It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The FAA had ordered visual inspections of all Airbus A300 tails soon after the crash of American 587. The Associated Press reported on January 16, 2002 that 40 of the 93 Airbus A300's in the United States had bolts in the tail section that had "rotated", i.e. loosened. Did these rotations occur on their own? Or had those bolts been manually loosened? Officials of Airbus North America and the FAA said there were never any concerns about safety. I asked an Airbus A300 mechanic, "could rotation of the bolts introduce the potential for dangerous vibration to the tail structure?" His answer: "I have to think, yes, it does. The bolt is supposed to be torqued to a specific range. This range should draw the bolt (which is tapered) into the tapered sleeve and expand it to a required amount within a design range. And, having rotation shows that there's very little torque on the bolt."
Originally posted by Silk
Now having chance to read deeper into this - and the website that it was posted on - It actually seems clearer that the FFA is pinning the blame on the Pilots reaction rather than some kind of structural faliure. The Airbus pilots are refuting this claim - and are pointing the blame at the Airbus Industries design. The only mention of sabotage is in the single article.
Whilst sabotage cannot be ruled out - catasrophic faliure due to wind sheer has actually be indicated in a number of crashes - notably by american built aircraft - and I would gently point out that perhaps this crash might have been even more conveniently ignored had it come out of Seattle.
Originally posted by Silk
Sorry east coast - the most important thing to look at is the facts - and we dont have any. When the NTSB release a report then we have something to mull over - before that it is pure speculation .
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Very good, East Coast and Silk.
The Crash, whether it was a Boeing Plane, or an Airbus plane, Silk, I think ti would have been treated the same, since this whole thing got forgotten regardless. And youre right, 2 years later they still havent figured out what happened. So they say.
Wind shear is VERY possible. This does happen, wind shear out of no where has knocked planes, trees, what have you out of the air or off mountain tops., But Im thinking its more than simple windshear.
I lean more and more towards sabotage. Perhaps, a certain mechanic or otherwise.. loosened the bolts. A lone Arab, perhaps angry at his post 9/11 treatment, or a long time sympathiser with Al Qaeda, but never joining or knowing anyone, did his own mini crusade. Perhaps he was an actual terrorist.
Of course, another sabotage I can think of, what about Boeing? They have been in a war with Airbus for quite some time, even at this time, perhaps they wanted to smear Airbus a bit, work on destroying thier safety records, ect, but making this happen. SApeculation of course, but its all thread to entertain until we get some answers.
Incidentally, Silk, Boeing left Seattle, they are now HQ in Chicago. We still have a few of the manufacturing plants here, but many of them have closed down, and thousands of people here have been laid off. You could almost say, 9/11 hit Seattle harder economically that in did New York, our whole #ing economy dpended upon the manufacture of planes, when Boeing slipped big time, it took out damn near whatever the dot coms hadnt killed before.
But, as East Coast said, I do hope the facts arent tampered with, like they tried with flight 800.
I had a couple of pages on flight 587 in my bookmarks, but those pages are either gone, or they have moved, so Im trying to locate some others, or find out where they moved to. They all covered the aspect of sabotage.
I am leaning more and more towards that.