Flight 587.....accident? or Sabotage...

usread.com...

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."

I remeber this flight crash back After Veterans day, 2001, 2 months after, almost to the day, after 9/11. From all the stuff Ive read from in the news to aviation magazines. I pretty much have concluded it was more than likely an act of sabotage, but strangely, this airline crash has been forgotten.

it was kind of a weird coincidence, a major airline crash in New York that close to 9 - 11

I remember it happening - was at an exhibition in Birmingham - and everyone was pretty much convinced this was a second attack - but I know it got buried in the aftermath of 9-11 - and I forgot about it. Thanks for the flight number - Ill have a look at some NTSB stuff and see what it shows up.

Ok did a check on the flight -

pretty cursory on the information - its not resolved yet

www.ntsb.gov...

I would think that something as serious as loose bolts as claimed by the article might not have escaped the NTSB - but until they deliver a decision this is at best speculation.

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
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.

The most important thing to ask if we assume this was sabatage, is who stood to gain? Was it to re-enforce the people's fear post-9-11? Was it an act of corporate
sabatage against the aircraft manufacturer?
At any rate, it was VERY strange, to say the least, coming on the heels of 9-11.

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 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 .

Yes, Silk, we have to know the facts. That goes without saying. But its also important to understand who is motivated by what. You have to put them together. Let's just hope when the facts do come out, they aren't skewered.

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.

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.

If Boeing is 'at war' with Airbus, the whole Al-Qaida/terrorist thing would make for great cover, would it not?

I didn't realize Boeing was hit so hard. (My cousin is an engineer for them in Seattle.) He's still there and quite employed. A disgruntled, lifelong now un-employed employee could've loosened the bolts, aye?

I'll never forget pointing up to the bolt that's as big around as a man's waist on toppa the chopper one day and asking my buddy what that was. He said, "The Jesus nut." I said, why do they call it that. He said, "If that sucker comes loose, you're gonna be prayin' to Jesus." It would be fairly easy for a pissed off mechanic or spook sabateur or terrorist for that matter, to loosen the bolts. Especially if someone was either (A) pissed off enuff or (B) bribed with enuff cash or (C) wanted to bring down their rival company.
Keep diggin' Skadi.

EC,

Seattle has I think the nations second highest unemplyment rate, washington state does. When Boeing left for Chicago, and started massive layoff, you knwo how it works, all the businesses that depended so much on Boeing for a living...

Thats how I lost my old job. 50% of our sales were to Boeing. Boeing leaves, our sales drop, production drops, by bye employees. We were already hurting badly, after the dot com crash, Amazon.com leaving, Microsoft getting broken up into bitty companies, so on and so forth. Were still choking over here. There just aint hardly any work to be found. At the unemployment office, I used to see like 10 pages for a job category listing, 10 pages of jobs. Now all of them only have one or 2 pages. When 9/11 Hit, there went any demand for new planes, and then, Seattle just spiraled downward further.

Anyway, yes, i have toyed with the idea of Boeing, who has been in a pretty brutal sales war with Airbus, who has taken away a few of Boeings most lucrative contracts. Last yera, there was an article in the Seattle times, Boeing clawing and desperately trying to stay afloat by hanging on for dear to the govornment contract, which was pretty much what they needed to stay in Biz. There was even criticizm and invexstigation that insiders int he airforce actually assisted by giving unfair bargaining advantages to Boeing.

So, we have different candidates for sabotage, and yes, the threat of terror would have amde an excellent covor. the country was still heavily spooked and on edge from 9/11.

But, this tradgedy int he shadow and wake of 9/11 has been brushed over and forgotten, and no clear answers remain................

Wow, I'm sorry to have sounded so ignorant on the joblessness issue. I hadn't heard that Seattle was hit so hard and had such high unemployment. There hasn't been much national coverage of it to my knowledge. But then again, I may have just been immersed in foreign policy, as the Iraq issue has pretty much consumed me for the last year.
Sounds like Boeing does indeed have strong motive to hurt Airbus. And sorry to say, it wouldn't surprise me if some high level someone in the Air Force had something to do with what you alluded to. It's worth keeping an eye on, for sure.
The fact that the crash disappeared down the memory hole is also an important factor to consider.
When is that report supposed to come out?

Good question, East Coast..............

They still havent got their heads out of thier asses and decided what line of bull# to publish.

They still have no conclusion on what Caused the crash.

And yes, Boeing has been clawing for air. 9/11, plus the rise of airbus....

Airbus has a serious advantage because its partially state funded, they get alot of backing from thier gov. Boeings all private. So, Boeing REALLY has to compete HARD.

They are closing down the Renton plant here in the Seattle area, the closed down some of their sub facilities. Boeing, after scoring the govornment contract, still plans on sending its manufacturing elsewhere. Were kinda doomed here.

Military contract is all thats keeping Boeing alive, cuz it aint happenign from the private sector. Right after 9/11 and the fact all Boeings were used in the hijackings and crashes, plus the massive lack of new plane orders........

Boeing could have had an AWFUL lot to do with it. Then again....

Given the post 9/11 America, it could have been a pissed off Arab mechanic. The airline indistry was full of em. And since Arabs were pretty much less then citizens after 9/11, there was quite a bit of resentment. The gov had not fully purged the airlines of illegal, foreign, undocumented workers, they were still running around, and American airlines was notorious for hiring a huge number of them.

Whats interesting is that after this crash, the govornment pretty much did a huge sweep of American, cleaning out anyone who didnt speak english and had a green card. Odd, aint it, especially when they emphasized it wasnt sabotage?

Its such an incredible coincidence though. The location of the crash, the timing, the people it effected. It's hard not to be highly supsicious.