Flight 587 (Rockaway) Crash of 11/12/02 -- MIHOP?

[gulfcoastliberal]

I've heard a theory this could've been a black op due to the fact that the media recount of the Florida presidential ballots showing Gore won the state were scheduled for release on the day of the crash. Since I don't have NEXIS/LEXIS I cannot confirm this rumor. However, even if untrue, I do not believe this was an accidental crash. There was and is an obvious cover-up instigated by the FBI and NTSB a la TWA Flight 800. Numerous eyewitnesses distinctly heard/saw the aircraft explode before it plummeted to its doom:

http://www.rockawave.com/news/2002/0720/Front_Page/D-Witnesses_Stories0720.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0112/S00027.htm

The official explanation of excess rudder input from the 1st officer is a disgrace and insult to a person not here to defend himself. If excess rudder input causes a tail of an Airbus to shear off, dozens of these aircraft would have experienced such a failure over the years. Not only that, but since Airbus planes use a fly-by-wire system, it has been theorized that the flight computers could actually compensate for the loss of the tail, much like the flying wing designs of the B2 and F117.

I know this particular incident is not a huge factor in the big picture, but I would not put it past this gang of thugs to do something like this to divert attention away from the fact they lost the election. The fact that nearly all of the passenegers were citizens of the Dominican Republic means that public scrutiny/outcry over the findings of the crash wouldn't be quite as bad as if it were all WASP passengers. Also, it goes to show the depths of corruption in the FBI and NTSB: even the least sinister (terrorist bombing) explanation of the cause of the 2nd worst aviation disaster in U.S. history got covered-up to protect American Airlines.

The NTSB is set to issue its final findings on the crash this Spring. Their explanation will be interesting, and I'm pretty sure it won't mention anything about eyewitness reports of explosions or bombs. Or even testing for the presence of explosive residues in the crash wreckage. Just another mystery in the realm of the tinfoil hat... :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[FloridaPat]

1. Like TW800, the witnesses were ignored and some wierd

event was the cause. Originally it was assumed it got into turbulance from another aircraft. The FAA probably should be given scripts for new science fiction movies to write. They are good at finding the strangest ideas. Don't forget Wellstone's crash. Another one.

[TrogL]

6. There was nothing strange about the Wellstone crash

Don't start that again.

[blazinjason]

2. Thanks for the article.

I have never understood the UNDER investigation of this crash. Never.

[mn9driver]

3. The tail came off due to large rudder inputs:

In a swept wing airplane, an aerodynamic phenomenon called "roll coupling" occurs as the aircraft moves around the vertical axis. What happens is that as the airplane yaws, one wing presents a more "direct" face to the relative wind. Lift on that side goes up. The opposite wing loses lift as the relative wind moves to a more spanwise flow. Result: the airplane rolls.

This also happens on straight wing airplanes, but not as much. Pilots are trained to counter yaw with rudder-that's what it's for. Because yaw and roll can be heavily coupled, especially in large jets, some pilots transition to countering roll with rudder, too. This is a bad habit, and AA 587 was a tragically extreme example of it.

587 encountered wake turbulence from a preceding departure (wingtip vortices-think horizontal, invisible tornado-) this caused the aircraft to roll violently. The FO countered with a big rudder input instead of aileron. Then the airplane popped out of the vortice and rolled violently the other way--due to all the rudder! The FO countered with opposite rudder! He swung it back and forth about three times, reaching max allowable deflection on two of them, and then the vertical tail sheared off.

Here's the reason: The airplane is designed to handle full rudder deflection at any speed. How much the rudder moves changes with speed. In addition, the maximum load on the vertical tail under this condition is calculated and the tail is then designed for an "ultimate load" (failure) of 200% of this value.

By applying maximum rudder inputs in opposite directions as the tail was swinging back and forth from the previous inputs, the FO succeeded in exeeding the ultimate load. In other words, the momentum from each previous swing took the tail further and further into the relative wind, until the last rudder kick just snapped it off.

The Digital Flight Data Recorder was fairly sophisticated and was recovered in good condition. It documents all of this. The NTSB has been diligent in devil's advocating this scenario, but there's not too much doubt about this one.

(edit-thought I'd add):
This accident changed the way the industry trains for wake or "upset" encounters. There is a huge emphasis now on not using the rudder to counter roll. The A300, by the way is one of Airbuses' earlier models and is not fly-by-wire. Even a fly-by-wire airplane wouldn't be able to compensate for a missing vertical tail, though.

[gulfcoastliberal]

4. I think this theory is entirely plausible;

it's just the eyewitness accounts that make me suspicious of it. Also, it seems like this would happened more than once since these planes encounter turbulence far more severe than wingtip vortices while at cruise speed. The original DC-10s -- which had an array of design flaws, had similar instances of near-disasters more than once. Fleetwide groundings revealed problems in many planes. Flight 578 was only going about 270 MPH at the time it hit the wake turbulence. Also, there is reportedly a video taken from a toll plaza that shows a white cloud emerge from the aircraft prior to it crashing - this on a clear, sunny day. Plus the witnesses reported the engine separated from the plane after the reported explosion (and burst of white smoke). Finally, I believe the A300-600 is indeed a digital fly by wire system:

AVIONICS AND FLIGHT SYSTEMS

The aircraft's radio navigation suite includes an automatic direction finder, two VHF omnidirectional radio rangers, two instrument landing systems, two distance measuring equipment, marker beacon receivers and two radio altimeters. The aircraft is also equipped with a traffic alert and collision avoidance system and a ground proximity warning system.

The avionics suite includes two digital air data computers supplied by Honeywell, a digital automatic flight control system with dedicated dual flight control computers for the flight director and autopilot. An ARINC 717 data recorder is fitted with a digital flight data acquisition and recorder.

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a300-600/


And:


1983 - Airbus A 300-600, Medium Range Airliner

The A300 was the first model of Airbus Industry, a group of eurpean aircraft manufacturers that was to bring a european answer to Boeing and McDD to the international aitliner market. The A300-600 is equipped with a 100% digital control system (fly-by-wire).

http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/ith/airbus.htm

[mn9driver]

8. This is a good example of the problems with Web research.

Your aerospace-technology link refers to the Flight Control Computers: these are used for the flight director and autopilot, not to provide a "fly-by-wire" input to the flight surfaces themselves.

Your second link to the luftfahrtmuseum seems less ambiguous, but I believe it to be in error, or at least misleading. Here is what Airbus itself says:

"...In 1988, the A320 was the first commercial aircraft to enter service with an electronically managed flight control system (‘fly-by-wire’) and a side stick controller..."

The A300 initially entered service in 1974, and its' primary flight control system is still conventional on all except a single, highly modified A300-600 called the "Beluga", which is a strange looking aircraft indeed. This link may help to clear up some of the confusion:

"...In the Airbus A300FF, that entered the market in 1981, the aircraft's communication/navigation equipment communicated with the auto-flight system via digital data buses. The Boeing 757 and 767 followed in 1982, already offering digitally controlled CRTs which replaced several conventional electro-mechanical flight instruments.

By introducing the Airbus A310 and A300-600, the application of the glass-cockpit concept was continued. For the first time, these aircraft featured a digital control of the secondary flight controls (flaps, slats, spoiler)..."

So we see that the -600 model has digital connections to the secondary flight controls, but all of these controls can move only in direct response to pilot input. In other words, the flaps move when the flap handle is moved, and at no other time. There is no computer deciding or interpreting commands for these secondary controls; all they did was get rid of the cables. Does that help?

As to the "smoke": As the aircraft yawed away from the relative wind, it is very likely that one or both engines experienced a "compressor stall" as the airflow through the engines was disrupted. These events can cause the engine to produce loud bangs, smoke, and even fireballs, especially at high thrust settings, and they absolutely would occur under these circumstances. The airplane yawed so rapidly that the engines literally "twisted" off of the wing due to gyroscopic precession--imagine what kind of gyroscope several tons of metal spinning at 20,000 RPM makes.

I believe the NTSB will address this in their final report.

[TrogL]

5. You cannot compensate for the loss of the tail

There's only one rudder.

When it's gone, it's gone.

There was a flight awhile ago where they lost the rudder hydraulics and they were able to sorta line up with the runway using thrust alone, but it crashed and a lot of people were killed. However, they still had the rest of the tail. With no tail whatsoever, there's be no way of controlling the aircraft.

[TrogL]

7. Perfect description of a plane breaking up in midair

The side to side oscillations stressed the plane beyond its breaking point. The wing integrity was lost, spilling fuel, which ignited.

[CaptainMidnight]

9. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP

I have mentioned this particular subject, here and there, at DU.

It's never caught fire.

You can't put anything past the Bushies since they orchestrated the 9-11 Attacks. After murdering over 3,000 Americans, what's another coupla hundred in order to DISTRACT FROM and UPSTAGE the big Media Report on who really won the 2000 Election?

And like the 9-11 Attacks, they hedged their bets with more than one method of obscuring the truth. A plane crash that happened to occur EARLY that morning in order to dominate the headlines. They also, if you read any of the election reports, made sure that the newspapers "buried the lead," whereby the announced BUSH WOULD HAVE WON ANYWAY in the title, but then several paragraphs in, on page D12, showed that GORE would have WON.

Of course, within AN HOUR, they were assuring us "NO, NO, it's definitely NOT terrorism, remain calm!" How did they know that? Like they knew Osama did 911 within hours of the Towers coming down?

Or within a day of Wellstone's crash, the NTSB came out with a statement that read, "IT's likely we'll NEVER know the REAL cause of the crash."

Bullshit.

Same deal with Flight 800. It was a Navy missile. Probably unintentional. For the best illustration of how the NTSB is completely corrupt and compromised, as is the FBI, read INTO THE BUZZSAW, which examines the myth of a "free press" in this country. The revelation about Flight 800 will cause you to re-think the Wellstone Crash and Flight 587.

"The tail fell off."

Sure.

Trog, you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time on these boards, rushing to and fro from thread to thead, debunking plane crashes and controlled demolitions left and right, making sure we're not deluding our tin-foil-hatted pretty little heads over all this. I really don't think you need to, uh..."worry" about us so much. Okay?

I find that highly interesting.

Captain Mike

[On the Road]

10. More Likely it Was a Small Terrorist Bomb on Board

Eyewitnesses reported seeing a explosion behind the wings. A bomb in the luggage compartment or on board could have caused that. The lapse in security would have been embarrassing and encouraged future terrorist attempts.

Having said that, I don't think there's enough evidence to be sure one way or the other. There's nothing wrong with examining the official count. But eyewitnesses are unreliable, as are engineering models of what should have happened under similar conditions. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Right now, claims about the Rockaway crash are not there.