cicadajet
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 1:54 am

AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:37 pm


http://drudgereport.com/

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a4f777f9-958a-4538-9c71-7f6d797676e8


excerpt below....

Montreal man downed U.S. Plane, CSIS told
'Farouk the Tunisian' involved, al-Qaeda say, but officials insist crash was accidental.

Stewart Bell
National Post
August 27, 2004

A captured al-Qaeda operative has told Canadian intelligence investigators that a Montreal man who trained in Afghanistan alongside the 9/11 hijackers was responsible for the crash of an American Airlines flight in New York three years ago.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents were told during five days of interviews with the source that Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen also known as Farouk the Tunisian, had downed the plane with explosives on Nov. 12, 2001.
 
aviationwiz
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:20 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:48 pm

That's a load of bull, and it being on the "Drudge Report" confirms it. It was downed due to taking off too early from the departing aircraft before, which I believe was a heavy. The wing and tail broke off if I'm not mistaken due to the excessive wake turbulence. I'm sure there are plenty here with the exact specifics, but that's the gist of it.
Proudly from the Home of the Red Tail.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:59 pm

Why would terrorists target Dominicans, probably 95% of the people on board were not US Citizens.

If your going to conduct such an act why would you choose a flight loaded with non Americans, why not a flight with lots of Americans.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
ua777222
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:23 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:07 pm

Well the CVR tapes say no such thing. They just say that the a/c lost control. Now unless his training taught him how to exit an a/c during cruise and jump onto the rudder and make a bit of turburlance, which the crew openly commented about right before the crash, then this is BS.

Here's the ATC/CVR tapes/records that should put this nonsense to sleep.

http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/aa587.shtml

Hope this helps and I'll find a better one when I can.

Thanks.

UA777222
"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
 
solarix
Posts: 839
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:56 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:49 pm

Al-Qaeda sympathizers have also claimed responsibility for AA587 in the past on their former Yahoo Newsgroup (Global Islamic media Center) before it was shut down.

I am still a bit skeptical about that but you never know with some of these nutjobs.
Bong Hits 4 Jesus
 
cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:02 pm

3 minute separation wasn't followed. that's the culprit. no terrorism crap this time around.
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:58 pm

Was the alleged shoebomber even on board.

How did a shoebomb rip off the lugs securing the tailplane.

Would a shoebomb actually destroy an A300.

According to BAC One-Eleven, the whole story (ISBN 0 7524 2774 1)
RP-C1184 MSN 190 twice landed safely after grenades were exploded in the toilet. In 1975 it happened at 20,000 feet and in 1978 it happened at 24,000 feet. The aircraft retired in 1992. What was the Max Altitude of AA587.

The other issue is just how much Semtex/C4 or whatever can you get into the heel of a shoe.

Have there been any reports about the amount of damage done by small explosion on board.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8536
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sat Aug 28, 2004 7:08 pm

Nothing I've read in the investigation thus far is indicative of any explosive damage to the fuselage whatsoever. It is incredulous to even suggest that a fuselage bomb would take the tail off the airplane anyhow.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dakotasport
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2000 5:20 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:13 pm

Uh, guys, wake up and smell the JAVA. This event happened 3 months after the events of 9/11, so if it REALLY was a terrorist act that brought the plane down (which I personally doubt), do you think that the US Gov. would allow that to leak, or would they make up some BS story saying it was mechanical failure! Think about it.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12390
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:04 pm

Often nutcases will say they did an act of terror, killed someone, committed a crime, saw someone commit a crime to get attention among peers or because they are so mentally ill. There were false claims of terrorism on TWA800. This 'disclosure' took place long after the AA587 tradgey, so it is a lie. However, the truth was perhaps that al-Queda did want to attack with up to 10 aircraft in their original 9/11 plan then scaled it back to the ultimate 4 and this person was privy to those original plans. This guy should be probably be locked up in a the worse possible jail and suffer the rest of his life there.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:06 am

Somebody been smokin' the really good stuff.  Yeah sure
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
Thrust
Posts: 2585
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:58 am

Guess maybe Al Qaeda was not responsible for the two downed Russian jets then? Because the cause was of AA Flight 587 was from the JAL 744 it took off after...supposedly it was too close? I don't know about the Russian jets, but Al Qaeda causing Flight 587 is a bunch of bull.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:28 am

do you think that the US Gov. would allow that to leak, or would they make up some BS story saying it was mechanical failure!

Or maybe it was mechanical failure!

A coverup of this nature would require the cooperation of thousands. Why bother?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
fraspotter
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:12 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:38 am

Aviationwiz is correct, the plane before it was a heavy (JAL 744) and the AA A300 took off to soon after the 744 took off. All that wake turbulence would be enough to tear off the rear stabilizer (tail). It was on CNN.com earlier but can't find the link to post here.
"Drunk drivers run stop signs. Stoners wait for them to turn green."
 
elwood64151
Posts: 2410
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:22 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:49 am

While I also find it unlikely that AA587 was the result of terrorism, I think that evidence should at least be reevaluated. Just because the majority of persons on board would have been Dominicans doesn't mean that it wasn't a reasonable target for Al Queda... After all, how could the Dom.Rep. possibly strike back?

However, I don't think the government would have covered up another terrorist attack (just TWO MONTHS after 9/11, not three!). I think that they would have used it as an example of: "SEE?!?!? We're not safe! We need to do more!!! Give us the authority to kick ass and forget the names 'cause they're dead!!!!"

Not that that would have necessarily been a bad thing, assuming they didn't go completely ballistic with it...

Go ahead and flame me. We're not going ballistic...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2791
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 10:57 am

This event happened 3 months after the events of 9/11, so if it REALLY was a terrorist act that brought the plane down (which I personally doubt), do you think that the US Gov. would allow that to leak, or would they make up some BS story saying it was mechanical failure! Think about it.

Think about what, exactly? That some nut who wants us to think he's dangerous now claims responsibility for something he had no connection with?

So I'm guessing the government somehow recorded and re-edited the CVR tapes so the pilots are saying something completely different on it than they actually were? I suppose the government planted the vertical fin in the water off Long Island Sound? I suppose all those witnesses (including other commercial pilots on the ground) that actually saw the fin tear off the plane are government agents?

If anything, the government would have used any terrorism after 9/11 to its advantage in justifying the various wars we're now involved in. It would have made it easier to convince the public that these terrorists need to be eradicated before they strike again. So you not only don't have the facts on your side, you don't even have a motive that makes sense.

Jesus man, this was not terrorism, and if it was, the government would go out of its way to tell us. There's a reason you're not seeing this story on CNN or MSNBC or good lord, even Fox News. It's because it's a bunch of nonsense. It's one idiot who thinks it's in his best interest that some who don't know any better think his group's responsible for this crash. The problem is, he and they weren't, and that's already been conclusively proven. It was an accident.

This has been one of the most public and transparent investigations in the history of the NTSB. You can see all of their raw documentation on this accident here: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/default.htm

The final report is expected this fall.

[Edited 2004-08-29 04:01:17]
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
757drvr
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:30 am

I am not saying it was an act of terrorism, but I find it very hard to believe that wake turbulence can rip off a tail of a modern airliner. Planes hit wake turbulence every day, but their tails don't come off. I know some blame has been placed on the FO for over controlling the rudder which may have ripped off the tail. But I find this hard to believe as well. I don't know much about Airbuses, but on all the Boeings I have flown (727, 737, and the 757) there is an input computer to help prevent over controlling the rudder. If the 727 has it, I would think the A300-600R would also have it. It does make you wonder what else might have brought down that airplane. Also...who is to say the tail wasn't sabotaged to the point where it was destined to fail. To the crew, it would seem like some sort of control issue just as the CVR and FDR indicate. I know that security at some of those Latin American and Caribbean airports is not the best in the world. I am sure that someone wanting access to an aircraft could do so at night when the aircraft RON's especially at a remote location of the field. It does make one wonder!!!!!!
 
nwa330tony
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 8:34 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:28 pm

Im not saying IT was terrorism either but why is it if you take a look at the NTSB and try to get the final findings they only have the prelim reports to this Accident which is now almost 3yrs old? why is it also that the goverment took over on the investigation? but yet you compare it to almost any other accident here in the us and the the final findings are posted months before thier 18month deadline? look up the charlotte Midwest accident they havent even reached the deadline yet but we already have the final findings. Like i said it may not have been terrorist, but there is deffinatly some info being withheld.

PS the 3min departure rule wasnt followed ha thats funny visit any major airport in the US see if its followed especially in NYC!!! Wecontrollers dont have stop watches with us checking!
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:34 pm

Explosives are out of the question unless there has been a coverup and conspiracy on the part of the FAA of massive proportions. The only way that terrorism could have been involved in this accident is in sabotage of the aircraft. But even the chance of this is slim to none. It was a bad set of circumstances...following a heavy too closely and having a pilot who according to Airbus, overcontrolled the rudder in an attempt to recover. However there is still debate on how much the rudder control system on the A300-605R was to blame.
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:05 pm

"That's a load of bull, and it being on the "Drudge Report" confirms it."

--------------------------------------------------

Uh, don't shoot the messenger Aviationwiz. The article is from the Canada's National Post. I suppose the article would be much more credible if the prestigious and objective New York Times had reprinted it...... Lots of links to important news and events on Drudge's site the mainstream media doesn't think newsworthy- not Drudge's words.

I do think the Al-Qaeda claim of responsibility for bringing down AA 587 is false and merely an attempt by Al-Qaeda to bring more attention to themselves. I'm sure they'd like to take credit for the massive devastation caused by the recent hurricane in Florida too...
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:08 pm

To reprise my post in this thread (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1717669/):


Any plane can be broken by the pilot(s). This is not unique to the A300. Saying that "weak rudder" was the ONLY cause of the accident seems drastic. I won't even get into the terrorism thing. No traces of explosives found and no sign of foul play otherwise.

- If the plane has not flown into wake turbulence, the rudder inputs would not have been necessary.
- If the pilots had been aware of the limitations they would not have maneuvered the way they did.
- If there had been a rudder movement limiter the tail would not have snapped off.
- If the plane had been at higher altitude the tail failure might have been revocerable.

It is rare for accidents to be caused by a single thing. Unfortunately in this case, AA and Airbus started pointing fingers instead of working together. This has clouded the issue and I fear the real answers may be long in coming.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
air2gxs
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 1:29 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:12 pm

Wake turbulence did not "rip off a tail of a modern airliner", the tail came off because of the excessive lateral Gs experienced attempting to compensate for flying through the wake turbulence.
 
757drvr
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:32 pm

I understand that it was an excessive G load that ripped off the tail. My question was what could cause that excessive G load? Much of the blame has been given to the FO. Yes I also know that a pilot can break the airplane as someone stated earlier. I just find it unlikely that an experienced FO such as the one on 587 would over control the airplane to the point at which it would break unless it was their last ditch effort to save the aircraft. It would be such an un-natural thing to do to apply rudder in such an extreme manner. Having said that...I find it hard to believe that wake from a 747 could put an A300 in such a situation that it would take that much rudder to recover from. I once got caught in severe wake in a 727 following a 777 into SJC. The airplane immediately rolled nearly 60 degrees. It will certainly get your attention and make your heart beat faster. But wake turbulence is only a small area and within seconds you would be out of it. During our recovery...it took some rudder to help right the aircraft and some power to climb above the 777's wake. In the 737 and 757, there is quite a bit of adverse yaw during single engine operations. This is especially true during a go-around on a single engine. This maneuver requires aggressive application of the rudder when advancing power on the one engine for the go-around. I would imagine the A300 isn't much different. If the aircraft can withstand this kind of force I again find it hard to believe that wake can cause enough of un upset to an aircraft as big as a A300 to require the extreme rudder application that could rip off a tail.
Again, I am not saying it was terrorism. But if it was simply wake turbulence, I would think we would see this type of accident a little more often.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:54 pm

757drvr, I completely agree with your statements, and this accident certainly has it's share of mysteries. Unfortunately, with all the fingerpointing going on (not confined to A.nut unfortunately  Big grin) it's hard to find out what really happened.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:40 am

It wasn´t a single application of the rudder, it apparently was a series of strong rudder reversals that ultimately produced a severe sideslip that stressed the tail fin well beyond its ultimate limits (which would have happened with any other tail fin design just as much).

Apparently, aggressive use of the rudder was only taught in AA training while both large manfuacturers recommended the use of ailerons for upset recovery.

The only somewhat possible fault contribution of the manufacturer I know of would have been the rudder limiter design that made precise control a little more difficult than necessary. But hardly enough to be "the cause" of the accident.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:43 am

Note the well written reply #14 by Phollingsworth here http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1717669/
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
nwa330tony
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 8:34 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:24 am

If it was the rudder and excesive G's why werent the investigators able to duplicate the problem in the full motion sim while investigating? They tried numerous times and failed to do so.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:34 am

The reason they were not able to duplicate it in the sim while investigating is because the sim was not set up to duplicate the conditions. The problem is two fold: The airplane took off without enough seperation and the pilot imputed too much rudder. The rudder technique he used is a valid way of correcting for WT on other aircraft, but the A300 is set up so that can cause a major problem. Airbus and AA have been pointing fingers at eachother for 3 years because of it. AA says Airbus did not tell them to train not to use extreme rudder and Airbus says they did and AA did not train correctly
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:42 am


N1120a

Ultimately, this is down to money.

If the aircraft was defective, AA can sue Airbus and the families of those who would died will do likewise. Also Airbus will lose sales.

If the cause was the use of the rudder, then the claims will be made against AA.

My understanding is that the only two instances of A300 tails being damaged in this way are both with AA. My immediate reaction is that either Airbus told everyone else or that the other operators were not told, but did not train their pilots the AA way anyway. Neither of these options seem to make sense.

If all incidents happen with AA aircraft, then this seems to suggests that the problem is at AA.
 
prosa
Posts: 5389
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 3:24 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:51 am

Im not saying IT was terrorism either but why is it if you take a look at the NTSB and try to get the final findings they only have the prelim reports to this Accident which is now almost 3yrs old? why is it also that the goverment took over on the investigation? but yet you compare it to almost any other accident here in the us and the the final findings are posted months before thier 18month deadline?

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the US 737 crash near PIT almost a decade ago is still awaiting a final determination - or, at the least, it took several years to reach one.
I know nothing about the technical aspects of crash investigation, beyond things I've read on a.net, but I can pretty much guarantee you that it's a very complicated process.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
 
757drvr
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:38 am

I think too much is being made of the training at AA concerning the use of the rudder. I have done some of my training over at AA and have seen the video they use for inflight upsets that is produced by AA. If I remember correctly, the primary focus was on the USAir crash outside of PIT. I think in the simulator, the USAir crash could have been avoided had the crew aggressively used the rudder. In the USAir crash, the crew countered the roll with opposite aileron which in turn brings up the spoilers that create drag, which reduces speed, which decreases rudder effectiveness. The use of aileron in this case is believed to have been made the situation worse. The point that was stressed in the AA video is to not wait until it's too late to use the rudder. If the aircraft starts an uncommanded roll, smooth, but firm application of rudder may be necessary. At no point does it say stomp on the rudder pedals which is what the media wants you to believe. This again brings me to my question....Could wake turbulence produce enough of an upset to an aircraft the size of an A300 that would cause the crew to respond in such a manner that the tail snaps off. I am not so sure and I do have my doubts. We may never no the real reason. Just like Bennet123 said...It's all about the money.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17087
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:39 am

IIRC the PIT 737 crash was due to rudder reversal. Took 2 years + to figure out. So yes, these things can take a long time.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
LVZXV
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:03 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:50 am

Wasn't that particular A300 (Ship 053) involved in a similar incident in 1997? If so, maybe that served to weaken the fin mountings?

PROSA:

I think what is known about the Pittsburgh disaster is that the rudder DID jam in full deflection BUT the fin DID NOT separate from the aircraft prior to impact. The Queens accident was caused more by fin loss at a critical phase of flight (yes, induced by lateral G overloads from excessive rudder inputs), and the aircraft lost control as a result. The rudder deflection in itself shouldn't have brought the plane down, whereas the situation aboard the US Air 737 was such that the rudder was jammed and the pilots found now way of maintaining control of the aircraft. Not quite the same thing. In the case of the US Air crash, the rudder jammed of its own accord (a hydraulic fluid freeze-up if I recall), whilst in the AA crash, the rudder deflections were pilot induced. But the pilots don't deserve all the blame in this case. Either the A300's yaw dampers are inadequate (or flawed) or that particular aircraft had a weaker tail on account of its incident 4 years earlier.

XV

How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Lvzxv

Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:36 pm

LVZXV: The Queens accident was caused more by fin loss at a critical phase of flight (yes, induced by lateral G overloads from excessive rudder inputs)

It was the aerodynamic load in sideslip, not the G load, as far as I´m aware.


LVZXV: The rudder deflection in itself shouldn't have brought the plane down,

Boeing and Airbus are both in accordance about this: Repeated rudder reversals and the resulting aerodynamic loads could snap off every tail on every plane from each manufacturer. They even issued a joint note about this to their customers.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:19 pm

LVZXV

I do not think that the two incidents involved the same aircraft.

Klaus

Do you know the date that this Joint Note was issued.
 
dc10hound
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 4:18 pm

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:12 am

Wasn't that particular A300 (Ship 053) involved in a similar incident in 1997? If so, maybe that served to weaken the fin mountings?

That incident occurred near MIA. The tail number was 070.

The vertical stabilizer on 070 was inspected after the 587 accident using ultrasound. An ultrasound inspection of the stabilizer mounts require that the fin be removed from the fuselage.

The inspection revealed very minor cracks that may have existed since manufacturing of the tail.

The vertical satbilizer on 070 was replaced with an A330 tail.


"Eagles soar. But weasels never get sucked into jet intakes.."
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

BENNETT123

Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:27 am

BENNETT123: Do you know the date that this Joint Note was issued.

As far as I could find out, it was in 1997.
 
JFKviaPHX
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:31 am

RE: AA 587 - Terrorism?

Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:34 am

The JAL 744 took a wide turn and flew out over the Marine Park Bridge. AA 587 took a shallow turn before Howard Beach and went for the cross at 125th St. or so. This is typical. I would know...I live right under the departure pattern in Belle Harbor. In addition I watched the two flights take-off as I do most morning from the ramp at JFK. The separation was reduced when they approached the Rockaway's. I didn't see 587 crash, (I was busy driving between Air Jamaica at T2 and the Air France Concorde that was delayed and waited for the inbound to make the quick turn), but I did see everything before and after. I hope no one has to see something like that and wonder if you have a house to return to.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], AsiaTravel, ba319-131, BobbyPSP, COKMCI, col, DeltaMD95, Devilfish, G500, Google Adsense [Bot], hunterboy, LAX772LR, mclewis1, msycajun, mxguy, PanzerPowner, SamoNYC, TheF15Ace, Wingtips56 and 248 guests