Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wake Turbulence Cause Of AA587  
User currently offlineTbird From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 851 posts, RR: 19
Posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

Greetings:

More and more news agencies are reporting that wake turbulence may have been the cause of AA587's crash. CNN reported that a JAL 744 was only 90 sec's ahead of AA587 which is to close. I could see wake turbulence affecting a smaller jet but an A300 is rather large to be affected that much by a 744's wake. A few years ago NASA tested the wake turbulence theory in a USair crash where they flew two 737 less then a mile from each other and nothing major happened. What does everybody think of this theory?

Thanx
Tom

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRyu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

There was a rattling sound heard over the CVR or so reports say.

But what if the wake turbulance somehow induced vibrations in the airframe at the critical resonance frequency, thus causing the vibratings to increase rapidly, leading to structural failure?

Has this fundamental physical phenomenon ever led to a airplane crash before, I wonder?


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1962 times:

Firstly, a question mark in front of the topic title?

Secondly, wake turbulance can be a big problem, usually though an A300 wouldn't be severly effected by even the greatest 747 wake turbulence/vortex. Lol, they'll be those who say the Wake Turbulance is the last resort of the NTSB. A 737 rudder hard-overs was blamed for a LONG time on wake vorticies.....


User currently offlineChepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6202 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

I think its better for people to stop speculating. I've heard so many things righht now from bird ingestion to a possible bomb. The media speculating and the people repeating this is making people not wanting to fly anymore.
Chepos



Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

The rattling could be a stickshaker. Remember that. And yeah, Chepos, no more speculating people please.

Yeah, yeah, i'm aware of the irony of that, considering the start of my post  Smile


User currently offlineFLYSAB From Belgium, joined Nov 1999, 106 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

Wake turbulence appears only from the point of rotation of the aircraft and stays under the flight path.
As the A300 rotated for sure (except if it took off from an intersection, but then you normally have to wait 3 minutes to start the take off roll behind a heavy) farther from the end of the runway than the 747, and then climbed with a better rate, the wake turbulence theory is probably not funded.


User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1898 times:

I doubt. If it was a small prop, then I would believe wake turbulence is the cause. But, here, pple, it's A300, which is a wide-body and heavy. Can it be so easily affected? I doubt.

Is NTSB hiding the real cause by throwing out this theory?

I guess so.
r panda

Sorry, NTSB, and those working hard in the investigation.


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

Speculate away. The NTSB is doing the same thing we are. Rule nothing in. Rule nothing out.

Speculation means theory and theory gets proven into fact and fact is what fixes things.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Red Panda, it didn't say the NTSB were covering this up. I merely noted that somepeople may start churning out the conspiracy theories after ther wake-turbulance comment.

User currently offlineAWspicious From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

I'm wouldn't be surprised if these pages are being monitored.... in light of recent developments. However, I gotta frown about the wake turbulence 'query'. The plane apparently only achieved an altitude of 2800 ft. Could it break apart so much and so soon? Would wake turbulence cause an A300 to break apart in the air? I'm of the assumption if the plane was to experience abnormal dynamic forces at a much higher altitude - say, the 13000 587 was cleared for - I could see there being enough time for the aircraft to become over stressed and break apart. Or, if it was wake turbulence at the suggested 2800 ft. she'd just loose it and fall to the ground.... intact till impact.
I wonder if perhaps the harmonics heard wasn't the tail section coming apart.... or, the initial cause of the tail section seperating.
Look, I don't think anyone is saying this or that IS what happened. all we're doing is wondering if this or that could possibly be a cause/contributing factor. Perhaps, some of us might learn something from these posts, no?


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1834 times:

I think the wake turbulence is credible, for exactly the reason you said: if it was wake turbulence at the suggested 2800 ft. she'd just loose it and fall to the ground.... intact till impact

The aircraft did come down intact, other than the vertical stabiliser and the engines. As said on other posts, if the vert stab somehow came off, the wake turbulence could have caused a side slip, which would have torn off the engines, and resulted in the rest of the aircraft coming down in one place. Which is pretty much what the debris field indicates.

The wake turbulence is definitely a factor. Whether it caused the vert stab to come off or not is unknown, but once the vert stab was gone, wake turbulence, or indeed any unsettled air, would have led to the crash.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineAirT85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

MSNBC reported that this airplane had an encounter with wake turbulence in 1994. Although the guy said the plane would have been inspected, which im sure it has been, could a second encounter possibly weaken the planes resistance to the vibration of encountering the wake? Im not trying to add to speculation, just asking a question.
Tony


User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1795 times:

I don't know whether NTSB is covering up some inside stories or not, but I am quite disappointed in their investigation of TWA800.

Will NTSB ever find the true cause(s) of the accident?
also, will the public be informed about the true cause(s)?

I just have too much question marks and disappointment in my head.

r panda


User currently offlineGyro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1783 times:

I don't buy the wake turbulence story either... remember also that wake-turbulence descends at a rate of 200ft a minute I beleive... The JAL 747 must have taken off at a later point on the runway as the A-300 did... it had aslower rate of climb and subtract 300ft. for the 90 second time span. So unless the A-300 had a poor (which the A-300 doesn't) or restricted rate of climb, it seems very unlikely that it should have flown into the wake of the 747. Furthermore, and as stated before the A-300 must have been quite close to the 170,000kg. mark. To shake this heavy Airbus around and cause it to crash??? Very far fetched theory if you ask me...

Vibrations can mean many things such as an imminent stall or engine failure...

In the twin engine airplane I'm getting my multi rating in right now (Piper Aztec) if you are in a nose up attitude (climbing) and the critical engine fails and the pilots don't recognize or take appropriate action the plane will turn upside down and start an unrecoverable nose dive within seconds. Don't know if this is true in the A-300 however.

In my opinion, a plane that looses it's rudder will not go down nose first!!!

Don't know if this is true with the A-300 however...


User currently offlineCrank From Canada, joined May 2001, 1559 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

I dont know what a 744's turbuence could do on an A300, but I've experienced wake turbulence on a DC-9 this summer. It was about 90 seconds after takeoff, we entered turbulence for about 20 seconds and after it was gone. An Azores A310 had taken off about 2 or 3 minutes before us so I guess that's why.

Though, I hardly doubt this could cause an airplane to crash


User currently offlineFlightSimFreak From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

In the AIM, Paragraph 7-3-2, it says "In rare instances a wake encounter could cause inflight structural damage of catastrophic proportions." Now, I'de have to agree that the A300 would be in the air long before that 747, and would be climbing much faster then him, so this is unlikely. But, if ATC had put a restriction on his climb for trafic or other reasons, he could have easily flown through that 747's wake.

User currently offlineChe From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

A theory and just that. But its does need to be throughly invetigated. Any lead at this point should be followed up and investigated. Now is the time for the "I think this might have happend but why and how" and also the "this might of happend because of that" type of queations.

As for the wake turbulance theory. I think it should be checked out. The A300 is rather beefy and I don't see how a 747's wake could really affect an A300 too severely. But then again I could be wrong.

che


User currently offlinePANYNJ From Bahamas, joined Sep 2001, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1708 times:

THE VERTICAL STABILIZER SEPARATED FROM THE AIRFRAME!

This hasn't happened in like 50 years.


User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1693 times:

Compressor Stall? Failure and injestion of an N1 blade?


Just wondering aloud...


User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

Also, we can pretty much credit the crash itself with the loss of differential power compounded with no control over yaw, seeing as the number one engine and vertical stabilizer were both found over a mile from the main impact site. The aircraft should've been nearly impossible to control without two engines or a rudder.

What caused either of these events is beyond all of us.

However... aircraft engines are designed to fly up over the wing and fall to the ground SHOULD a seperation occur... this is what happened in the AA Flt 191 incident in 1979. The engine lifted and flew back as it should have, but struck the leading edge slats on it's way off which causes the slat disagreement. Perhaps something not unlike Flt191 occured in this case.

Although, had the engine hit the tail on the way off... would it not have as well been found in Jamaica Bay?

Again... just thinking out loud.


User currently offlineSeagull From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 340 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

NTSB never said that wake was the cause, only that the crew mentioned it in conversation. TWA 800 was not a coverup, NTSB did a pretty good job with that.

User currently offlineTygue From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

I'm getting quite a kick out of the TWA800 comments.

Have you any idea how difficult it would be to determine the cause of a crash that left absolutely no clear clues?


User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

Try reading a source that is a little more credible, such as AW&ST. Here is a link to the AA587 acident:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/spSec/aaqueens.jsp

Pete


User currently offlineNwafirstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1651 times:

is wake turbulence like when a plane is by you and you get turbulence from it? when we were on the ground in mpls, i was going back to rochester and i was in an RJ-85(avro) and like a DC-9 or like a 727 was ahead of us and the plane was shaking, it was annoying

User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3603 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (12 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

Red Panda: Have you actually read the TWA 800 accident report?



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
25 Lehpron : A few years ago NASA tested the wake turbulence theory in a USair crash where they flew two 737 less then a mile from each other and nothing major hap
26 N400QX : Damn, I was really hoping to post some relevant information here, but thanks to Bove this thread will probably be deleted. Oh well, I'll try anyway--
27 Ihadapheo : N400QX, hopefully the powers that be are wise enough to only delete the post with the vile photos (I wonder if Bove understands that the photos are c
28 CV990 : Hi! This accident reminds me another one that happened some almost 40 years ago in Japan, this time it was a B. 707-436 from BOAC - G-APFE - that pas
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...
Corrosion A Cause Of AA587? (NB: Speculation Only) posted Wed Nov 14 2001 22:01:42 by VirginFlyer
Sound Of Wake Turbulence posted Sun Jul 24 2005 17:17:53 by Sfilipowicz
Could This Cause A Wake Turbulence Issue? posted Fri Apr 1 2005 09:15:15 by BaylorAirBear
Airliners That Cause The Worst "Wake Turbulence" posted Mon Mar 21 2005 17:18:32 by DIA
Cause Of Atlantic Airways Crash. posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:26:54 by CPHGuard
A-380 Wake Turbulence Seperation posted Mon Oct 9 2006 23:38:36 by KC135TopBoom
Citation Severe Wake-turbulence Encounter At SFO posted Mon Sep 25 2006 05:22:43 by Wave882
Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778 posted Thu Aug 3 2006 11:09:51 by Tu204
Electrical Systems The Main Cause Of A380 Delay posted Mon Jun 19 2006 13:33:37 by EI321
Question On Wake Turbulence posted Tue May 30 2006 18:11:13 by Toulouse
Corrosion A Cause Of AA587? (NB: Speculation Only) posted Wed Nov 14 2001 22:01:42 by VirginFlyer
Sound Of Wake Turbulence posted Sun Jul 24 2005 17:17:53 by Sfilipowicz
Could This Cause A Wake Turbulence Issue? posted Fri Apr 1 2005 09:15:15 by BaylorAirBear
Airliners That Cause The Worst "Wake Turbulence" posted Mon Mar 21 2005 17:18:32 by DIA
9J, Union Differ On Cause Of Flight 3407 Crash posted Mon Dec 14 2009 20:53:13 by KBUF
A380 Causes Wake Turbulence To Saab 340 posted Wed Dec 9 2009 17:13:44 by Darthluke12694
UA #745 Diverts Cause Of 'white Powder' posted Fri Jul 24 2009 16:45:16 by Fxramper
Anyone Know The Official Cause Of KQ Crash 2007 posted Tue May 26 2009 09:37:00 by Flaps30
Cause Of Turkish Airlines Crash At Schiphol? posted Sun May 17 2009 21:51:12 by Osetka
NTSB Releases Cause Of AA MD-80 Fire posted Tue Apr 7 2009 12:37:46 by N471WN