A300 NYC Plane Crash Recap -- Updated --

[Poontos]

Yah, I know there is another big thread on the Airbus plane crash, but lets not jump to ridiculious conclusions and silly conicidences.

1.) One of the two engines fell off, for reasons that the FAA will take time to figure out. NO one will have that answer this morning.

2.) The bloody WING did NOT fall off. The ENGINE did. Eyewitnesses sometimes tend to have selective vision.

3.) There was NO "explosion" due to a bomb, but the engine or the area surrounding was on fire.

4.) The plane lost control, most likely due to the fact that one engine was missing and most eyewitnesses say it nosed dive.

5.) NOTHING points to a criminal intent at this point.

5.) Lets not forget that there is a potential of over 250 lives lost! Jesus...

6.) Some reports and some AnandtechForums reporters are claiming that the plane "exploded", well if that was the case, more than ONE engine would have broken away from the plane, probably 1000's of peices of debris. Think about it.

7.) NO government official knows $hit about some apparent explosion during the flight. Just saw this on the White House conference. Fact.

New stuff, the rest may have changed:

8.) There were bulletin on the engines on the A300 and the section that holds the engine. Just saw this on CBC, an aviation lawyer.

9.) 110 bodies recovered. Sadly, no indications of survivors. Mayor reported this on conference.

10.) Govenor of NYC, had reports that the pilot dumped lots of fuel in the water, cause he felt that there was a major problem while taking off. Interesting...

11.) NO sign of terrorism.

 

[yakko]

Thanks for the summary.

 

[guyver01]

Off Topic: (can there be an off topic in off topic??) woah! when did YAKKO get a new title! i like!!

 

[charrison]

Poontos,
It is probably too early to tell if this an accident or an act of terror.

If the engine fell off, the maintaince would have to be EXTREMLY SHODDY, or the engine was blown off.

Losing 1 engine would not have caused the plane to crash.

 

[dude]

There was a hole in the engine. Like a blade or blade set came out!

 

[Amused]

<< Losing 1 engine would not have caused the plane to crash. >>



During take-off? Hell yes it would. There's no margin for error when you're less than 1000 feet off the ground and ahve very little speed.

 

[Poontos]

"It is probably too early to tell if this an accident or an act of terror."

Where did I conclude that it was either?

"If the engine fell off, the maintaince would have to be EXTREMLY SHODDY, or the engine was blown off."

The the flight was delayed, with reports that their were some mechanical issues prior to take off.

"Losing 1 engine would not have caused the plane to crash."

Have you flown an A300? If not, then do not make such statements. Not only the loss of power, but the structural damage caused by the loss of the engine would have made the handling characteristics less than ideal. I`m no pilot or aviation expert, but you do not have to be one to figure out what I have just said.


Speculation, speculation.

 

[charrison]

poontos,

It is design requirement that planes are able to fly with the loss of an engine, this is not speculation. There is no doubt that take off time is not a good time for this occur. There is no doubt that when it fell it changed the manner in which the plane handled.

Loss of a single engine should not cause a crash.

 

[yobarman]

Man..kind of off topic but:

Today I walk by my lounge...no idea whats going on and I look at the TV and see "BREAKING NEWS" and I think to myself, "Here we go again"

 

[ToBeMe]

There are NUMEROUS reports out that the plane "exploded in mid-air" but I agree that this can not be the case.

The fire that was seen was most likely the result of the loss of the single engine from the wing where fuel is stored......there would have been sufficient electrical charge after the engine seperated to ignite this.

There appears to be no sign of any detonation from the shots of the seperated enigine sitting in the filling station lot that should be eaily identified and ANY detonation in the wing assembly WOULD HAVE set off a huge fuel exlosion in mid-air...................

I'm still betting on mechanical failure though all must be investigated...........

 

[GTaudiophile]

More details from CNN.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< poontos,

It is design requirement that planes are able to fly with the loss of an engine, this is not speculation. There is no doubt that take off time is not a good time for this occur. There is no doubt that when it fell it changed the manner in which the plane handled.

Loss of a single engine should not cause a crash. >>


I may be wrong again......but, I'm going to disagree with this point. At full capacity (or near that) and with cargo in the hold, and at full thrust during take-off, I'm betting that loss of a single engine in this scenario could easily account for enough instability to cause a crash. The loss of an engine is most often calculated during normal flight from what I understand.......NOT accounting for the loss of such under take-off or landing procedures..........

 

[Poontos]

<< poontos,

It is design requirement that planes are able to fly with the loss of an engine, this is not speculation. There is no doubt that take off time is not a good time for this occur. There is no doubt that when it fell it changed the manner in which the plane handled.

Loss of a single engine should not cause a crash. >>


Define loss of an engine? It falls off? Fails? Stalls? Catches on fire? Part of it collapses? Part of the wing structure which the engine is attached due is lost while the engine falls off?

Please direct us to where this requirement is stated? No Geocities sites allowed.

 

[Amused]

Let me explain my previous post...

The sudden loss of thrust on one side of the plane causes the plane to turn towards the side that the engine fell off and the sudden loss of weight causes the plane to flip up the wing that lost the engine. This causes a sudden loss of lift, and will result in the plane dropping a considerable distance until the auto pilot, or human pilot can regain control, and compensate for the DRASTIC change in aerodynamic characteristics. When taking off, there is neither the speed, or height to spare. The plane will drop like a rock.

Example: Say the plane lost it's right engine.

The right wing will suddenly flip up, turning the plane nearly on it's side, the left side of the plane will have more thrust, causing the plane to turn to the right. Can you say "half cartwheel and stall?"

Now, at 30,000 feet, there is plenty of time to recover from this. At 1000 feet or less, combined with extremely slow speeds due to the plane climbing... there is no time whatsoever.

 

[Jzero]

<< poontos,

It is design requirement that planes are able to fly with the loss of an engine, this is not speculation. There is no doubt that take off time is not a good time for this occur. There is no doubt that when it fell it changed the manner in which the plane handled.

Loss of a single engine should not cause a crash. >>



Ummm....I think you have "loss of an engine" meaning "Engine stops working" confused with "loss of an engine" meaning "engine fell off." The former, multiple engine planes are designed to overcome. The latter may not be (I don't know for certain). I could tell you that the sudden loss of power AND the sudden change in weight would be seriously hard for a pilot to compensate for, especially at low speed and low altitude.

By that same token, you could say that it was the pilot's fault because all pilots should be able to fly their way out of a stall or spin. Unfortunately the laws of physics dictate that it takes speed to overcome a stall or spin, and if you're too close to the ground, you're going to hit the ground before you get sufficient speed to fly out of the stall or reverse the spin.

 

[TurboQuattro]

<< Poontos,
It is probably too early to tell if this an accident or an act of terror.

If the engine fell off, the maintaince would have to be EXTREMLY SHODDY, or the engine was blown off.

Losing 1 engine would not have caused the plane to crash. >>



It depends on how the engine was lost, if it had a structural failure and stopped working the plane could fly without it. But if it fell off, or flew apart the weight and balance of the plane would be seriously compromised.

Planes are tested to fly with one engine inoperable...not MISSING!

 

[Jzero]

But just for reference, I asked a friend who used to work at Boeing. Things may be different from Airbus, but here's what he had to say:
Yes. Technically they should be able to re-gain control of the aircraft if the engine comes completely off. I do believe that there were a few factors that added to this not being the case today:

1) Their altitude. You need a few thousand feet of play to get through this one.
2) It appears as if this engine didn't just fall of, but may have taken some of the leading edge of the wing too. Fly without an engine, yes. Without a wing...different story. Still, the ability to fly this plane is completely dependent on how much leading edge was gone.
3) The LARGEST reason they think this plane went down so quickly, and violently is because eyewitness reports have the engine hitting the back stabilizers when it fell off. This would be sort of an instant screw!


So there you have it--technically the plane should be flyable with an absent engine. Recovery takes some height to accomplish, and depending on the other factors, recovery may have been impossible.

 

[tcsenter]

<< There was NO "explosion" due to a bomb, but the engine or the area surrounding was on fire >>

FBI reports it is investigating the possibility of an in-flight explosion. Its tickering across CNN right now (cable).

The flight was taking-off, and there is NO way that a flight that low and still attempting to gain altitude would survive if an engine suddenly fell off. Like someone said, you need at least a few thousand feet under you when an engine goes out to recover from it. These planes can fly with one engine, but not very well, and certainly not when taking off.

 

[StageLeft]

Most of people on flight were from the DR. A terrorist would not pick such a plane when so many others are available.

 

[SWScorch]

man I just got home from a college visit so this is the first I've heard of this.... Reminds me of the book Airframe by Michael Crichton... where did it crash exactly?

 

[arigato]

One of the black boxes has been found and is on its way to Washington D.C for examination.

 

[Sepen]

<< Poontos,
It is probably too early to tell if this an accident or an act of terror.

If the engine fell off, the maintaince would have to be EXTREMLY SHODDY, or the engine was blown off.

Losing 1 engine would not have caused the plane to crash. >>



Um, yes it would, on takeoff. And if there was a subsequent explosion it may have damage the hydraulics which would make the plane unflyable.

 

[Dood]

Birds.

 

[Lankin]

I dont think planes just have engines falling off. I mean uh, something had to of caused that engine to fall off. It was probably mechanical, but who knows what made that engine break away.

 

[Poontos]

Updated, for those that were away this morning or live under a rock.