- Home Page || Flight 587 Page
|| Letters from U.S.Readers
|| Send E-Mail to the Editor
|| Search U.S.Read or the Web
||
-
- August 23, 2002
-
- The Engines of Flight 587
- Victor Trombettas
-
- Special thanks to John Baxter and Queens Public TV for some
of the better images below.
-
- Engine 1 is the Port (or left side engine). Engine 2 is the
Starboard (or right side engine).
-
- The model number of these GE engines is CF6-80C2A5.
The No. 1 engine on the left side had logged 694 hours since
its last overhaul. The No. 2 engine, on its right side, had logged
9,788 hours since its last overhaul. The engines undergo major
overhauls every 10,000 hours of service, therefore the right engine
was almost due for a major overhaul. The No. 2 engine had undergone
a shop inspection 2,987 hours earlier.
- The NTSB made the following statement in their December 18th,
2001 Update:
-
- Both engines were transported to an American Airlines heavy
maintenance facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. An engine "teardown,"
or detailed examination, was conducted from November 28 to December
4. There was no evidence found of an uncontained engine failure,
case rupture, inflight fire, foreign object damage such as a
bird strike, or pre-impact malfunction.
-
- The NTSB has indicated that that the engines separated from
the plane in-flight after the Flight Data Recorder prematurely
stopped working, but they have not indicated if the Cockpit Voice
Recorder (CVR) gives them a clear indication as to exactly when
the separations occurred. Therefore, at this point we must rely
on eyewitness statements which indicate the plane was headed
approximately in a southeast direction as it was approaching
the northern seawall of the peninsula.
-
- The right engine separated first (after a very large explosion
or fuel eruption or compressor stall/surge had engulfed most
of the plane in flames and smoke). The plane quickly banked or
rolled left almost 90 degrees after the liberation of the right
engine, then it appears both the vertical stabilizer and left
engine quickly followed (it also appears at least one large piece
of the rudder had separated earlier, prior to the vertical stabilizer
separating). It's important to note that the engines liberated
long after the plane had flown out of control (as witnessed by
John and Jackie Power
and Witness
Gamma), but the plane was not flat spinning when the
engines departed as many experts (and some Investigators) have
speculated. The reason I can say that so confidently is that
of the dozens of witnesses I've spoken to, only two witnessed
the flat spins that occurred at higher altitude, but many more
saw at least one engine separate later in the timeline and none
of them saw flat spins. The engines departed after
the large explosion witnessed by witnesses Lynch,
Conrad, Catanese, and
many others. That explosion was not the cause of the crash because
the plane had flown out of control before that. The earliest
witnesses in the timeline we have located are Witnesses
Alpha and Beta. They saw the plane within 30 seconds after
takeoff and observed it flying normally for approximately 30
seconds after which they noticed a bright, white/yellow flash
on the right side of the plane aft of the wing. An unbroken smoke
trail began emerging from the plane at that point as it maintained
its general attitude while it was losing altitude. Alpha and
Beta say they lost sight of the plane within 10 seconds from
that moment when the plane went behind a firehouse that was down
the block from where they were sitting that morning. These gentlemen
saw the plane before the out of control sequence witnessed by
John and Jackie Power and Witness Gamma. Therefore, what Alpha
and Beta saw is most compelling, especially since the smoke that
followed the explosive flash was a steady, thick trail. This
type of smoke trail is inconsistent with an engine simply backfiring
(compressor stall or surge) as those events generally put out
puffs of smoke. The loss of altitude they report is also very
interesting as it clearly points to a severe loss of power/thrust.
-
- What did Alpha and Beta see? It could have been a fuselage
explosion. It could have been an engine problem, but the engine
teardowns have identified no in-flight damage. Many experts agree
the smoke trail these witnesses report could not have been compressor
stalls/surges. We don't have many options left to us. And these
witnesses agree the plane was intact at this point and no debris
had fallen off the plane yet.
-
- A source within the investigation described the 587 Investigation
as looking for a needle in a haystack and they've yet to find
the needle.
-
- That being the case, would it hurt the investigation to interview
the witnesses where they spotted the plane and triangulate positions,
take GPS readings, etc. It's clear the flight recorders have
not turned over the needle yet. Maybe it lies with the witnesses.
-
- At the bottom of this web page (below the picture thumbnails),
I've copied and pasted early reports (most from abcnews.com)
that seem to paint quite a picture that includes smoke and fire
accounts, some from pilots.
-
- Click each image for a larger version:
-
From various news sources:
A pilot of another jet saw smoke coming off Flight 587's
engine as the jet took off, sources say, as did a passenger on
another plane.
Based on the sketchy details emerging from the crash site,
ABCNEWS aviation consultant John Nance said two explanations are
possible for the jet's downing. There could have been a loss of
control of the aircraft due to an internal explosion for mechanical
reasons, or there could have been an explosion of an incendiary
device inside the plane.
Investigators also were combing eyewitnesses accounts, including
one from a commercial pilot on the ground. That pilot said the
jet appeared to have suffered a catastrophic mechanical problem
on takeoff, and the pilot apparently was trying to get the ailing
jet airborne to return to the airport.
The pilot said he saw the engine catch fire, separate from
the wing and fall to the ground, an official said.
ABCNEWS' Brian Ross reported the pilot of another American
Airlines jet reported seeing smoke coming out of one of the engines
as 587 climbed.
ABCNEWS aviation consultant John Nance said these reports
could suggest the crash was caused by an engine failure, although
he stresses at this point that possible causes of the crash can
only be speculative.
"If you have a smoke trail behind the engine, you have
a problem in that engine - and that problem could have come to
a catastrophic end," he said. "[It] could have taken
some of the structure with it."
Aaron Gelman, an aviation expert at Northwestern University,
adds that even if Flight 587 experienced an engine failure, it
would be unusual for such an incident to cause the plane to crash.
He explains that engines are designed to break off cleanly if
they experience problems.
"When an engine fails, it shouldn't take down the whole
plane," he said. "They're designed to separate cleanly."
In December 2000, the National Transportation Safety Board
recommended that the Federal Aviation Association step up inspections
of the engine model that powered the crashed plane. The order
was based on a finding that an apparent disintegration problem
inside the engine model could cause a "catastrophic accident."
The call for inspections followed at least three incidents,
including:
The failure of a CF6 engine on a US Airways jet during a
maintenance check on Sept. 22, 2000. As mechanics tested the aircraft
on a runway at Philadelphia, the engine blew apart. The National
Transportation Safety Board determined if the incident had occurred
while the plane was in flight, it "might not have been able
to maintain safe flight."
The aborted takeoff on June 7, 2000, of a Varig Airlines
Boeing 767 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, after the CF6 engine partially
disintegrated. It was determined that the cracks in the engine's
compressor system led to the problems.
A CF6 engine on a Continental Airlines DC-10 broke up on
takeoff in April 2000 from Newark International Airport.
GE's Kennedy said it was determined that some early versions
of the engine were experiencing "rubbing" problems -
meaning the rotating parts inside the engine were rubbing against
static parts.
"That problem has since been corrected, we're not having
any problems in the field with that now," he said.
- Home Page || Flight 587 Page
|| Letters from U.S.Readers
|| Send E-Mail to the Editor
|| Search U.S.Read or the Web
||
