AudioInstallerTech

Do you beleave that it crashed because of turbulence?

hdtvjunkie

The plane’s vertical stabilizer and rudder separated in flight and were found in Jamaica Bay, about 1 mile north of the main wreckage site. The plane’s engines subsequently separated in flight and were found several blocks north and east of the main wreckage site.American says the rudder on the AB300 is too sensitive, Airbus said American didn't train it's pilots well enough.

DrStrangelove

Yes and no...Wake turbulence existed, but the F/O incorrectly interpreted this and made much to aggressive rudder inputs which ultimately lead to high g loading on the vertical stabilizer. This lead to in flight separation and eventual crash.

GSH7492

no, due to lacklustre maintenance issues, the rudder ripped off the tailfin

JohnN0715

They claim the pilots used to much rudder in the wake of the 747 but i dont believe it , i think they were useing it because the damn thing wasnt working at all at that point,,,Little has been said but this aircraft was damaged when it was brand new and i believe it was still i airbuss possesion.\The aircraft was set down on its azz end at one point and being made of the composites, it was supposed to have been repaied but i believe it slowly cracked worse and worse over time,,,, If the votex of 747 could knock the tail off an airbuss it would have already done it as the a300 had been around years before the crash, and had flown through worse than that,,,Im blameing the fault on airbus or whoever repaired the plane,,,, I guess they were pushing the rudder like all hell if there was not one back there or it had been broken,,,yeah the tapes would have shown they were working them hard but what choice did they have,,, Imean comon, whoever heard of a plane looseing its tail,,,

KevinP9209

All in all, yes, I believe that wake turbulence from the outbound B747 was the initial cause of the AA587 crash.Were there other factors? Of course.The co-pilot (because of AA training) mis-handled the situation and responded with violent control inputs that were not entirely necessary. While this did cause the failure of the vertical tail assembly, the fault cannot go on the pilot alone. The aircraft was still under it's Va speed (the speed at which all control inputs, no matter how vigorous, should not corrupt the structural integrity of the aircraft) and in that pilot's past experience that action was both legal, and suggested.So, following the trail of blame, the next logical step goes to AA's training policies. But here, the blame doesn't stop. Under Va, there was nothing to tell that such an action would cause overstress of the airframe. Perhaps AA didn't take full time to contemplate all the possible outcomes of their course of action, but there is nothing criminal there. No one is omniscient. Then, of course, the most popular conclusion in the United States at least is that Airbus Industries is at fault. Perhaps. The Airbus A300-600B4 did use a relatively new composite tail structure, that hadn't undergone the trials of daily operations for decades, as had a more conventional tail design. And then, Airbus hadn't identified the possibility of an over-stress to a brittle composite structure in cold weather with a violent oscillation of the control surfaces, but honestly, this was such a bizarre scenario that it would have taken years of testing to come across.Overall, wake turbulence was simply a contributing factor to 587s crash. Had the plane not hit turbulence, had the pilot not stepped on the rudder pedals, had AA trained their pilots to get out of this situation differently, had it not been cold out, had Airbus not built a composite tail, and perhaps had other unknown events not transpired, AA587 would not have crashed. Sadly, it did. Luckily though, the airline industry now knows of these faults in training and construction, and hopefully we will never see another A300 (or other type) go down in similar circumstances.