American crash

I watch a documentary on the investigation of this tragic accident.

Apparently the Tail was torn off at the connectors that fasten it to the fusealage. This was obvious as when the tail was recovers, you could see the fastners at the bottom of the tail. It was clear theyt had failed.

The investigation found that the Co-Pilot who was the PF at the time used more rudder in attempting to correct a yaw than he should of had. Although he was following the training given to him by AA.

This had sparked of a row between Airbus and AA, each blaming the other.

US investigators are increasingly certain that flight 587 was brought down because turbulence from the wake of a Japanese Airlines jumbo sheared the tail from the American Airlines Airbus A-300.
Although the Japanese 747’s path was to the west and about 800ft (240 metres) higher than flight 587, an analysis of radar data and wind patterns has shown that the jet would have crossed the wake of the preceding plane, even though it was four miles ahead.
Those records, together with sound of the plane rattling on the cockpit voice recorder, the two pilots’ report of wake turbulence, data from the flight data recorder indicating that the tail fin came off first and the engines continued to run, has led the investigators to believe that they have found the initial cause of the crash.
“We haven’t found any other evidence of any impact with any foreign object. It appears to be some sort of aerodynamic effect, the national transportation safety board spokesman George Black said.
But the investigators are unable to explain what combination of events could have produced enough force to tear the tail fin and rudder off the plane and rip both engines away before the fuselage plummeted into the Rockaway area of Queen’s, killing at least 265 people.
If wake turbulence was the cause, it would not be the first time. In September 1997 a USAir Boeing 737 crashed near Pittsburgh after it encountered the wake vortices of a preceding jet. The wake turbulence plus anomalies in the rudder were blamed.
The investigators are also analysing the A-300’s maintenance records. The airline has ordered safety checks on its Airbus fleet.
Although the investigators have said that the A-300’s tail fin shows no signs of corrosion, they are analysing materials used in its construction.
Since the early 1980s the European Airbus consortium has been far more willing than Boeing to use carbon fibre-reinforced plastic for parts critical to the plane’s cohesion. The type which crashed, the A-300-600R, uses the material in its tail fin, rudder, engine casings, landing gear bay doors, nose and flaps.
Company officials are already positioning themselves to argue that the stresses created by wake turbulence, combined with action taken by the flight crew, may have exceeded the load that the tail fin is designed to withstand.
Part of the investigation centres on possible damage to the plane in 1994, when it encountered severe turbulence en route from Barbados to Puerto Rico. A report said the plane suffered unspecified “minor damage”, was repaired, and returned to service.
The plane’s maintenance records show that one of the six fittings that hold the fin to the fuselage had to be repaired by Airbus before it was delivered in 1988. It was made thicker and reinforced with rivets. The US safety board has said that its records did not require additional inspections.
· Negotiators for the Senate and the House of Representatives reached a tentative deal yesterday on a law to make American air travel more secure, fulfilling a promise to get an aviation security bill to the president before Thanksgiving next week.
The last main sticking point was the status of airport baggage screeners. The bill passed by the Senate created a federal workforce of 28,000 screeners, a move opposed by the House.

I saw a documentry in the UK about it on BBC2.
It was really intresting but depressing at the same time of course.

um, no, it’s not.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20011130X02321&key=1

it got snapped off. the permissible loads were far exceeded as the flight crew tried to control the aircraft using the rudder in the vortex of the JAL 747 that had taken off immediatelt before (the minimum time between takeoffs hadn’t been applied, either)

It was assumptions. Is it official now?

it got snapped off. the permissible loads were far exceeded as the flight crew tried to control the aircraft using the rudder in the vortex of the JAL 747 that had taken off immediatelt before (the minimum time between takeoffs hadn’t been applied, either)