground. To get full movement on the ground, the pedals need to be moved 4 inches. In the air, it only takes about an inch or so.

It's not an air/ground thing, as far as I know, it's a speed thing. They might have also had an air/ground interlock but I think the sensitivity change was primarily a speed thing.

Quoting PITops (Reply 7):
The pilots didn't know this since it wasn't in the flight manuals from Airbus.

Although technically true, that's not really the cause...the Airbus flight manuals also don't say to use large rudder inputs (and especially not large oscillating rudder movements) while in flight, so there wasn't any perceived need to tell the flight crews about this.

Quoting PITops (Reply 7):
So when the aircraft entered the turbulance and the FO was trying to maneuver out, he was applying more power then needed for the rudder.

Part of the issue is that what the FO did isn't the right way to maneuver out of the turbulence he encountered. The dispute between AA and Airbus is whether Airbus should have engineered the tail to take the loads from an incorrect, but potentially forseeable, pilot input or whether AA should have been training their pilots to not put in inputs that the rudder can't handle.

Tom.


User currently offlineEk773er From Greece, joined Oct 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6815 times:



Quoting Delta763 (Reply 5):
Not sure who the NTSB sided with

Yeah but do not forget the enormous pressure the NTSB guys were at the time. This happen just 2 months after 9/11. They needed to find the cause of the accident fast.....


User currently offlineEyes2thesky From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6778 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9):
You get very large gyroscopic forces on the engine mounts when you try to yaw (or pitch) a running engine quickly.

This point escaped me till now, even though it makes perfect sense. The effect should be greatest when the engine is at high rpm, such as takeoff and initial climb; This would be yet another factor that worked against AA587. Although even if the engines had not separated the outcome probably would have been the same.

Could this also be the underlying cause of that 747 freighter out of ANC losing two of its engine pods in extreme turbulence?

[Edited 2008-11-13 01:21:21]

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6539 times:



Quoting Eyes2thesky (Reply 11):
747 freighter out of ANC losing two of its engine pods in extreme turbulence?

Timeframe? Airline?

Did it crash?


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6538 times:



Quoting Eyes2thesky (Reply 11):
Could this also be the underlying cause of that 747 freighter out of ANC losing two of its engine pods in extreme turbulence?

No such incident!!!!


User currently offlineEyes2thesky From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6384 times:



Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 12):
Timeframe? Airline?

Did it crash?

No, it didn't crash.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 13):
No such incident!!!!

It may have been a DC-8, not a 747. I will try to find the details when I get home from work tonight.


User currently offlineEyes2thesky From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6368 times:

Ok, this is the 747 incident I'm thinking of:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930331-0

Only 1 engine separated, not 2.

There may have been a similar DC-8 incident, but i don't have time to look it up now.


User currently offlineEYFlyer88 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5501 times:

It's honestly amazing how time flies. I remember this as if it was yesterday.


There is no sport equal to that which aviators enjoy while being carried through the air on great white wings. - Wilbur
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25473 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5255 times:



Quoting Eyes2thesky (Reply 14):
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 13):
No such incident!!!!

It may have been a DC-8, not a 747. I will try to find the details when I get home from work tonight.

An El Al 747-200F freighter lost both #3 and #4 engines/pylons soon after takeoff from AMS in 1992. It crashed into a large apartment building killing 39 on the ground plus the 4 crew. When the #3 engine separated it struck the #4 engine causing it to separate as well.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19921004-2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...tober/4/newsid_4617000/4617395.stm





User currently offlineSpeedBirdA380 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 539 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5123 times:



Quoting Contrails (Reply 1):
It doesn't seem possible that it's been 7 years already, but the calendar doesn't lie. Indeed, another sad day to remember.

My thoughts exactly. 7 years already. I was at home that day when it flashed up on the news and with 9/11 still very fresh in the mind I was almost certain it was another terrorist attack.

It was sad that when it was discovered not to be a terrorist attack the media here in the UK pretty much dropped the story overnight. This tragedy was almost "forgotten" in the shadow of 9/11.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
25 Years Ago Today AA 191 Crash posted Tue May 25 2004 22:48:15 by ArmitageShanks
AA-587 Crashed 4 Years Ago Today posted Sat Nov 12 2005 23:35:04 by KC135TopBoom
AA 587 Crash 3 Years Ago posted Thu Nov 11 2004 22:27:25 by Ltbewr
Sixty Years Ago Today: NW Crash - Great Article! posted Fri Aug 29 2008 09:15:15 by WA707atMSP
49 Years Ago Today: American Airlines Plane Crash posted Sun Feb 3 2008 08:43:56 by September11
AA 191 - 28 Years Ago Today posted Fri May 25 2007 14:29:57 by Contrails
117 Die In Air India 707 Crash 31 Years Ago Today. posted Wed Jan 24 2007 10:08:41 by Cumulus
737 Crash At East Midlands 18 Years Ago Today. posted Mon Jan 8 2007 13:06:27 by Cumulus
Flight ET961 Crash Ten Years Ago Today. posted Thu Nov 23 2006 13:12:15 by Cumulus
ValuJet Crash - 10 Years Ago Today posted Thu May 11 2006 11:53:18 by Jetpixx