Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (10375)	11/15/2001 5:01:26 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The 'ol turbulence line again. Turbulence from jumbo jet may explain Flight 587 crash [Note from PB. What a friggin J-O-K-E. If Marion Blakey thinks this will get the public flying again she is a plain idiot. I remember the "rudder reversal" problem well also put down to "turbulence", I'll say more about this later...geeez] Investigators believe turbulence from the wake of a 747 may have led to the crash of American Flight 587 in Queens, New York. The Dominican Republic-bound plane took off less than the standard two minutes after the jumbo jet. Wake turbulence, the swirl of air behind a plane, can endanger planes flying too close behind or below. The phenomenon has been blamed for at least one deadly crash in the past. "We do not know whether this contributed in any way to the actual accident, but we are looking at this very closely," said Marion Blakey, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board. Investigators want to know whether it caused Flight 587 to break apart three minutes after takeoff from John F Kennedy International Airport, killing all 260 people aboard and as many as five on the ground. The plane's tail sheared away, and its twin engines fell off as the jet went down. Without the two-part tail assembly, the jetliner would have suffered a loss of stability and turning control. Standard protocol says there should be at least two minutes between takeoffs. However, Ms Blakey says it appears there had been less than that between Flight 587 - an Airbus A300 - and a Japan Air Lines Boeing 747 that left ahead of it from the same runway. "We believe that, in fact, it was 1 minute and 45 seconds," Ms Blakey said. She says it appears that air traffic controllers had followed proper procedure, and that tower clearances for the two takeoffs had come 2 minutes and 20 seconds apart. ananova.com