|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
 Posted - 11/13/2001 : 09:31:15
|
Poll Question:
What do you think is the most probable cause of the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in New York City, Nov. 12, 2001?
|
| Results: |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 0 counted »» |
Last Vote:
never |
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 09:35:01 [Permalink]
|
You forgot - dunno/reserve judgement!
I can see metal stress and fatigue as a cause. When was the last time the airframe was x-rayed for stress fractures in the support frame? I would need to see the maintenance history for that particular aircraft and see a history of catastrophic failures for that airframe (if it exists). Too much, too many variables. And a lot of unknowns.
But from the tail section being pulled out of the water - didn't see much in the way of *explosive* damage.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
 |
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 10:30:43 [Permalink]
|
I think it was an accident, pure and simple. But in light of 9/11 the conspiracy theories will be coming out of the woodwork.
God help the airplane engine maintenance crew if any one of them is nothing but a true-blue-dyed-in-the-wool-born-in-the-USofA American.
(:raig |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 10:48:24 [Permalink]
|
Unfortunately, since the plane crashed in the neighborhood of the fireman who publicly taunted ObL, I'm sure there are many Moslims thinking that this was the "Hand of Allah" or some such nonsense.
If a coincidental natural occurance happens that looks like an act of god, I wish it'd be something more beneficial to mankind, like lightning striking Jerry Falwell or something.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 11:50:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You forgot - dunno/reserve judgement!
Actually, I left that out deliberately, because I figured everyone would pick that answer... 
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 18:52:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If a coincidental natural occurance happens that looks like an act of god, I wish it'd be something more beneficial to mankind, like lightning striking Jerry Falwell or something.
LOL
Now that's on my top ten list of things that would convince me that there's a god.
"Hey Butt-Head check this book out! There's a talking snake, a naked chick, then some guy puts a leaf on his SCHLONG!!" [Beavis and Butt-Head Do America] |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 05:35:35 [Permalink]
|
I find it difficult to believe that an airbus would fall apart as described.
I find it easy to believe that it was either shot down or a explosion of some kind was set.
|
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2001 : 09:20:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I find it difficult to believe that an airbus would fall apart as described.
I find it easy to believe that it was either shot down or a explosion of some kind was set.
Then you probably don't believe that a spark from a short circuit caused the center fuel tank on TWA 800 to blow up, either?
Here's a reference to another jet crash caused by a disintegrating tail section.
http://www.airdisasters.co.uk/120885.htm
(:raig |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2001 : 10:44:06 [Permalink]
|
I've got to reserve judgment on this one as I'm still doing on TWA 800 (jet fuel ain't all that easy to ignite unless it's under pressure or otherwise heated, or atomized).
But, methinks the aroma of rat wafts about. A common scent, these days.
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2001 : 12:44:56 [Permalink]
|
Well, short circuits in airplanes don't make it to the fuel when millions of dollars are spent on engineering to prevent that from happening.
No. I can't easily accept that a spark from a short circuit caused the fuel to ignite. That doesn't even happen in 1500 dollar honda scooters.
Do you accept that it happen in an airplane?
Nor do entire engines just "happen" to fall off of airplanes by "accident".
Nor do airplanes just happen to have an explosion by "accident".
It's very interesting how it was assured that no evidence lead to terrorism or foul play but every sure thought the evidence pointed toward an accident.
Yeah...that's it! Lets say it was an accident!
Edited by - Grand Nubian on 11/16/2001 12:49:38 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2001 : 17:50:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nor do entire engines just "happen" to fall off of airplanes by "accident".
Nor do airplanes just happen to have an explosion by "accident".
Are you claiming this as an expert yourself, as in you have first-hand knowledge, or are you just saying this because you've never personally heard of this happening?
I'd research it a bit if I were you before stating these as facts if the latter is the case. I've heard reports of engines falling off of planes on the runway. Something about the titanium used in airplanes becoming brittle, but I've nothing concrete, just vague recollections.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 00:01:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, short circuits in airplanes don't make it to the fuel when millions of dollars are spent on engineering to prevent that from happening.
No. I can't easily accept that a spark from a short circuit caused the fuel to ignite. That doesn't even happen in 1500 dollar honda scooters.
Do you accept that it happen in an airplane?
Nor do entire engines just "happen" to fall off of airplanes by "accident".
Nor do airplanes just happen to have an explosion by "accident".
It's very interesting how it was assured that no evidence lead to terrorism or foul play but every sure thought the evidence pointed toward an accident.
Yeah...that's it! Lets say it was an accident!
Edited by - Grand Nubian on 11/16/2001 12:49:38
A spark set off JP-5, the hose sprayed flaming fuel all over the side of an A6 in the hot fuel pits in the Philippines. JP-5 is similar to kerosene, in that, you can drop a lit match into a bucket of the stuff and it will go out rather than ignite. However, if it is hot enough or has just recently been poured or stirred up, the fumes will ignite. Often times with devastating results.
During *Hanger Deck and Flight Deck Firefighting School* to get the JP-5 to burn it would have to be ignited with gasoline.
JP-4 the stuff used by the Air Force is a *hot* fuel. IOW, this type of fuel will ignite from a lit match.
GN, your argument regarding fuel and design - sorry. The stuff is flamable - it's fuel. It is designed to burn with some efficiency. That's why they use it. And engineers aren't perfect - otherwise I wouldn't have spent 4 hours up to the waist in the Hell Hole on the A6 trying to remove a 1/4" nut, bolt and a 8" spacer, with out dropping them, to remove the ACLS control unit. Which was located under the rudder control cables and between the main and auxilliary hydraulic pumps. This was to fix a problem found by the engineers - that after I had fixed 4 birds, was really ok and we didn't really need to fix the others because the fix was really wrong.
Oh, and as for the engines. Well, I've filled out my fair share of TFOA reports. (TFOA = Things Falling Off Aircraft) One is filled out everytime an aircraft comes back missing a peice of its exterior equipment.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain
Edited by - Trish on 11/17/2001 00:04:05 |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 04:53:33 [Permalink]
|
@trish,
I appreciate your insight on how fuel burns. However I wonder why you addressed it to me since I didn't mention any thing concerning the mechanics of fuel ignition.
I pointed out that Planes are designed, like every public utililty using fuel to prevent the ignition of fuel.
Security is design to prevent terrorism, however, unlike a million dollar design on an airplane, humans are the security.
So, I seriously donbt that the fuel ignited in the engine that fell off and didn't have one "burn" sign on it at all.
However, I do recognize that planes falling off in the air in huge chunks of plane, is "a" sign that it was attacked in some fashion.
So, I nada talk about how fuel ignites, but again I appreciate you sharing that with mw.
@tokyo,
It appears that you have some research of your own to do. THanks for breaking up the flow of this thread. good job.
quote:
I've heard reports of engines falling off of planes on the runway. Something about the titanium used in airplanes becoming brittle, but I've nothing concrete, just vague recollections.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 06:03:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No. I can't easily accept that a spark from a short circuit caused the fuel to ignite. That doesn't even happen in 1500 dollar honda scooters.
Do you accept that it happen in an airplane?
You are refering to Flight 800 here? Where the pump sparked and ignited the fuel fumes in the fuel tank. Correct? That's why I mentioned that yes a static discharge can ignite fuel.
So the A6 that happened to pull 6 Gs that was only rated for 2 Gs that came back with a 6 inch rip in its hull was an act of terrorism.
It's called shear force. That's why the things ripped apart. Metal stress and fatigue both play an active role in things falling off aircraft. Those engines hand from the wings on pylons. Both the wings and the pylons experience some flex and shear forces during flight. Hence they x-ray these thing (in the military at least) to ensure the structure of the aircraft is sound. It is entirely possible based on the age of the aircraft that a catastrophic failure was just waiting for the right conditions to happen. Jet blast or the wake left by a jets passing can cause a massive amount of air turbulence. Enough in fact to cause an A6 to do something that the engineers said was impossible - an inverted flat spin.
quote:
I pointed out that Planes are designed, like every public utililty using fuel to prevent the ignition of fuel.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether the engineer doing the design made this a consideration in the design and how well tested his concept was under the right conditions.
quote:
Security is design to prevent terrorism, however, unlike a million dollar design on an airplane, humans are the security.
The design on an aircraft is only as good as the human designers. You would be surprised at the manor in which some of these designs are carried out. For references - look at that thing the military purchased with props that's supposed to take off vertically and fly horizontally. It still doesn't work properly. Design flaws inherent in the manor in which the design was carried out are part and parcel of the problem. This from a contractor who worked on part of the design.
quote:
So, I seriously donbt that the fuel ignited in the engine that fell off and didn't have one "burn" sign on it at all.
You are ignoring that metal fatigues and becomes stressed and brittle. The fuel is generally stored in a tank in the fuselage and in wing cells.
quote:
However, I do recognize that planes falling off in the air in huge chunks of plane, is "a" sign that it was attacked in some fashion.
Again, you are ignoring the age of the craft and metal fatigue. This is a major concern for an aging fleet such as many airlines have.
So yes, engines and tail sections are quite capable of *just* shearing away from the main fuselage of the craft. This is what happened. That was the gist of my original post in this thread.
How old was the aircraft? How fatigued was the structure of the craft? What type of maintenance procedures if any were in place to check for the amount of metal fatigue in this craft? Were there any fatal design flaws in the original aircraft design?
These are the questions that the FAA is also asking. That's why they are interested in checking all the other aircraft of this type currently flying.
A fatal flaw occured with the Alaskan Airlines aircraft that were falling out of the sky last year. The screw for the horizontal stabs were failing. That was in part due to metal fatigue.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 07:27:12 [Permalink]
|
@trish,
Your entire position seems to "me', to be showing what I say or the lack of saying, is absurd. Yet, you imply the possibilities of other absurdities as alternatives.
No one is is speculating about your expertise, what ever it may be. I'm sure that it will be "in my face" as we go along. I'll probably learn everything there's to know about a fuel line.
However, I don't need to design airplanes to know that airplanes are designed to prevent unexpected fuel ignition.
Again, I ask, do you, with your expert degree of knowledge on these issues accept that the plane's fuel ignited(this is on 587, not 800). Regardless if you were talking about 800, my question is about 587.
I say this because there's no reason to suggest a "sparked" fire unless you think it happened or may have happened. If you do, I'd like to reveiw the source that has compelled you to.
You spent a great deal of time describing how planes work and how they react under force. Thank you, these things I already know and I'm aware of the spin you put on it. For instance, you say that the "things" sway, yet they were designed to sway. The "swaying" is an unlikely cause of the accident.
In one sentence you suggest that meaures are taken to ensure that the plane is sounde then in the same breath suggest that the plane wasn't sound. This of course you'll attribute to "human error".
The x rays weren't read correctly and you, nor the pilots, nor anyone involved in ensuring a safe flight should be surprised at this plane falling out of the sky.
You suggest that it's possible that the age of the aircraft is the cause of some catastrophe, yet no one involved in ensuring the plane is safe noticed and took appropriate measures. "Human error".
Note that you mention it as a "possibility" because you don't know what caused it, nor do I. You specualate as much as I, "hence" you replace my absurdities IYO, with your absurdities IMO.
So who's right? You?
Let's look at another "possibiltiy" you suggest. Turbulence. Turbulence made the plane flip over then the "spark" lit the fuel that blew the engine off. All without leaving one trace of burning on the engine. I'm starting to see the picture now. It's making a lot more sense.
I'm sure you can produce this "jet" that cause "jet blast" or the "wake" that caused the 587 to flip over.
You have attempted, and somewhat succeeded establishing yourself as an expert on these matters. THen you say that it's not necessarily true that engineers design plane to "not" catch fire from a "spark" to the fuel.
You suggest that an engineer may have "not" considered a "spark" igniting the fuel.
If this is what goes into designing airplanes I will never use them to travel again. My honda scooter that cost 1500.00 is designed to not "spark" a fire.
You say that design is only as good as the human engineers, as security is designed to stop terrorism?
This one you are wrong, but the other stuff make "lot's" of sense.
Engineers do tests, they have demostratable and repeatable evidence to evaulate before they allow a plane to fly. Air line/port security doesn't have near the amount of "real" training as an engineer.
It's unlikely that millions of people globally fly in a contraption design with the integrity of this upie/downie machine. The "fact" that this plane has such a low flight/crash ratio disproves your "inherent" design flaw. Also, the manufacturer's response to the "design" question dis agree with this assessment.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that fuel is stored in wing cells, and generally in a tank. Nor what you mean when you say that metal fatigues and becomes brittle.
Theses things haven't been ignore, they are irrelevant and are an attempt by you to suggest a plane's design overlooks these things.
Even if "I" overlooked them the engineers didn't.
quote:
engines and tail sections are quite capable of *just* shearing away from the main fuselage of the craft. This is what happened. That was the gist of my original post in this thread.
Is this when the "jets" fly in front of them and make them flip over?
Your other questions will be soon answered by the same source you got this suggestions. I look forward to you sharing them with me.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2001 : 09:47:58 [Permalink]
|
It was I who mentioned fuel. I find it a little of a streach that a spark ignited a fuel tank on 800. It might have been that way, but........
I'm not expert on aircraft design (hell, I won't even ride on the damned things), but aren't the fuel tanks baffled to minimize shoshing around? If there is a lot of slosh there will be atomization with the resulting, heavy fumes. THEN a random spark MIGHT set it off, if it's hot enough and there's enough oxygen present.
f
The more I learn about people, the better I like rattlesnakes. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
