Slashdot Log In
Another Plane Down in New York
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Nov 12, 2001 09:43 AM
from the breaking-news-mode dept.
from the breaking-news-mode dept.
Another plane has crashed, this time in Queens. You can read a blurb at Yahoo.
CNN.com isn't responding for me. LaGuardia, Newark and JFK are closed now. Update: 11/12 14:54 GMT by T : New reports indicate that the plane was departing from JFK, not arriving. Also, CNN has confirmed that this was American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus A 300. Update: 11/12 14:57 GMT by T : Further information is that the plane was en route to the Dominican Republic, and that the disaster actually involves two crash sites, not just one -- an engine fell from the plane some distance from the fuselage.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Another Plane Down in New York
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1113 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Unknown (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not jump to conclusions.
Possible cause (Score:5, Interesting)
paranoia? (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be another way of killing Bin Laden. Right now I figure he's somewhere near laughing himeself to death at this overreaction. Please remamber that plane crashes happen, and this one does not have any of the hallmarks of terrorist action.
all of the security in the world isn't going to stop murphy's law fromm causing the occasional f*ck up. Flying is still safer than driving, but reading the news may cause a heart-attack if you attribute every tragedy to terrorism.
Let investigators do their job. In the unlikely event that they determine this to be of terrrorist cause, then we can take the appropriate actions
Re:Before we even get started... (Score:4, Informative)
There are probably only 100 people on site at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center right now, out of 5000 or so... And most of them are security.
I can see the smoke (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I can see the smoke (Score:5, Insightful)
CBC coverage (Score:3, Informative)
Re:*Leap* (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that neither reaction nor inaction will prevent further attacks, which is the better course to take? Consider these points:
- Which course will polarise world opinion, leading previously moderate people to support radical organisations? (Clue: look at Pakistan.)
- Which course will kill innocent people abroad, in addition to those who have already died in the US? (Clue: look at Afghanistan.)
- Which course will perpetuate a cycle of violence and be used to justify further attacks? (Clue: look at the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine.)
Is your desire to feel like you're doing something worth the consequences?Frustrating (Score:4, Troll)
We have alot of options besides engaging in inapropriate military action.
Why inapropriate? Donald Rumsfeld said that we're unlikely to catch Bin Laden. Many members of the Taliban are no longer in the Taliban and will never be caught. Besides all of these peopl already invaded Afghanistan. Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afghani. We are bombing innocent civilians who happened to have the misfortune of being invaded by people who attacked the US as well.
Re:*Leap* (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me but that is just plain bullshit.
It is actually quite normal for planes to crash every now and then, therefore it is most likely to be an accident.
However, through your statement all you are doing is spreading fear. Simply by doing that you are *helping* terrorists, as spreading fear is (by definition) their main objective.
Stay cool. The chance of getting hit by a terrorist attack is smaller than the chance of getting hit by a 4WD because the driver was so afraid of being hit by a terrorist that he/she was not paying attention.
airbus, not 767 (Score:5, Funny)
---
I cannot believe this (Score:4, Funny)
GET SOME PRIORITIES!!
Airbus (Score:3, Redundant)
No word on cause.
~=Keelor
robots.cnn.com load balancing mirror (Score:4, Informative)
Current headline:
An American Airlines plane has crashed in the Queens borough of New York City. The FAA identifies the flight as American flight 587, an Airbus A300 from JFK airport to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Thick smoke was billowing over the area, and local media reported several houses on fire.
Direct URL to CNN story (via load-balancing) (Score:5, Informative)
There's a direct URL, load balancing.
BBC news still on-line (Score:3, Informative)
Remember Non-US sites will be less busy. (Score:4, Informative)
For example: Canada's Globe & Mail [globeandmail.ca]
bandwidth/capacity (Score:3, Insightful)
CNN Article Posted (Score:3, Informative)
American Airlines jet crashes in New York
November 12, 2001 Posted: 9:54 AM EST (1454 GMT)
NEW YORK (CNN) -- An American Airlines jet crashed Monday in the New York City borough of Queens.
CNN confirmed the plane was American Airlines Flight 587 from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The plane was an Airbus A-300. American Airlines did not immediately release the number of passengers on the flight.
A New York police spokesman said the plane crashed in the Rockaways section of Queens. At least four houses were on fire, and a huge plume of smoke could be seen rising from the site.
All three New York City-area airports -- Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark -- closed after the crash, according to CNN affiliate WCBS in New York. Mayor Rudy Giuliani declared a Level One emergency, mobilizing all available police, fire and emergency personnel.
Map of Queens: (Score:3, Informative)
FYI: Far rockaways are very near JFK.
European CNN mirror still works. (Score:4, Informative)
Clarifications from CNN (TV) (Score:3, Informative)
- Not a 767, an Airbus A-300 (seats around 300 people)
- It was American Airlines flight 587;
- The crash site is a residential/shopping area (Rockaway Beach Blvd.)
- FAA issued an advisory saying that there is no indication (yet) of a terrorist attack.
- Bridges and tunnels in NYC have been closed.
------
"Just a plane crash" (Score:5, Insightful)
From the location of the crash and proximity to the airport it looks like it might have just been an accident. If not, then it is yet another nail in the terrorist's coffins.
CNN up with preliminary numbers (Score:4, Informative)
* FAA: American Flight 587 -- Airbus A300 -- from JFK airport to Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic
* NYC Port Authority: 246 passengers, 9 crew
* All NYC area airports closed, bridges and tunnels leading into city closed
* Affiliate WCBS reports at least 4 buildings on fire
* New York Fire Department dispatches 44 trucks, 200 firefighters
Slightly more detail (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/1069613/de
American Airlines Plane Crashes In New York
Four Homes On Fire
POSTED: 9:30 a.m. EST November 12, 2001
UPDATED: 10:13 a.m. EST November 12, 2001
NEW YORK -- An American Airlines Airbus A300 crashed Monday morning in the Queens section of New York, and four homes reportedly were on fire in the neighborhood in the Rockaway section of Queens.
The plane crashed shortly after 9 a.m. ET, and thick, black smoke could be scene in televised reports. It was reportedly headed to JFK, but the origin of the flight was undetermined.
Bill Schumann of the Federal Aviation Administration said there was no immediate indication of what caused the crash. He said the plane could hold up to 275 passengers, and crashed about five miles from Kennedy Airport. There were 246 passengers and 9 crewmembers aboard the flight, according to CNN.
Asked if terrorism is suspected, Schumann said that all options are open at the time and they have very little information. Defense officials said that while combat jets were flying over the sky as is routine, there were not any reports of suspicious activity or distress calls.
Television images show thick black smoke rising from the scene. The smoke was seen turning white, which could indicate that the flames were being put out.
Fox News Channel reports it was an American Airlines flight 587. All three New York City airports were closed to air travel. They include LaGuardia, JFK and Newark airports.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has canceled his morning events and is heading to the scene.
FAA said American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus A300, crashed. It was on its way to Santo Domingo Dominican Republic. CNN reported that the engine came down separate from the rest of the jetliner and that Giuliani confirmed that there are two separate crash sites. A witness said he saw an explosion on the side of the plane.
It was a "level 1" emergency, which means all emergency personnel are advised to go to the crash scene. All the major tunnels heading into New York have been closed.
Reports have varied throughout the morning. The FAA said there seems to be no indication of a terrorist attack.
A witness said he saw debris falling from the sky, at the scene of today's plane crash.
He told the Fox News Channel that four homes are on fire.
Another man told CNN that he was 40 blocks away, and saw "tons and tons of smoke." He said, "Lots of people are standing in the streets.
A woman who lives near the scene of the crash said she heard the engines of a plane -- "loud and low" -- before the crash.
Phyllis Paul told CNN she looked out the window to see a "silvery piece of metal" falling from the sky, several blocks away.
Then, she said, she heard an explosion.
She said she and her son went outside and saw the black smoke rising from the Queens crash site. She said it was "horrifying."
Paul said the sound of the plane gave her a "chill" -- because of what happened on Sept. 11.
The flight was an American Airlines jet, which had taken off from Kennedy Airport -- several miles from the crash site. It was headed to the Dominican Republic.
The crash came two months and a day after the attack on the World Trade Center.
The American Airlines phone number relatives information line is (800) 245-0999.
Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? (Score:5, Informative)
Notes:
1. Single engine failure during take-off is the single worst design condition for a twin-jet like an A-300.
2. Single engine failures during take-off are always taken into account for any passenger aircraft. A simple engine
failure cannot bring down a jetliner.
3. What can bring down a jetliner is the consequences of an engine failure: fire in the wing, explosion of the wing fuel tanks, compound failure of all redundant hydraulic systems, pylon failure (which would expose fuel lines), etc.
However, most of the above reasons are well-known. Take-off is the hardest flight region, and most eventualities are taken into account into designing these birds.
Further, a quick search of NTSB's online air crash info database [ntsb.gov], reveals no incident involving an A-300 and engine failure in the last 5 yrs. This is not typical if a design error is to be blamed.
Thus, it can be two things: either a failure of preventive maintainance or sabotage. The former is possible, due to the recent massive layoffs in the airline business, but unlikely: airlines usually don't fire skilled personnel, and when/if they do, maintainance personnel tend to over-perform during times of crises.
Please stop assuming that somehow corners are cut when designing airliners or that aero engineers sit around saying "lets use combustive materials for this one, shall we"? We know that we only get one chance to avoid fatalities. Airliners are routinely designed with huge safety margins, usually on top of the worst-ever-recorded conditions.
Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:An engine -fell off- the plane??? (Score:4, Informative)
Parachutes?!? What ARE you smoking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you so nuts as to think that practical?
And do you think it could be deployed at several hundred miles an hour without shredding?
Dropping an egg is one thing, an airline entirely difefrent. A egg has a pretty low terminal air velocity because of the weight per surface area. Comparing this to an airliner is like saying an ant can fall safely, why can't humans? Even cats have a sufficiently low terminal velocity that once they fall past 10 stories or so, they don't fall any faster, and they still don't have a great survival rate. Let's give that cat the density of an airliner and see what happens to the terminal velocity.
Now as to material. The HMS Sheffield DID NOT BURN due to aluminum. It burned because the Exocet has an explosive warhead which scattered and ignited the remaining rocket fuel. It was not a giant inescapable fireball. Jeez, your hyperbole is incredible.
It's easy enough for you to worry about aluminum burning, but what does that have to do with airliners burning? Hey! It's the FUEL that explodes and burns, not the structure! Maybe we should all fly naked too, so our clothes won't contribute to the fire.
As for arbitrarily increasing the weight by getting rid of aluminum, common sense ought to inform you that they use expensive materials for a reason. Don't you think that if they could make heavier cheaper planes that they would? There's no secret airplane cabal conspiring to jack up the prices just to keep the bauxite miners employed. Man, they fret over new seat materials to save a pound per seat.
As for airplane design not being the brightest ideas out there, sounds to me like they've got you beat at any rate.
Re:Parachutes?!? What ARE you smoking? (Score:5, Informative)
Right! And Wrong. There is a company called Ballistic Recovery Systems [airplaneparachutes.com] that makes parachute systems for small general aviation planes. The system are designed to slow the descent of a powerless plane enough to make the impact survivable. They have proposed a similar system for airliner consisting of five 1600 pound chutes. The goal is not to let the airliner fall vertically, but rather to cancel enough weight to slow the airliner's best glide speed. Slowing the glide speed greatly increases the distance it can glide and makes the subsequent landing slower and more survivable.
Highly suspect article (Score:5, Interesting)
Crash news via IRC (Score:4, Informative)
Think, don't react. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop, take a breath, and realize that things like this happen. If we allow ourselves to continue down this road, we will accomplish what no country on this planet has been able to do, bring the US to its knees. People are paralyzed by fear, and the press is feeding this fear. It is time to stop.
Yes, it is terrible when people die, but it happens everyday. Worrying about it will not change it. I believe we should find the people responsible for terrorist attacks and bring them to justice, but not at the cost of our freedom, which is where we are headed. I have heard more members of the press and the government shouting for "National ID Cards", increased security at all public functions, COMDEX banned bags from the convention floor. All of these steps are doing the terrorist work for them. If we allow these criminals to alter our way of life to the point that we cease to function, or regulate ourselves into and Orwellian nightmare then we may as well lie down and die.
Live you life as you always have. Go to work, raise your kids, spend your money, and be happy until given a legitimate reason not to be. Out of all the posts on this site, how many are from people directly affected by 09/11, who either knew someone who is missing, or has family that lost a loved one. The rest of us need to feel sympathetic to the victims and their families, but we should also feel grateful that we are alive, living in the best country on the planet, and act that way.
engines don't "fall off" planes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Total engine destruction is the fan blades seperating. Imagine 100 blades rotating at 1000s of RPMs flying in every direction. The engine case takes the beating without the wing being damaged. The engine is destroyed but the plane keeps flying.
I don't know what this was, but it wasn't like any mechanical failure I've ever heard of.
Other Airbus crashes (Score:3, Interesting)
Psychological effects of the 11th (Score:3, Insightful)
I ran downstairs and turned on the TV and saw the breaking news. I now know, whenever cnn, msnbc and abcnews ALL don't pick up... and then ny1.com doesn't either... that something awful has happened again in New York.
Feds contemplating shutting down air space again (Score:3, Insightful)
My personal thought on the matter is that the only way we are going to know if this was a terrorist attack is:
A) Somebody claims responisbility (not too likely)
B) Another plane goes down
C) The NTSB comes back (after a couple of weeks) and says it was a bomb
It seems to me that the government is either just going to have to wait and see if it happens again before they make that decision OR, they could shut everything down and start searching engines for bombs, but, in light of the fact that there is no evidence that this is terrorist-related, isn't shutting it all down giving in to terrorism?
We dont know! (Score:3, Informative)
Its true that planes do crash, and it is possible that this is a conicidence. But given the recent events, it would be just plain dumb to not take into consideration terriosm.
The AirBus A300 is a very reliable aircraft, and has been in use for 30 years.
We need to take the time to look at the facts, once the smoke clears.
Rampant speculation is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Soo... how come no one's talking about Stingers yet? Is everyone taking those 5-point don't-jump-to-conclusions posts seriously? Gimme a break, those are karma whores, through and through. Speculation is where the fun is.
Here's something to think about, even if it turns out to be completely unrelated to what happened today: the resistance against the Soviets had shoulder-launched SAMs. They were trained how to use them, and used them effectively.
Commercial aircraft take off on very predictable routes. It should be pretty easy to find an optimum firing position within a few miles of an airport, and park your car. You can study the pattern for weeks if you like. Then a plane goes right over your, you open the trunk, take out your Stinger, and shoot the slow-moving low-altitude plane (with nice hot engines at full takeoff power) in the back.
Total security checkpoints you had to go through: zero, except when you smuggled the US-made SAM back into the country. (Or maybe you can even make your own right here -- the Sidewinder budget in the 50s was supposedly really low, and stuff that was cheap in the 50s is nearly free today). And you can do the shooting so fast, there might not even be any witnesses.
Defending against that sort of thing is going to be tricky.
Catastrophic bird strike caused crash? (Score:5, Interesting)
While a lot of people a angling towards the idea of a terrorist action, I think there's one possibility that no one has yet discussed: mechanical failure caused by a catastrophic bird strike.
Far-fetched? Not if you know something about the geography and ecology at JFK Airport and Jamaica Bay. To the west and south of JFK Airport is a very large marshy area that serves as a sanctuary for migratory birds (plus some native waterfowl). This means at this time of the year--when birds are migrating south for the winter--there will be millions of birds out in this sanctuary.
What happens when you have flocks of birds rising by the thousands getting in the way of the flight path of an airliner taking off out into Jamaica Bay? My guess is that American Airlines Flight 857 may have flown in to a very large flock of birds just after take off, mean the plane's two GE CF6-80 engines may be ingested 40 or more birds per engine somewhere between 1 and 2 seconds. That many birds being ingested will seriously damage the front engine blades, and such a severe bird ingestion may be enough to cause a catastrophic fan section failure, which can spew out very sharp engine fan blades at supersonic speeds, possibly breaking through the engine nacelle and hitting the fuselage, wing flap control lines and wing fuel tanks, which explains the fire on the wings that eyewitnesses saw.
Eyewitnesses said that the plane flew very low before the plane lost one of its engines and then crashed down at a sharp angle. This sounds consistent with the plane suffering a catastrophic bird strike.
If anyone remembers, some years ago an E-3A Sentry AWACS plane crashed aftering taking off from Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, AK after the engines failed due to a catastrophic bird ingestion problem. AA Flight 857 may have suffered a similar unfortunate fate.
The War on Birds begins! (Score:5, Funny)
Dick, lets launch some tomahawks! I like their perdy smoke trails...
Airbus A-300, not 767 (Score:4, Informative)
CNN confirmed the plane was American Airlines Flight 587 from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. The plane was an Airbus A-300. American Airlines did not immediately release the number of passengers on the flight.
http://robots.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.cra
Re:pic @ skynews (Score:4, Redundant)
Re:What does it prove? (Score:3, Insightful)
What most anti-war protestors object to is killing a bunch of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks. For instance, it's estimated that 100,000-1,000,000 people will starve as a result of US/UK bombing of Afghanistan. This is not the estimate of those who will starve, it is the difference between the numbers who would have died anyway, and the number who will die now. The assassination of the leaders of those responsible would be just fine with lot's of people who object to the "war" (myself included). Unfortunately this is not very easy to accomplish.
Just a couple of quick questions for you here: how many of the terrorists were Afghans ?
where did the majority of the terrorists come from ?
which country provides most the funding for AlQueada ?
(hint: 0,Saudi-12/18,Saudi)
So, given the above, how many dead civilian Afghanis would be acceptable in your opinion ? Seriously, I'm curious, is it
a) "all of them",
b) 10,000,000-1,000,000
c) 1,000,000-100,000
d) 100,000-10,000
e) 10,000-1,000
f) 1-1000
g) none
Personally, I would opt for (e),(f) or maybe even (d) *if* I was convinced this would prevent another Sept 11 or worse.
And I guess the related question is: for what objectives are you prepare to kill that number of people ?
Would that be acceptable in order to also achieve death of Osama Bin Laden, or OBL + most of Al-Queada, or OBL+AlQueada+Taliban, or what ?
> we need to stop being so... law abiding? moral?
What I'm curious about is where you got the impression that the US was doing those things anyway ? What laws do you think the IS abiding by ? On the moral front, I agree with right to defend oneself, I'm just not convinced that this is what's going on here. Are you starting to feel safer now that some Afghans have been blown up too ? Do you believe this reduces the threat of future terrorist attacks ?
This isn't meant to be rehetorical. I'm just puzzled. I'll answer hawksish questions in response if mine are answered.