ils2minimums
Registered Useless
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Posts
- 224
This is posted here with the permission of the author. It is a response to the recently-aired National Geographic Channel program which dealt with the crash of AA587 in November 2001. It's a good read and it points out some very interesting facts. It's long, so I'll have to post it in 4 parts. If you work for AA or if you fly the A300/310 you'll find it worth the time.
_________________________________________________________________
OK...here is a "blow-by-blow" of the deceit, lies, mis-statements and gloss-overs/omissions from the National Geographic docu-drama. I will consolidate this list to a one-page press release of pertinent and timely issues to object to such revisionist history and outright blatant fraud.
(Some of these points I will list here are NOT pertinent but simply observations of a lack of factual adherance.)
-Pilots Ed States and Sten Molin BOTH doing the walk-around, with their luggage, in black uniforms with gold stripes.
-The aircraft they are flying is not an A300 cockpit...looks to be a four-engine jet with aft handles for the Thrust Reversers for the Flight Engineer...thus, my guess is it is a 747...although I could not get a great look at the throttles...I suppose it could be an old B4 model A300 that had the engineer...still looks like more than two engines, though...
-This quote really got me: "...even so, the Airbus A300 is recognized as one of the most reliable airliners in service."
The Repair Bus. The Scare Bus. The Carribean Broken Sequence Waiting to Happen...is "one of the most reliable airliners in service?" It would be interesting to pull up a database or study of "reliable" aircraft and see where the A300 ranks...I'm sure there is a list somewhere...
-"The pilots know that turbulence is likely from JAL. It's a routine hazard."
While not an untrue statement, turbulence from a preceeding aircraft on takeoff in a heavy, in my experience in 23 years of flying heavy jets (and most significantly a "MITO" takeoff 12 seconds rolling behind another KC-135)...is at most a nuisance. I would never call it a hazard, and I would not "expect" it from a preceeding 747...perhaps right after takeoff, but certainly not after the turn. And...as Paul Csibrik points out, for 60 years heavy airliners have taken off behind heavy airliners, thousands of times a day...and yet, no tail has ever fallen off an airliner. It is obvious that pilots have done nearly everything to an aircraft, including rudder reversals...ESPECIALLY since rudder reversals have NEVER been a prohibited maneuver, and Maneuvering Airspeed has been a foundational truth of aerodynamics since the dawn of aviation. But only in the last five years do we suddenly have a rash of tail failures and planes grounded because of damaged tailfins. All composite tails...all A300/A310s.
-First shot to the jaw: "Pilot Sten Molin uses his foot controls and applies rudder first to the right then to the left to try to stabilize the plane."
This statement is unproven. There is nothing to prove that Molin moved the "foot controls" and nothing to prove that the "foot controls" caused this movement. The NTSB loves to turn proof around to their way of investigation and say "we have no reason to believe it was anything other than the pilot's feet causing the movement."
But, the FACT remains, they have no proof the pilot did make the inputs. Given the fact that no training provided by American would teach a pilot, at that stage of the flight, to make rudder reversal inputs; given that rudder reversals were not prohibited in any manual printed by Airbus...and in fact INCLUDED as a DIRECTIVE to perform in the procedure for "LND GEAR NOT DOWN AND LOCKED"...and given that uncommanded rudder and spurrious movement of the rudder and yaw dampeners are a documented and chronic, even frequent, occurrance on the A300-600Rs flown by AA...and given the recent findings of delamination in rudders and even a real-world example of a catastrophic rudder disintegration that came within a hair of causing the tailfin of Air Transat 961 to fall off in almost exact fashion...(and that one with absolutely no rudder inputs "on the foot controls" by the pilots)...gives us plenty of reason to question this startling leap to conclusion. To state it as "fact" on this show is the first of several outright lies put forth as fact and, remember, this show is obviously approved by the NTSB...so they are involved in the fraud.
-"By plotting exactly where the debris landed, investigators should be able to tell the exact breakup sequence."
The problem with this is, there WAS no debris field mapping done on this crash, as verified by the investigators on the APA side during the investigation. People on-site report extra-ordinary and very unusual efforts by NTSB to rush--bulldozers were reported to be on the crash site within two days. The most important parts of the debris landed in a tidal bay that was wind-whipped. The composite pieces of the rudder--all 11 of them--mostly floated up to the shore or the seawall. The tailfin itself was found floating in the bay well after the crash...there is no way to really "plot exactly" this debris. Therefore, the entire premise is flawed and inexact. Yet...this is seized upon as a vital key to the conclusions. This is the first foundational flaw upon which the NTSB "house of cards" is built.
Then...the statement: "without a tail, a plane can't fly." While I know what they mean, I'm not certain if this statement is technically correct, as a B-52 flew with nearly its whole tail ripped off.
_________________________________________________________________
OK...here is a "blow-by-blow" of the deceit, lies, mis-statements and gloss-overs/omissions from the National Geographic docu-drama. I will consolidate this list to a one-page press release of pertinent and timely issues to object to such revisionist history and outright blatant fraud.
(Some of these points I will list here are NOT pertinent but simply observations of a lack of factual adherance.)
-Pilots Ed States and Sten Molin BOTH doing the walk-around, with their luggage, in black uniforms with gold stripes.
-The aircraft they are flying is not an A300 cockpit...looks to be a four-engine jet with aft handles for the Thrust Reversers for the Flight Engineer...thus, my guess is it is a 747...although I could not get a great look at the throttles...I suppose it could be an old B4 model A300 that had the engineer...still looks like more than two engines, though...
-This quote really got me: "...even so, the Airbus A300 is recognized as one of the most reliable airliners in service."
The Repair Bus. The Scare Bus. The Carribean Broken Sequence Waiting to Happen...is "one of the most reliable airliners in service?" It would be interesting to pull up a database or study of "reliable" aircraft and see where the A300 ranks...I'm sure there is a list somewhere...
-"The pilots know that turbulence is likely from JAL. It's a routine hazard."
While not an untrue statement, turbulence from a preceeding aircraft on takeoff in a heavy, in my experience in 23 years of flying heavy jets (and most significantly a "MITO" takeoff 12 seconds rolling behind another KC-135)...is at most a nuisance. I would never call it a hazard, and I would not "expect" it from a preceeding 747...perhaps right after takeoff, but certainly not after the turn. And...as Paul Csibrik points out, for 60 years heavy airliners have taken off behind heavy airliners, thousands of times a day...and yet, no tail has ever fallen off an airliner. It is obvious that pilots have done nearly everything to an aircraft, including rudder reversals...ESPECIALLY since rudder reversals have NEVER been a prohibited maneuver, and Maneuvering Airspeed has been a foundational truth of aerodynamics since the dawn of aviation. But only in the last five years do we suddenly have a rash of tail failures and planes grounded because of damaged tailfins. All composite tails...all A300/A310s.
-First shot to the jaw: "Pilot Sten Molin uses his foot controls and applies rudder first to the right then to the left to try to stabilize the plane."
This statement is unproven. There is nothing to prove that Molin moved the "foot controls" and nothing to prove that the "foot controls" caused this movement. The NTSB loves to turn proof around to their way of investigation and say "we have no reason to believe it was anything other than the pilot's feet causing the movement."
But, the FACT remains, they have no proof the pilot did make the inputs. Given the fact that no training provided by American would teach a pilot, at that stage of the flight, to make rudder reversal inputs; given that rudder reversals were not prohibited in any manual printed by Airbus...and in fact INCLUDED as a DIRECTIVE to perform in the procedure for "LND GEAR NOT DOWN AND LOCKED"...and given that uncommanded rudder and spurrious movement of the rudder and yaw dampeners are a documented and chronic, even frequent, occurrance on the A300-600Rs flown by AA...and given the recent findings of delamination in rudders and even a real-world example of a catastrophic rudder disintegration that came within a hair of causing the tailfin of Air Transat 961 to fall off in almost exact fashion...(and that one with absolutely no rudder inputs "on the foot controls" by the pilots)...gives us plenty of reason to question this startling leap to conclusion. To state it as "fact" on this show is the first of several outright lies put forth as fact and, remember, this show is obviously approved by the NTSB...so they are involved in the fraud.
-"By plotting exactly where the debris landed, investigators should be able to tell the exact breakup sequence."
The problem with this is, there WAS no debris field mapping done on this crash, as verified by the investigators on the APA side during the investigation. People on-site report extra-ordinary and very unusual efforts by NTSB to rush--bulldozers were reported to be on the crash site within two days. The most important parts of the debris landed in a tidal bay that was wind-whipped. The composite pieces of the rudder--all 11 of them--mostly floated up to the shore or the seawall. The tailfin itself was found floating in the bay well after the crash...there is no way to really "plot exactly" this debris. Therefore, the entire premise is flawed and inexact. Yet...this is seized upon as a vital key to the conclusions. This is the first foundational flaw upon which the NTSB "house of cards" is built.
Then...the statement: "without a tail, a plane can't fly." While I know what they mean, I'm not certain if this statement is technically correct, as a B-52 flew with nearly its whole tail ripped off.
Last edited: