funny
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri May 11, 2001 4:07 am

AA A300 Accident Discussion.

Sat Nov 17, 2001 11:06 pm

I would like to begin a specialised discussion on the AA A300 accident in Queens. If you have any thing to say about it please do. We can begin with the cause of the accident. I find it hard to believe that wake turbulence was responsable for the separation of the rudder, engine etc. What do you guys think?
Jason
 
chepos
Posts: 5932
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

RE: AA A300 Accident Discussion.

Sun Nov 18, 2001 2:13 am

May the victims Rest In Peace. God Bless the Victims family members and give them comfort.
Chepos
Fly the Flag!!!!
 
DeanBNE
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:47 pm

RE: AA A300 Accident Discussion.

Sun Nov 18, 2001 2:29 am

Don't underestimate wake turbulence. It can be immensely powerful. On one occassion a DC-10 flipped a DC-9 over.

And as for the loss of the tail fin being a 'first' in aviation, it seems people have forgotten the VC-10 accident that occurred near Mt Fuji.

RIP to the victims and the best wishes to their friends and family.

Cheers,
Dean
 
SleepyFlyBoy
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 7:43 am

RE: AA A300 Accident Discussion.

Sun Nov 18, 2001 3:05 am

I highly doubt that wake turbulance could be the main contributing factor to this crash. There had to be something or some prior weakness in the airframe of the A300. Yes wake turb is very serious and can cause smaller planes to lose control but how could wake turbulance toss and dismantle a plane full with passengers and cargo. In past wake turb accidents the planes weren't filled to capacity and were therefore lighter and more succeptable to wake turb.

But on the other hand.... weirder occurrences have happened. Only time will tell.

Mike
kick the tires and light the fires
 
lmml 14/32
Posts: 2358
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 2:27 am

RE: AA A300 Accident Discussion.

Sun Nov 18, 2001 3:10 am

The Mt Fuji accident was a BOAC 707. Yes, I beleive the wake turbulence theory.
 
DeanBNE
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:47 pm

RE: AA A300 Accident Discussion.

Sun Nov 18, 2001 3:34 am

I stand corrected...thanks LMML. I keep (wrongly) thinking that it was a VC-10 for some reason.

BTW does anyone know if the wake turbulence of a 747-200 or -300 differ to that of the -400 !?! Wondering how much of an effect the winglets have in reducing the vortices.

 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: AA A300 Accident Discussion.

Sun Nov 18, 2001 3:51 am

The Mt. Fuji BOAC B707-436 accident is an interesting reminder of what can happen.
The AA accident is so baffling. I'm inclined to think that wake turbulence exposed a weakness on that particular aircraft.
The NTSB will be going through the maint. records of that aircraft, back to the time of building.
 
salim
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 3:27 pm

RE: AA A300 Accident Discussion.

Sun Nov 18, 2001 4:19 am

The prblem is that it is possible that we never know what happend because for exemple if it's aa fault, they wont say it, because aa is in a dificult situation.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: AA A300 Accident Discussion.

Sun Nov 18, 2001 6:26 am

It does not really matter what AA think, the NTSB will impound the maint. records of the crashed A300-600.