Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Major Plane Crash in New York

This is topic Major Plane Crash in New York in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000528

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-12-2001, 08:50 AM:

Flt 587 from NY to Santo Domingo Crashed in Queens at 9:15 Stay Tuned.

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-12-2001, 08:56 AM:

All New York Airports Closed all bridges and tunnels in NY area have been closed. Plane was an Airbus which holds 350 people. Do not know if this is due to terrorism at this time.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-12-2001, 09:44 AM:

Current reports have 252 passengers and crew on board

.
CNN is reporting that an engine fell off first, then the airplane crashed (leading us to believe it was an accident).

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-12-2001, 01:36 PM:

New York is open again.....They do not believe terrorism was involved. Airports have reopened as well as bridges and tunnels.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 4594) on 11-12-2001, 02:32 PM:

So far (3:28pm) there are 6 adults reported missing on the ground. 161 Bodies recovered, none living.

They believe the pilot dumped gasoline over Jamacia Bay. FBI Reports: There was an explosion on the plane in the air.

This is so sad, thank god we have people who care, and keep on caring such as the NY firefighters, NY police officers, all the volenteers, and the port autority police officers.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-12-2001, 05:32 PM:

Rachel appears to be correct: According to an AP dispatch posted on Drudge Report mechanical failure seems to be why the plane crashed. In other words, the pilot wouldn't be dumping jet fuel if a bomb was aboard.

BTW, on that "recount" story, Drudge Report got it right. The New York Times and the Washington Post got it WRONG!

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-12-2001, 06:41 PM:

I was half listening to the news and I heard them say flights won't be going out of NY until Wed. at the earliest. How can that be if the airports are open again??

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 4594) on 11-12-2001, 07:32 PM:

Ken,
Last I heard the airports were only open for incoming traffic, no planes were to go out. But that was a couple of hours ago.

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-12-2001, 08:25 PM:

Planes started going out at 6:30PM tonight

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 11-12-2001, 10:42 PM:

Sounds like it may have blown an engine. If the pilot was dumping fuel, he was trying to lighten the aircraft up so it could fly on one engine. Just a theory.

But I have to admit when I heard of it, my first reaction was for the safety of Bob Maar.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-12-2001, 10:50 PM:

Strange that you mention that, Paul. I had the same thought the moment I heard about it.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-12-2001, 10:58 PM:

I'm so glad I live in Iowa.

------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-12-2001, 11:34 PM:

Well, I'm glad I live in Arizona, but one of the terrorists supposedly had training here in Scottsdale, so this stuff can happen anywhere.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-13-2001, 12:03 AM:

Some of these news people are beginning to bug me. First, they said it was a Boeing 767, then a 727, that it was inbound from Florida, etc.

I really think (in an effort to seem like they are on top of the story) they make things up, or totally belive anything anyone says. They always say, "Unconfirmed reports say..." to cover themselves, but that's no excuse.

These are tough times people are going through; more care should be taken. Some journalists seem to only want to make a name for themselves. I miss Walter Cronkite.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-13-2001, 01:30 AM:

My thoughts were also of Bob Maar, because his post was the first place I heard the bad news, less than an hour after it reportedly happened. After that I decided to check some of the news sites.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-13-2001, 09:43 AM:

Many years ago when traveling through JFK airport, I found it interesting (and somewhat disturbing) that they shot off cannons every few minutes to scare the birds from the runway areas. Wonder if some large birds ingested by an engine were a factor. Let's hope the investigation pinpoints the cause.

If the "dumping fuel" story is correct, it means the pilots had some time to react to the crisis. As I recall, a fully fueled jumbo jet ("Heavy") cannot land safely without dumping some fuel to lighten the load on the landing gear. Fuel would also be dumped prior to an emergency/crash landing to lessen the impact of any fire.

Link to NTSB Investigations:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-13-2001, 02:03 PM:

John P--you are our newest aircraft mechanic!

This morning there was a newsbrief about possible FOD (Foreign Object Damage)--and it was said that it may have been birds. In order for an aircraft engine to be FAA certified--it must be able to ingest a given pound bird without crapping out. Many of these tests were conducted by using grocery store chickens. This also goes for certifying windows--a certain lb bird shot at a window at such a velocity at so many mph w/o breaking.

About aircraft weight. Yes John, if an aircraft has too much fuel on board prior to landing the landing gear may be damaged from an overweight landing--and if this happens special inspections are performed. But to prevent this from happening, the aircraft can dump its excess fuel over designated areas.

All equipment on aircraft are monitored by hrs of operation and weight. An airframe is only rated for x number of hours and/or x cycles; a cycle being each time an airframe is pressurized and depressurized.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-13-2001, 02:50 PM:

As the old aircraft testing joke goes; "Defrost chickens before firing."

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 11-13-2001, 03:35 PM:

Saw a piece with a retired NTSB guy, who talked about the engine falling off. He says that they are somewhat designed to do this in the event of a catastrophic failure to the engine, in the hopes that by doing so, the leading edge aerodynamics can be saved and the plane remains manoeuverable (as opposed to the wing dropping off). This is what allowed that plane to make the airport and save many lives in Sioux City years back. But yesterday, he said it appears the aerodynamics were damaged enough to make it uncontrollable. Sad day indeed.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-13-2001, 03:51 PM:

A close Kodak friend was killed in the American Airlines DC-10 crash in Chicago in May 1979, as he was flying back to Los Angeles after motion-picture engineering meetings in Rochester. Recall in that case, an engine fell off the plane during takeoff due to sheared pylon mounting bolts damaged during improper maintenance procedures, and severely damaged the controls, such that the plane pitched over and crashed.

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-13-2001, 06:30 PM:

Believe it or not John, there are usually around 3 bolts that hold an engine onto the aircraft and just a few bolts holding the wing onto the fuselage! These are very special fastners that are inspected and possibly replaced at given intervals. You would

your pants if you watched a propellor under a strobe light!

Yes, there is quality maintenance and half assed stuff.

Aviation maintenance in the military is different from civilian maintenance.

Military maintenance is "task oriented"--the mechanic does not necessarily need to "understand" all the in and outs of a particular system--but they must know how to inspect and troubleshoot/repair according to given procedures. A military mechanic can "ground" an aircraft.

A civilian A & P can legally work on all aspects of the aircraft, the exceptions being propellors and instruments. Unlike the military mechanic, the civilian mechanics must know the ins and outs of each system and what makes each individual component tick! Unlike the military mechanic, the civilian mechanic cannot legally ground an aircraft--but the aircraft status is recorded in the logbook by the mechanic. So, if an civilian mechanic deems an aircraft unairworthy, the pilot can still take the responsibility to fly it. Yes, there have been cases of aircraft owners/pilots trying to bribe mechanics!

I do have a nice "list" of maintenance horror stories from both the military and civilian world!

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 11-13-2001, 07:59 PM:

It's easy to speculate in's and out's at this time, and before we have specific information from the flight recorder's etc,

On the point of the pilot dumping fuel, i know that any pilot realising that he probably will have to ditch will try to minimise damage on the ground - he will dump fuel, he will try to head for an un-populated area. In this instance it doesn't sound like he had much time for anything though... at least the fact that fuel was dumped (whether by the pilot or by accident) probably saved a lot of lives. I know from experience of several RAF pilots ejecting their crew, and staying aboard to pilot their jets to less populated areas - they all died trying to minimise ground damage and loss of life, if they ejected they would have survived. Pilots are like that.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-15-2001, 05:20 AM:

What about a ground to air missile?

The US supplied a lot of Stingers to the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war, any one of which could have found its way into Bin Liner's hands by now. Set your launcher up in an innocent looking Transit van parked on an industrial estate near the perimeter fence of the airfield, and you circumvent all security measures within the airport itself.

I wouldn't mind guessing that if this is what caused it, the authorities will make very sure that the media and the public never find out about it. The mere possibility that there are people at large in the US and Europe who can bring down an airliner so easily would make the current financial problems in the airline industry look trivial.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-15-2001, 07:39 AM:

Recent reports indicate both engines were still running normally when the pilots were reacting to "turbulence". No evidence of bird damage or internal engine disintegration. No explosion was heard on the cockpit voice recorder. The video of the tail section recovered from the water shows the tail section intact, with no punctures, and "cleanly" separated from the rest of the plane at the point of attachment. The very same aircraft was hit by severe air turbulence in 1994, injuring 46 passengers and maybe stressing the airframe.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/14/new.york.crash/index.html

Many also thought (and a few still think) TWA 800 was brought down by an errant missle, but the NTSB report presented convincing evidence that fuel vapors in the center wing fuel tank exploded:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/default.htm

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 11-15-2001, 08:32 AM:

I just heard on the news that they are thinking that the plane my have been in the "wake" of a plance that had just taken off. That may have been the cause of major turbulence and the crash.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 11-15-2001, 09:06 AM:

The cause of the flight 800 crash is still very much in doubt. There was a lot of discounting of multiple eyewitness accounts.

Link

Link 2

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-15-2001, 09:10 AM:

Flight 587 took off 105 seconds after JAL(Japan Air Lines) 747 which normally would be 120 seconds.

Distance between the planes was 800 Feet. FAA Standard is 1000 Feet.

AA587 was flying at 2800 feet when it entered the wake of JAL 747.

Flight 587 picked up speed and closed the gap on JAL 747 to 90 seconds. Planes were 4.3 miles apart. (FAA Standard 5 miles.)

Wake Turbalance:

A spinning mass of air, originating from wingtips of a heavy large airliner (e.g.747) trailling backwards.

Some air will circulate causing "rolling effect" to take place behind wingtips.

Two Vortices develop, one from each wing develop.

Heavy airlines give off most intense vortices.

An airliner, with a shorter wingspan and lighter weight, trailing a "heavy", should be alert to possibility of wake turbulance.

May cause following aircraft to enter an "unusual attitude: of which recovery is doubtful.

It seems fairly clear from eyewitnesses who saw plane begin to spin, watched as engine fell to ground, plane took a nosedive into Belle Harbor.

There is no way it could have been a missle. This plane just came apart.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 11-15-2001, 02:18 PM:

Sobering article on the Debka site.

"According to DEBKAfile?s intelligence sources, a number of people linked to Al Qaeda in New York behaved suspiciously several hours before the crash; some, who were under surveillance following the September 11 attacks, managed to disappear, with the FBI unable to determine how they slipped away or trace their current whereabouts. Those sources also noted that the US F-15 warplanes, on 24-hour patrol in the skies of New York and other major US cities, were ordered immediately after the crash to search for any boats or unusual activity in the Jamaica nature reserve.

I certainly hope that this plane wasn't shot down. It's something I've been fearing all along. My house is near a major airport, and I'm keenly aware of the fixed departure and approach patterns that airports employ. Every one to two minutes, all day, a jetliner flies directly down the East-West street a block North of my house, on approach to the airport. There's another landing approach pattern, about one mile North, and still another a mile North of that. The planes fly the same routes, all day.

We can set up the best airport security in the world (although we are pathetically far from that), but the odds are that the next attack won't be by hijaakers -- it wouldn't work anymore. The hijaakings only worked the first time because of the element of surprise -- Hijackers are supposed to demand money and a flight to Cuba -- not take over the controls and crash the plane into a building! Every time someone has gotten out of control in a plane since 9/11, not only have the crew and/or passengers stopped them, but military jets have intercepted the planes within minutes.

There's no purpose in hijaaking a plane in order to crash it, when the odds are you won't be successful in taking the plane, and even if you do, there's no way you're going to get your plane to any worthwhile target.

But a van full of stingers would be a different story. A single person could take down a dozen planes in a matter of minutes. Pick a landing or takeoff path over a major city, and you have instant multiple disasters. Launch the attack simultaneously at a dozen or so airports, and who would ever feel safe boarding an airplane again?

And to top it off, there's rumors flying about a new wave of attacks starting on the 17th. Right before the thanksgiving travel rush.

You know you're in dark times when a plane crashes, killing 250+ travellers, and all you can think of is "thank god it's JUST a mechanical failure ..."

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-15-2001, 02:57 PM:

John,

You can not let these guys win. You must go on living your everyday life as you did before September 11th. I know a lot of people in NYC who are afraid to fly, afraid to ride the subways, afraid to go into tall buildings etc...These people are nervous, worried, and many have become basket cases... When I go down to ground zero I get angry, and I stay angry at those who did this. I thank God that our service men and women are doing something about the terroists. I wish I were forty years younger and I would be with them. New Yorkers have banned together the way they should have when Viet Nam was going. We are unified and we will not let them win.

My apartment in Manhattan is in mid-town very close to the 59th Street bridge. Tall buildings are all around me. Planes go over head when taking off from Laguardia all the time. You know what...I don't even give it a second thought. I go where I have to go and I do what I have to do.. God Bless America...Semper Fi.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-15-2001, 04:32 PM:

Stingers, and most other missiles would have left a telltale smoke or vapor trail upon firing, and as of now there have been NO witnesses that have seen such a trail.

Also, if it were terrorists, wouldn't hitting a 747 or DC-10 be a better bang-for-the-buck 'headline-grabber' than an Airbus?

-Aaron

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-15-2001, 08:27 PM:

Here's the history and specs of the Stinger from Jane's defence reports:
http://janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jlad/jlad001013_2_n.shtml

It appears the Stinger uses fairly sophisticated electronics and guidance systems that may be adversely affected by long term storage, especially under poor conditions. How operational would decade-old units be? Have any been used by the Taliban during the current conflict? How likely that they have been able to get newer similar missiles?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-19-2001, 04:29 AM:

OK, I must point out that my last speculative post was made before the British news media revealed that the tailplane parted company with the fuselage shrotly before the pilots lost control of the aircraft. At that point it was still believed that a catastrophic engine failure started the initial sequence of events which led to the incidents. The missle theory occured to me because, as John Schulien points out, the terrorists are not going to try the same thing twice. If they did, then post-September 11 security precautions would almost certainly ensure they were caught.

So, it seems that a dodgy, European Government-built aeroplane was to blame. When will we ever learn to stop spending billions of taxpayers' pounds, francs and deutschmarks on building deathtrap airliners? First there was the R101 airship in 1930 (crashed on its first flight killing all but 5 on board), then the Bristol Brabazon (design was so fundamentally flawed it never even entered service), then Concorde (probably the only reason why all of them haven't crashed by now is because they fly 10% of the miles on 2000% of the maintenance hours done by a conventional airliner, and if Concorde doesn't kill us by crashing it probably will by destroying the environment), then Airbuses that crashed because their fly-by-wire computers did likewise, and now Airbuses that fall to pieces in mid-air.

As for the Taliban, they claimed to have shot down an Allied helicopter shortly after the bombing started - a claim which, of course, was denied by the British and US authorities, who said that it crashed accidentally in bad weather and that everyone on board survived. Of course you wouldn't need a missile to do that - buckshot from a Crimean War musket (several hundred of which are reputed to still be in use by various Afghan militias) would do the job if it found its way into the rotor shaft. The problem is that we really don't know what they've got, apart from large amounts of money. But given that they were regarded by the west as good guys right up until the collapse of the Soviet Union, I think it would be fair to speculate that they probably have rather more in the way of nasty things that go bang than we'd like them to.

True, we've got no proof that Bin Liner has a cave full of Stingers somewhere (and if he did, that would still leave him with the problem of getting them into the US). But neither do we have any proof that he has any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but nevertheless the military and civillian authorities are planning for the possibility that he may do.

Let's hope that Bush and Blair don't just give the order to pack up and go home as soon as the Tailban have been kicked out of office, but stay to finish the job of making sure that if they are sitting on any weapons of mass destruction, that they won't be for very much longer. Goodness knows what would have happened by now if the west had walked right out of Iraq in 1993.