NTSB chairman says everything so far, including cockpit voice recorder, indicates the Queens crash was an accident.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Answers

Early Evidence Suggests Accident By TED BRIDIS : Associated Press Writer Nov 12, 2001 : 10:30 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The American Airlines jet that crashed in New York lost all or part of an engine in flight, and investigators said preliminary evidence pointed strongly toward mechanical failure rather than terrorism as the cause. Federal investigators already suspected the engines were unsafe.

"All information we have currently is that this is an accident," Marion Blakey, the head of the National Transportation Safety Board, said several hours after the plane, a European-made Airbus A300, went down Monday in a residential neighborhood.

There have been documented failures involving the family of CF6 General Electric engines on the plane, though none involved fatalities. The Federal Aviation Administration warned just last month that its own study of problems with these engines indicate a need for tougher, mandatory inspections of possibly worn parts. The FAA, which set a 60-day period for industry feedback that was to end Dec. 4, called the current risk an "unsafe condition" that could damage an airplane.

The NTSB warned separately less than a year ago that a failure in flight of these engines, which could send hot metal fragments tearing through important control systems or fuel lines, could cause a plane to crash.

The plane went through a routine maintenance check overnight Sunday, and investigators were checking who had access to the plane during those hours.

Investigators also were combing eyewitnesses accounts, including one from a commercial pilot on the ground. That pilot said the jet appeared to have suffered a catastrophic mechanical problem on takeoff, and the pilot apparently was trying to get the ailing jet airborne to return to the airport.

The pilot said he saw the engine catch fire, separate from the wing and fall to the ground, an official said.

While the crash was horrific -- the plane carried 260 people to their deaths, and wreckage set several homes on fire in Queens -- the preliminary assessment seemed a relief of sorts for a nation struggling to recover from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and an outbreak of mail-spread anthrax.

In the early moments after the crash, the Pentagon ordered an undisclosed number of fighter planes into the air to step up defensive coverage of the entire country, officials said.

In a remarkable sign of the times, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he had asked President Bush for "air cover" to protect his wounded city.

Bush was handed a note informing him of the crash moments after it occurred, and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge moved quickly to the White House Situation room to confer by telephone with FBI Director Robert Mueller and others. Bush said the NTSB will "make sure that the facts are fully known to the American people."

A spokesman for Airbus, the plane's manufacturer, confirmed the pilot could not have dumped fuel before the crash -- this plane holds up to 16,380 gallons -- because the version sold to American Airlines lacks that capability. New York Gov. George Pataki had said earlier in the day that the pilot may have realized the danger in time to dump fuel manually.

An aviation official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said no distress calls or radio transmissions were heard from the cockpit to indicate any problems before the crash.

The chief executive for American's parent corporation, Donald Carty, confirmed that the plane underwent an overnight maintenance check, called an "A check," the day before the crash. "They're probably poring over who was near that plane," said Mary Schiavo, the former inspector general for the Transportation Department.

At a news conference in New York, Blakey said the plane's wreckage was scattered around an area of Queens, a few miles from John F. Kennedy airport where the flight took off. The vertical stabilizer was fished out of Jamaica Bay.

Tom Nellis, director of litigation support for the Chicago-based Nolan Law Group, said photographs of the surviving engine showed "pretty clear evidence of an uncontained engine failure." His firm sued on behalf of victims of United Airlines Flight 232, which crashed in 1989 in Sioux City, Iowa, after an earlier version of the CF6 engine came apart in flight.

Such failures can result in an explosion of metal fragments as damaging as shrapnel from a bomb.

Within hours of the crash, NTSB officials recovered the voice recorder and flew it to Washington for analysis. The search continued for the plane's flight data recorder.

The investigators swiftly reviewed the plane's maintenance records, but initially found "nothing indicative of a specific problem," said Blakey.

American Airlines said the left engine on Flight 587 was freshly overhauled and the right engine was about due for maintenance after nearly 10,000 hours of operation.

General Electric Aircraft Engines, the Cincinnati-based subsidiary of General Electric Co., sent two experts to the crash site. GE manufactured the CF6-80C2 jet engines -- the same model as those installed on Air Force One -- that were mounted on the underside of each wing of the doomed flight.

Earlier this year, on May 18, a problem with the same type of engine forced the emergency landing of a Monarch Airlines passenger jet in Portugal. Documents from the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch said a rotor blade snapped, puncturing the engine's housing with a 3-inch hole and causing minor damage to the wing. The pilots reported dramatic vibration, and British officials reported there had been "several similar failures prior to this event."

The FAA ordered airlines in June to begin regularly inspecting these types of engines for cracks in certain rotor disks, a component within the engines, after the dramatic failure of one engine when maintenance crews set it to high power during testing on the ground.

Last year, the FAA also ordered airlines to replace a fuel tube within these engines to prevent high-pressure leaks that investigators warned could result in an engine fire and damage to the airplane. Also last year, the FAA ordered carriers to replace certain fan shafts earlier than planned to prevent possible catastrophic failure.

GE spokesman Rick Kennedy called the CF6 engines "phenomenally reliable," and he said American had completed all the mandated inspections and repairs.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

What an odd, bizarre group of coincidences that would bring this plane down on this date, in this place, at this time of day. I am still having a great deal of problem believing that it was an accident.

-- Anonymous, November 12, 2001

Apparently, JFK has, or seems to have, more aviation accidents than any other US airport. I think--I hope--this is just a horrible coincidence. I remember when a PanAm flight to Vegas went down just out of the New Orleans airport. We could see the cloud of black smoke from the building where I worked on the 43rd floor in downtown New Orleans, 20 miles away. That crash also seemed impossible on such a beautiful day.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

ChicSunTimes

Chicago's seen this before

November 13, 2001

BY ROBERT C. HERGUTH AND ABDON PALLASCH STAFF REPORTERS

Monday's crash of a jetliner in Queens, N.Y., bears similarities to two Chicago- related aviation disasters that were caused by mechanical and maintenance failures with a similar engine, experts said.

"My initial gut feeling is there was some kind of separation of the engine from the wing," said Dave Esser, an Airbus expert and aeronautical science professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach. Fla., referring to the Monday crash of American Airlines Flight 587.

"The first thing that comes to mind is the old DC-10 crash in '79 in Chicago, when the engine wrapped around the wing and tore out the hydraulics."

In that accident, seconds after American Airlines Flight 191 lifted off from O'Hare Airport, the engine detached from the aircraft, which spun and slammed into the ground. The airline was blamed for inadequate maintenance in that crash, in which 274 people died.

Tom Demetrio, a Chicago attorney who represents plane crash victims, called Monday's accident "deja vu," suggesting it could turn out a pylon broke in this case, too.

In 1989, an O'Hare-bound DC-10 crash landed in Sioux City, Iowa, after the metal hub that holds the General Electric engine's fan blades shattered and ruptured Flight 232's hydraulic lines, which help pilots steer.

Lawyers at Chicago aviation attorney Don Nolan's office represented families of passengers killed on that flight and said they think there are similarities to Monday's crash.

There was another "uncontained engine failure" on a Monarch Airways flight this spring, prompting the British government to recommend that the Federal Aviation Administration "have these engines immediately inspected for cracking and fatigue distress," said Tom Ellis, a lawyer at the firm. "I have not seen any evidence that the FAA has [inspected them]. If they have, they have not made it publicly available.''

FAA spokesman Paul Turk said he was aware of the matter, but was uncertain if and how it has proceeded. However, he said the engine has been the subject of recent FAA safety directives.

Jim McKenna, an aviation consultant, said "they've had a number of fatigue issues crop up." But some pilots, including Dennis Fitch, who helped bring in Flight 232 in Sioux City, said the engine has a good reputation. Like the Sioux City accident, he said he thinks Monday's crash may turn out to be a "freak" occurrence, perhaps caused by a "one-in-a-billion" glitch that had not been considered.

Fitch said commercial airline pilots use simulators to train for engine failure and "separation." Both are often controllable, unless engine parts cause "collateral damage" to an aircraft, severing fuel or hydraulic lines.

If the engine did fail, everything from metal fatigue and vibrations to an explosion could be to blame, experts said.

While not ruling out anything, authorities seem to be leaning toward a mechanical problem rather than a terrorist attack because some witnesses reported seeing flames coming from the left engine, and they saw the plane bank and have trouble climbing.

Although most fatal crashes occur on final approach and landings, takeoffs are considered more dangerous because of the low altitude and quick reaction time needed to address trouble.

The National Transportation Safety Board said the cause of the crash appeared to have been accidental, and other witnesses said they saw an engine fall off.

The wide-bodied, twin-engine Airbus was built by the French-British consortium Airbus Industrie Ltd., with some components manufactured in Germany and Spain. It can carry up to 266 passengers and has a range of 4,150 miles.

The plane that crashed Monday had two CF6-80C2 engines made by General Electric. In March, the FAA ordered airlines to inspect such engines for possible cracks in turbine rotor discs that could prompt engine failure. The alert was issued after the FAA received a report of an engine failure during a maintenance run on the ground.

The airlines have not reported finding any such problems since the alert, said Ann Mollica, an aerospace engineer with the FAA's Engine and Propeller Directorate. Mollica said she was unable to say whether the problem was related to Monday's crash.

GE was not aware of any recent operational problems with its CF6-80C2 engines, said Rick Kennedy, spokesman at the Cincinnati headquarters of GE Aircraft Engines. GE sent two flight safety investigators to New York to help the NTSB probe the crash.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Diane, I don't think the date is significant, at least if we have OBL in mind. National observance of Veterans Day is not an OBL date (and besides, the real observances seemed to be on Sunday). I think OBL will stick with OBL dates.

As far as the place, well yes it was generally in NYC, but if this was mechanical sabotage or explosives, I don't think anyone could have predicted that it would set down in any or that residential neighborhood. (I particularly don't buy the Mike Moran/Rockaway connection.) The plane was within moments of being out over the ocean.

There are some interesting witness accounts posted at TB. One was someone in a boat who saw the wing break off first, scoot back and take off the tail, and the engine fell later. That, to me, is nothing short of an explosion in the baggage compartment.

OTOH, Redeye posted about a mechanical engine failure which can produce very much the results that were seen, in the way of an explosion in the engine and then the engine breaking up in a particular fashion.

Sure hope they'll release the full text of the voice recorder very soon. I'm also waiting to hear about altitudes. I understand the plane was quite low, and I think that is very significant.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

I don't buy that it was an accident, either, but I won't blame OBL for this one. Perhaps there was someone aboard that a three-letter agency wanted terminated. The plane was supposed to come apart over the ocean, but something messed up.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

According to this aticle, posted here, 12 airbuses have crashed since 1988.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Courtesy of WWW.BBC.CO.UK

"A spokesman for the plane's manufacturer, Airbus, said that contrary to earlier remarks by New York Governor George Pataki, the pilot could not have dumped fuel before the crash, since the version of the A-300 plane sold to American Airlines lacked that capability."

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Think I read that the plane came apart in a way that was consistent with major amounts of fuel leaking all by itself before the plane crashed.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

One was someone in a boat who saw the wing break off first, scoot back and take off the tail, and the engine fell later. That, to me, is nothing short of an explosion in the baggage compartment.

But, baggage isn't stored in the wing. Baggage is stored in the belly of the craft.

The engines are attached to the wings, so if the wing came off, it follows that the engine came off, too. Unless only part of the wing came off, like from the tip up to the engine. And the engine came off after part of the wing.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

I talked with hubby last night about this. He said there would be storage ahead of the wings, as well as behind the wings. By the wings on the body is the fuel tanks. He said that if there was an explosion there, to him with all his years of flying and working on birds, he thinks the fuel tanks might have exploded. He wouldn't even begin to guess whether or not a bomb could have done it. But he did say that it wouldn't have been baggage.

Also, as a note, he said that all planes have the capability of dumping fuel, in case of emergency. A plane can't safely land if it is over loaded with fuel, thus the reason for being equipped to dump.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Also, (forgot to type in above), he said that the section that was pulled out of the water of the tail was in good shape. He seemed puzzled by that.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Barefoot, in some planes, the door to the baggage compartment is near the wing.

The telling point to me is the explosion and the subsequent attempt to cover it up. I understand that ten people can see the same event and tell ten different stories, but I heard for myself witnesses who heard an explosion, and I wish I had flipped on the VCR because later in the day, those reports stopped, and what I heard on NBC news at 6:30 pm was much different from what I had heard on CNN an hour after the crash.

I haven't decided whether I buy into the stinger theory, but I believe that there was an explosion.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

My favorite theory so far is that all the bolts were pulled, and the chewing gum lasted just long enough for the plane to become sort of airborne.

Thanks for the clarification about the baggage areas.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Apoc, we posted at the same time.

Most of the guys I've spoken with have echoed your husband's remark about the intact tail. I don't know enough about planes. All I can be sure of was the spin put on the reporting yesterday, which makes me uneasy. I expect spin, but I generally know why. This time, I'm not as sure.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

It is possible that the baggage compartment door came off. Remember that one flight out of Hawaii where the service door for the main cabin was ripped off? Could have been the same sort of thing, but the lower baggage door instead. And if so, it could have knicked the area of the fuel tanks somehow, and possibly even the engine area of the wing, causing parts to separate.

It really is too early to know for certain, if we ever will.

Fuel tanks are in the wings, basically, and while flying the crew have to monitor the levels, and sometimes switch between the tanks to keep the plane balanced. Or something to that effect. Not sure if all planes are this way, but from what I've seen in the movies, there are gauges for this monitoring, and switches to allow for using one or the other or both. [Depending on how many engines there are]

I was going to comment earlier on the baggage door theory, but I felt that there was enough conjecture already. It could have been a simple thing like the groundcrew not locking the door correctly, or a sabotuer intentionally rigging the door to fail.

I doubt that all the airlines and airports have finished all the background checks of all the employees, so it is quite possible that we still have, ahem, aliens, working in sensitive areas.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

meemur, for me a big part of the spin is that, if this really is just another accident, we must be careful not to become laughing stocks internationally by appearing to cower or flinch everytime something screwy happens. Kind of like the anthrax situation. Could be domestic. By rights should be someone in the ME. But we may be a ways from proving that. The war really does complicate this for me.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

That's a good point, Brooks. My thoughts about spin have been more along the lines of not panicking the holiday travellers this close to major travel days when airlines need the income so badly. I'm also aware that GE owns NBC and has some interest in what's reported.

But I'm still amazed at how fast those reports of hearing an explosion were stopped.

Note to self: refrain from giving newcasters any specific descriptions of events. Plead "can't talk . . . overwhelmed!" That might keep the JBT's away from my door if I ever see anything thatthey want to spin.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Air crash investigators like to get their info from child witnesses because they have no preconceived notions about what they saw. Adults see something fall off, see flames, and think there must have been an explosion. They really believe there was an explosion. It's a similar sort of mental deception that occurs when you get six witnesses to a mugging giving six different descriptions of the assailant. People see what they expect to see, colored by their life experiences.

Second-best descriptions of an incident come from professionals, like other pilots, firefighters and police officers, but even they are not as reliable as children.

The mechanics who used to take care of Sweetie's plane had all been to a Captain's Mast at one time or another and Sweetie, as squadron legal officer (kind of a legal assistant to the XO), had been involved in various punishments, such as docking of pay, a week or two in the brig, demotion, etc., for infractions ranging from drug use to assault This is not to say that all aviation mechanics have social problems, but it does underscore that they are not always terribly happy and concentrated on their work.

And structural faults sometimes appear in the form of metal fatigue, jackscrews, what have you.

Old Git's dad used to work in the British aircraft industry and she has also flown a plane on occasion, so is not entirely full of crap.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Yeah, it could be an accident. But why where there witnesses who came outside to look in the first place because of the explosion?

I wish, I wish, I wish I had turned on my VCR. This point is getting lost.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

Not lost at all, meemur. some of those that witnessed it were already outside, however.

If the birds were sucked into the engine, it could have caused an explosion. Ergo, it would have made noise.

Also, parts falling off the plane and landing could have caused noise that sounded like an explosion. Like, if one engine hit a gas storage tank on the ground next to a house, for example.

We can be fairly certain that when the plane hit the ground there was an explosion.

Also, some people tend to exaggerate things when there is a camera and microphone in their face. You know, that 15 minutes of fame, reduced to a 10 second sound bite.

As time goes on, we will hear more.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001

I know, Barefoot. I need to unplug as soon as my files download and do some other work. That always gives me perspective.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 2001