Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Should the book be closed on AA587?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

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.
 
Last edited:
Continuing...

Steve Canyon--oops, I mean Bob Benzon--and his team of white-jumpsuited "go teamers" are portrayed as being immediately on the scene in full hazmat gear, taking samples, looking for explosive residue. In fact, reports were that the NTSB Go Team were not on scene immediately and that Marion Blakey was making her pitch for "not terrorism" and immediately selling the JAL Wake Turbulence Story (complete with an appearance on the Sunday Morning news shows six days after the crash with charts and graphs showing wake turbulence) prior to any real investigation taking place at the crash site. In fact, she held her press conference within a day or two of the crash, where she declared it was "not terrorism."

"The entire nation is waiting for word from Benzon's Team."

This gives the impression that Benzon and his team had cordoned off the entire crash site and were running to and fro, taking samples and testing for explosive residue, so that they could get word as soon as possible to President Bush and The Waiting Nation.

OK...time out. If criminal activity was suspected--and it certainly was--how credible is the story that the NTSB Go Team was called in to test for explosive residue?

They then state: "FBI forensics experts searching for explosive residue." So...was it Bob Benzon's go Team or the FBI "searching?" And, if so...where is the FBI report, and when was it published? And, were the FBI working for the NTSB...because the NTSB, a unit ill-equipped to head a criminal investigation, was declared in charge of this deal from the start. As if to assure us that, indeed, it was an NTSB deal...the docu-drama says the following:

"For Benzon and the NTSB, the lack of corroborating evidence to support the theory (terror) is troubling." So, the show continues..."they took a calculated risk." That was when Blakey made her "not terrorism" statement.

Timeline:November 12: plane crashes, 265 bodies everywhere, debris strewn everywhere, tail and rudder in the bay, engines in separate locations, a flight attendant seatbelt found a mile from the pit by the seawall...; November 13: Benzon's crack team of NTSB "criminal investigators" crawls over the wreckage with cotton swabs and is "disturbed by the lack of corroborating evidence" to support terror as the cause. November 14: Marion Blakey declares "not terrorism."

Anyone buy that they had time to do anything more than collect bodies and put out the fire in the first days? I mean...witnesses were just beginning to be interviewed; debris was weeks away from being completely collected, let alone the "debris field" and break-up pattern being dissected and explored. The DFDR was not even found yet...and when it was, it was declared damaged and had months of "reconstruction" to undergo; the voice recorder was found, but not analyzed. If terror was suspected, autopsies would necessarily have to be performed, individual seats and floorboards, luggage...all manner for investigation would have to be performed--as we know with TWA 800, it takes months, perhaps years to conclude. And not just for explosive residue, but for any sort of mechanical sabotage.

Yet...Benzon's team, not even criminal investigators, assisted by a few hastily-called FBI agents, working in a crash pit that was likely still smoking and NOT under the strict process of a legitimate crime scene investigation, but with all sorts of recovery workers hauling wreckage away, picking up bodies, etc...were immediately able to do a thorough enough job of detective work to be "disturbed by the lack of corroborating evidence" for terror and knew after a day that it could not have been anything to do with terrorism.

In fact, as perhaps APA Safety committeeman and later, chief of the investigation for APA, John David can attest, the crash scene was pretty much chaos, bodies everywhere and debris scattered from the bay to the pit. None of it was charted or mapped; residents were calling accident investigators about debris; some of it sat for days with no response, then a few guys would show up in a truck, throw the debris in the back and drive off--no documentation. Testimony from eyewitnesses was taken and essentially dismissed. John David himself found the last body, days after the crash. LATE in the investigation, when APA investigators were asked about testing for explosive residue, no one had any information on whether it was performed, if there was a documentation of this testing, what parts were tested, when and by whom.

Blakey assured the world that, if criminal activity were found, then the investigation would change accordingly.

Question: What kind of training do NTSB investigators have to discover criminal activity? Given the circumstances...wouldn't it make more sense to allow the FBI to investigate for a few months--instead of having a few there for a day-- then declare it "not criminal" and hand it over to NTSB?

The docu-drama continues...saying that Benzon's and Blakey's "well-intentioned" plan to immediately declare not terror "backfires"...and then launches into a discussion about "suspicious New Yorkers." The effort here is to cast a logical thought pattern of expectation of a thorough criminal investigation, given the recent 9/11 attacks and the remarkable nature of the tail falling off--into a light of "irrational suspicion" by shell-shocked "suspicious New Yorkers".

Once the DFDR was found, the docu-dram states..."The Flight Data recorder will tell them EXACTLY how the plane performed!"

Another lie...because of the filter. They don't even MENTION the filter on the DFDR in this program, even though the NTSB Hearing in October, 2002 began with the words of Bob Benzon himself: "Due to the filter that augmented the readout data from the DFDR, we will never know exactly what the flight controls on AA 587 did on november 12, 2001" or words to that effect. He then explained that, the DFDR normally records 60 data points per second. The filter installed--which was ordered by the FAA to be de-activated years prior, but was not--filtered out 59 of these datapoints, so that only one data reading per second was sent to the cockpit instruments.

In order, however, to get a good read on the rudder, the filtered-out data points had to be put back in. Two models were made of this data to re-introduce this...and, the project team called in to perform BOTH models?

Airbus.
 
Last edited:
Then...they flash to the Triborough Bridge video..as this is a Major Loose End and something that is amazing that they were able to toss aside so completely.

Tollbooth cameras caught the accident aircraft in the air. These cameras film in a "multiplexed" digital format. We have, incredibly, actual footage of the accident in progress.

Yet...this film and any information about the film simply disappeared right after it was collected. The NTSB never had the actual digital, multiplexed film for over three years. They had a copy of a videotape version. Yes...the NTSB did not analyze the original tape nor did they see anything but a copy of a videotape...until a month or so before the report was issued.

APA was not given any word, information nor did they see the tape at all until about that time. They only got to see the tape--and talk to the FBI about the analysis--because John David called them and badgered them about seeing it. (Mike Leone and Don Pitts were happy not to ever see the tape of our own aircraft in mid-breakup...)

No real analysis was ever shown to anyone from APA--a vague discussion of the film was all that David got from the FBI--no report, no pixel-by-pixel look was ever briefed to APA--no blown-up version was ever shown to the public. Even on the show, all we see is the old, grainy, regular view...no enhancement, not even magnification...just a little dot on a screen. Certainly they have a better, enhanced look at the thing somewhere...but it never saw the light of day. Given the technology we have today, it is astonishing that the press, congress, the families, APA...US...are letting them get away with this.

Actually, through the Freedom of Information act, a local man in Long Island got a copy of the tape. He took it to a professional video analyst, who enhanced it, looked at it with various filters, etc. Even on the video version, you could tell there was a cloud coming from behind the aircraft, and it was due to this outside analysis that I feel the program felt that they better acknowledge that there was something trailing AA 587. The cloud extends for some time behind it...and the local man who procured the tape from the FOIA feels that the timeline that the NTSB concluded "doesn't match" and thus the actual tail-snap (or possible fire or explosion) is not on the tape-- is off, and off significantly. If this man is correct in his timeline theory, it makes a world of difference in the significance of the tape...and makes it very important that the tape was analyzed thoroughly.

They said it was "probably fuel escaping 8 seconds after the tail had fallen off."

The local man made a great argument that the NTSB timeline is off and that "no way" was this recording on the tape 8 seconds after the tail came off.

Still...if it was 8 seconds...where was the fuel coming from? Were the engines already gone by then? Well, the tape clearly shows the plane in level flight...not gyrating all over the sky causing loads to rip off engines. So the tail comes off...and then the plane just keeps going straight and level with fuel coming from...where? The tail fuel is in the elevator, not the vertical fin, and (I do not think) that there was fuel in that tank anyway on that flight. The enhanced version apparently shows a significant cloud coming from behind the aircraft as it tools along in level flight for quite awhile.

Now...let's talk about NTSB Double-Speak.

The NTSB, though out the investigation, loved to answer any question about specifics in the same manner: "We have no reason to believe..." started every sentence. This is at the heart of how the NT SB can steer the investigation toward a desired outcome and clearly why they gave so much weight to the twice-refuted-by-other-eyewitnesses, six-year-old, factually-incorrect memories of Captain John Lavelle.

For example...when discussing the A300 and composites, Bob Benzon could have talked about the nature of composites--strong in one way, incredibly weak the other way; he could have given warning about the new application and use of the material in major load-bearing functions, and how little was known about the way lateral side-loading, water intrusion, hydraulic fluid contamination, repeated stress from takeoff and landing, turbulence and the occasional tail strike affect the integrity of composites. He could have related that the accident aircraft had a rather interesting, unique and never-used-again repair technique applied to one attachment lug when a manufacturing flaw was discovered--using Ultrasound, not visual or "tap" testing--at the factory during the certification test. He might have related also that the accident aircraft had been involved in the worst case of turbulence ever experienced by any aircraft in the history of our airline, which has been in existence since 1933.

Bob might have reminded the audience that, indeed, there was concern expressed--even expressed by the NTSB--about the phenomena of "composite fatigue"...the breakdown of composite material over time--and the controversy surrounding the current methods of inspection of these materials. He might have told the traveling public about the finding of a crack in the lug of the vertical fin of another aircraft that had been though an inflight upset--AA Flight 903--in May, 1997. Bob might have looked at the camera and said:

"Yes, there was quite a discussion--documented on memos that came out at the NTSB hearing--that showed an urgent discussion between American Airlines and Airbus and that they were deeply, deeply concerned about "possible empennage damage"...with Airbus calling openly for "deeper testing" and American wondering openly why such testing might be called for, since Airbus insisted that if you cannot see damage to a composite material visually, it is not significant and cannot "propagate" (spread)."

Bob might have continued to tell the audience that, indeed, American did conduct an Ultrasonic test on that tail in February 2002 because of damage that United found in a tail of an A320 using Ultrasound. Seeking to assure the public --and possibly themselves--that Airbus' insistence that the visual/tap test was "good enough"...AA did the Ultrasound and was shocked to find the crack in the lug that caused the FAA (as testified to by Dr. Larry Ilsewicz in the hearing) to immediately ground the aircraft; it remained grounded for nearly two years and suddenly, without explanation, was placed back on the line. The rumor is that the tail was not replaced by Airbus--they refused--but one was instead crafted by Boeing (this is unconfirmed, but makes sense...)
 
Last edited:
Bob might have looked at the camera and said, with a face turning a shade of scarlet "Boy, did we "experts" in the government regulatory bodies feel like Bozos to ever buy off on the Airbus visual inspection philosophy--I mean, we all knew both the military and Boeing warned about hidden damage within composites for years--Boeing even had a training video where they banged the tail with a ball-peen hammer to show that nothing on the outside looked wrong, but the inside was horribly fractured. The ineffectiveness of that inspection method, which we bought hook, line and sinker from Airbus, placed thousands of people's lives at stake for over five years of commercial flight! Can you imagine...that tail was CRACKED all that time...just waiting for that one severe turbulence event to send it crashing down. We sure got lucky there..."

Or, Bob might have related the experience of Air Transat 961, whose composite rudder shredded in mid-flight last spring, at cruise and on autopilot. Something made the rudder move--either Uncommanded Rudder, which happens frequently on A300/310 aircraft, or simply the rudder disintegrating. Whatever caused the initial movement, the rudder slammed side to side and broke apart, putting tremendous loads on the tailfin.

Bob might have said "You know, that event caused loads so severe, they were almost identical to the loads experienced on AA 587; but...well, we made the assumption that loads of that degree could not possibly be made without the rudder remaining intact throughout the whole sequence...I mean, lacking any real proof due to the filtered and damaged DFDR on AA 587, we simply couldn't say for a fact that the pilot caused the tailfin to come off...but, we figured that he had to do it because a rudder could not generate loads like that unless it stayed whole and that rudders do not move all by themselves. We certainly proved both of those assumptions wrong after seeing that Air Transat's tail experienced loads identical to AA 587, yet the rudder did not remain whole, but the flutter likely caused the damage; that the rudder did indeed move by itself, as it was on autopilot at cruise; we will certainly now re-open the AA 587 investigation because two major assumptions we made regarding rudder flutter, load generation and uncommanded rudder are clearly incorrect..."

Bob might have related the recent NTSB Safety Recommendation that criticized Airbus' suggested inspection resolutions regarding the rudder delamination of Air Transat and another danger, the discovery of hydraulic fluid intrusion and "propagating" delamination of the inside layers of composite on the rudder of a Fed Ex A300, minor delam discovered using the tap test; but a VERY significant portion of the delamination not discovered until more sophisticated nonDestructive methods were used.

Bob might have said "Yeah...that's three vertical fins either removed permanently or fallen off in a fiery crash...and one undiscovered delaminated rudder that would have probably caused a fourth...in four years. And not one other airliner before 2001 had these problems...and all four of the ones we know of are all A300/310s. This is obviously a trend we have to take seriously."

But, Bob Benzon didn't say any of that. Bob looked at the camera and said, in his NTSB Double Speak:

"A plane has never crashed due to the failure of a composite component." (Instead of saying "The only crash that has occurred due to the vertical fin falling off was on a composite-tailed airplane...")

He also goes over the top, describing composite materials as "the strongest material known to man!" (See above for discussion on the demonstrated "strength" and known frailties of this "strongest" material...)

The show attempts to portray Benzon as being "suspicious" of the composite materials, apparently attempting to show the audience that Bob was a "tough task-master, requiring solid proof that the material did not fail." (Yet...here was the tail and rudder floating in the bay...it absolutely did fail...perhaps not below it's certification, but it certainly did fail!)

Hmm...no, that is not how they posed the question. They instead said "Proving the carbon fiber is to blame will require hard physical evidence."

So...to prove the pilot to blame, you need one stale story from some vague, fraudulent pilot who last laid eyes on the accused pilot six years prior to the crash; and a computer-model-manipulated-by-Airbus-with-data-kept-in-dry-storage (due to "damage" on the Black Box...) that they can then create into a dramatic chart showing the rudder swinging...but not proving that the pilot did it...

hardly "hard physical evidence"...

but, to even entertain the possibility that the newly-applied material that NASA's Dr. Mark Shuarte and Dr. Charles Harris in a 2001 report called "an immature application in commercial aviation"...you need "hard physical evidence."

So...off it goes to NASA...and, remarkably, Dr. Mark Shuarte is the man tasked to perform the "electron microscope analysis" of the carbon. Suddenly, Mark Shuarte has forgotten his criticism of the application of composites in load-bearing structures in commercial aviation. According to the program, he gives both the composites themselves and the DESIGN of the aircraft a "clean bill of health."

Whew...Benzon is SOOOO relieved...(much mopping of brows...)
 
I believe it was the Marine Parkway Toll Plaza video/film camera, the TRIBORO Bridge is on the other side of Queens.
 
A few weeks after the crash of AA587, AA put a learning bulletin (or what ever they're call, I forget) about what to do in the event of being in a similar situation in everybody's folder at work. I gathered from this, they knew something was done with the rudder incorrectly. AA did also have the video of the guy showing you what to do in the event of an unusual attitude and use of the rudder. Everyone in my class laughed when they saw it. Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm sure you will.
 
B6Driver said:
A few weeks after the crash of AA587, AA put a learning bulletin (or what ever they're call, I forget) about what to do in the event of being in a similar situation in everybody's folder at work. I gathered from this, they knew something was done with the rudder incorrectly. AA did also have the video of the guy showing you what to do in the event of an unusual attitude and use of the rudder. Everyone in my class laughed when they saw it. Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm sure you will.

Ya,

And then half the tail fell off of the AirTrans At A300/ (or 310) in the Caribbean. Stupid Canadian pilots.....must have watched the same video...:rolleyes:

AAflyer

Oppss, almost forgot about the other 5-6 uncommanded rolls our A300s have had. dang..... What the hell is everybody doing to that rudder.

B6...I hope they send me a "learn to fly" bulletin soon....I don;t know what I will do till then....Maybe I should call in sick till I ifgure out how to use that big rudder thing:erm:
 
Last edited:
Your company, AA put a one page training bulletin in all the v-files at STL a few weeks after the chash. I wish I saved it.
You stated:..."I hope they send me a "learn to fly" bulletin soon....I don;t know what I will do till then...." Sounds like you finally figured it out. I feel safer already! Thanks for the assist.
 
Wouldn't have expected much else from you, make sure you ground all AA pilots at JB.

AAflyer

Or, I take it they have flown with you and are now blessed..
 

Latest resources

Back
Top