Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
United States

Another Plane Down in New York 1113

Another plane has crashed, this time in Queens. You can read a blurb at Yahoo. 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This discussion has been archived.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

Comments Filter:
  • CBC coverage (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gordo ( 5765 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @10:49AM (#2553586) Homepage
    CBC []
  • by jimmu ( 227057 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @10:49AM (#2553590) Homepage
    According to ABC News (I got a little bit of the vieo blurb before it totally crapped out on me)
    eyewitnesses are reprting that an angine exploded on the approach to JFK, and that several buildings are on fire.

    My Girlfriends family lives in queens, as does the family of someu very close friends of mine . . . . here's to hoping they're all okay.
  • BBC News story (Score:2, Informative)

    by DanKolb ( 66859 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @10:50AM (#2553603) Homepage
    Their coverage is here [].
  • by Fiery ( 21015 ) <> on Monday November 12, 2001 @10:54AM (#2553640) Homepage [] is a load balancing mirror for CNN. How long till they go barebones again?

    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.
  • by Escoutaire ( 518305 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @10:54AM (#2553650) Homepage
    The BBC news site is still responding, albeit slowly. [] Escoutaire When a dream dreams the dreamer, the dreams the real.
  • by Ami Ganguli ( 921 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @10:54AM (#2553656) Homepage

    For example: Canada's Globe & Mail []

  • Video on MSNBC (Score:2, Informative)

    by InfoCynic ( 71942 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @10:59AM (#2553695) Homepage
    Good luck getting through, but there's some video feed available here (you'll have to select the right link since M$ is using JavaScript). []

  • CNN Article Posted (Score:3, Informative)

    by digital_freedom ( 453387 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @10:59AM (#2553697)
    Since the CNN site is getting hammered (Don't they ever learn?) Here's the text:

    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)

    by ookla_the_mok ( 461741 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @10:59AM (#2553700)
    For those that don't live in NYC there is a map of queens here []

    FYI: Far rockaways are very near JFK.
  • by Jburkholder ( 28127 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:00AM (#2553704)
    to reply to my own post, CNN has a different report now:

    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. h/ index.html
  • by theCoder ( 23772 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:00AM (#2553705) Homepage Journal
    I just heard on CNN (TV version) that the FAA doesn't believe it was a terrorist action.

    It is still a tragedy though :(
  • Re:CBC coverage (Score:3, Informative)

    by arminh1974 ( 530747 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:01AM (#2553716) Homepage
    Google has an excellent assortment of links to news sites [] in its directory. So even if the major ones like etc are down.. you're bound to find some coverage.
  • by markf ( 25369 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:02AM (#2553723)
    I'm watching this on TV right now ( still not responding). Some of the initial details have changed:

    - Not a 767, an Airbus A-300 (seats around 300 people)
    - It was American Airlines flight 587; /leaving/ JFK for Dominican Rep.
    - 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.

  • Re:airbus, not 767 (Score:2, Informative)

    by Geeky Frignit ( 232507 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:03AM (#2553736) Homepage
    At least FoxNews [] is still up and running.
  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:05AM (#2553760) Homepage

    Tell that to Wall Street; the Dow Jones dropped 200 points when the news broke. Makes you wonder if their machines are connected to siesmic sensors. :-(

  • the plane: (Score:2, Informative)

    by 2MuchC0ffeeMan ( 201987 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:06AM (#2553767) Homepage
    the plane ...
    linky linky" []
  • Coverage (Score:2, Informative)

    by Exmet Paff Daxx ( 535601 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:07AM (#2553768) Homepage Journal
    CNN may be down but the Washington Post [] is up and has a photo. appears to be down.

    MSNBC [] is up with coverage [].
  • by gimple ( 152864 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:07AM (#2553774) Homepage
    It's Shakespeare.

    Julius Ceasar Act III Scene i:

    "Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war,
    That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
    With carrion men, groaning for burial."

    It is Athony's speech after Ceasar is killed. As you can see in the rest of the phrase it is about revenge for a "foul deed."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:07AM (#2553775) works works
  • by daoine ( 123140 ) <moruadh1013@ya h o o . com> on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:11AM (#2553817)
    * American Airlines flight crashes on takeoff in NYC borough of Queens
    * 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
  • Better CNN server? (Score:2, Informative)

    by PeterH-AU ( 517526 ) <> on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:16AM (#2553853)
    For those having problems connecting to [], just a hint. []. Its what us Australians are suppost to look at, even though it isn't hosted in Australia (its in the same place as []), except the only difference is it seems to be responding and able to handle traffic. And yes, that page lists all the world storys.
  • Slightly more detail (Score:5, Informative)

    by Snackwell ( 126534 ) <> on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:20AM (#2553885) Homepage
    From a local TV station's site -- often a good secondary source of info when the big boys get overwhelmed. ai l.html

    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:*Leap* (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:22AM (#2553906)
    Given that neither reaction nor inaction will prevent further attacks

    False assumption (typical relativism approach to framing an argument).

    Destroying thousands of future soldiers, exterminating another relativist culture, removing a government that provides support for terrorist camps, creating a government that feeds and cares for the Afghan people (rather than beating and killing them), telling Islam that it had better start its reformation, and sending a message to other states that sponsor terrorism that they're next does make a significant impact.

    Remember Libya? Backed off after we sent a message that was stronger than words.

    Read your American history. Barbary pirates. Nazis. Mexican raids. Etc. A lack of response guarantees failure. A response is not a guarantee of success, but is required to have a chance at it.

    Which course will polarise world opinion, leading previously moderate people to support radical organisations? (Clue: look at Pakistan.)

    Appeasement to make "other people like us" is guaranteed to fail, and furthermore, makes dirty bastards like you as guilty as the killers. Your type killed millions of Czechs by appeasing Hitler.

    Which course will kill innocent people abroad, in addition to those who have already died in the US?

    Discussing both options like you've proposed, how does not doing anything not kill more people abroad and in the US? Do you think OBL is done now? Clue: Look at a plane on the ground in the Bronx. Do you think more terrorists like him will follow along if we don't act? Clue: Look at the Carter presidency.

    Which course will perpetuate a cycle of violence and be used to justify further attacks?

    Doing nothing will. Clue: Look at your examples supplied and a culture of minimal response. Clue: Look at Syria. Have a city threatening with insurrection? Exterminate it and set an example.

    Is your desire to feel like you're doing something worth the consequences?

    Is your desire to be a fatalist seeing his own destruction worth the consequences to the rest of society?

    For our sake, I'd encourage you to seek the closest bridge, jump and get it over with. Quit bothering us with your fascination with suicide.
  • by The G ( 7787 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:24AM (#2553922)
    Uh, Veterans Day was yesterday, November 11, the anniversary of the armistice that ended the First World War. Today is just an observed holiday thingy.
  • by Casca ( 4032 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:26AM (#2553938) Journal
    You have to take anything you hear from the FAA in the first couple of hours with a grain of salt. This being a federal holiday, there is nothing more than a skeleton crew at most FAA locations. None of the upper management are in today. They'll be in, but it will take them some time.

    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.
  • by imipak ( 254310 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:27AM (#2553949) Journal
    Sky News: Plane Crashes In New York A plane has crashed into a residential area of New York. It is understood the plane was an Airbus A300 and suffered engine failure shortly after taking off from JFK airport. Reports say the aircraft may have been carrying up to 246 passengers when it plunged into homes in Queens. The jet, thought to be flight 587, was heading to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. There are reports the plane hit a number of homes near Rockaway beach. One eyewitness said pieces of the plane were falling off mid-air and flames were seen on "I saw a large piece hit a hood of a car," one women told Fox News. "It seem to fold and fall onto a residential area," adding that she initially thought the plane was a Concorde. F15 fighter jets are now in the skies of New York - the incident comes two months after the US terrorist attacks on the US. They were believed to be in the sky when the plane crashed. Security chiefs said there was no evidence of terrorist activity but all airports in New York have now been closed as a precautionary measure. Bridges and tunnels have been closed The city has also been put on the highest state of alert. A huge plume of smoke is rising above the New York skyline as the wreckage burns. The Dow Jones dropped 200 points as news of the crash reached the markets. Early reports said the plane was a Boeing 767 - the same type which crashed into the World Trade Centre. More follows .. Last Modified: 15:20 UK, Monday November 12, 2001

    The BBC in the UK is carrying live TV footage of F15s fighters flying very low over the area.

  • Wrong Plane... (Score:2, Informative)

    by PHanT0 ( 148738 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:31AM (#2553984)

    It was an Airbus a300...
    26X people on board...
    9 crew.

    I hate relaying bad news.
  • Crash news via IRC (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ktistec Machine ( 159201 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:33AM (#2554001)
    CNN live closed captioning is available at #CNN_Newsfeed at
  • by demonlapin ( 527802 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:35AM (#2554025) Homepage Journal
    Try #CNN_Newsfeed on for a live feed of closed-captions off CNN.
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @11:36AM (#2554036) Homepage Journal
    If you'd rather not dork around trying to cut and paste it all into your browser See streets here [] At this writing it's slow.
  • by costas ( 38724 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @12:33PM (#2554110) Homepage
    I am an aerospace engineer, and I fly on A300s once a week. I also used to be involved in air safety and preventive maintainance for a military aviation.

    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 [], 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:*Leap* (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 12, 2001 @12:33PM (#2554115)
    This is quite possibly the most idiotic statement I've ever read in my life. The US did as close to nothing as possible after the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, the Khobar tower bombings, and the USS Cole bombings. It didn't work, and 6000 people died very recently. I think it's time for a new strategy.
  • by Betcour ( 50623 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @12:34PM (#2554117)
    Actually it is plausible, if an engine fell before the plane crashed it is very well possible that it is an accident. Terrorist usually don't crash the plane by detaching the plane's engine.

    On the other hand the likelyness that two major aircrash happens on NYC itself in a 2 months time is very very low...
  • by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @12:34PM (#2554120) Journal
    Jet engines fall off by design. If a bird goes into the engine, the engine starts to come apart. There's lots of rotational energy there, and you want the engine to come off, rather than apply torque to the wing. The other case where you want the engine to come off is in a wheels up landing, because the engines hang below the body of the aircraft and, again, you want the engine to come off rather than the wing. Look at google for "engine fuse pin".
  • by Artifice_Eternity ( 306661 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @12:52PM (#2554175) Homepage

    WCBS-2 (local TV station in NYC) is reporting that all bags on this American Airlines flight were screened before being loaded on to the plane. This is not standard operating procedure, but since 9/11, it is being done occasionally on a random basis.

    Also, another NYC TV station (not sure which one) said a little while ago that the pilot of this flight DID perform a visual pre-flight inspection -- walking around the plane to look for obvious problems.

  • update (Score:2, Informative)

    by toddmaynard ( 527393 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @01:10PM (#2554273) ( is reporting:

    LATEST UPDATES: The FBI is investigating reports from eyewitnesses that there was an explosion on the plane while it was still in the air. AP says the pilot did not report any trouble before the crash, but CBS reports that a United Airlines pilot heard the American Airlines pilot tell traffic control he was having mechanical trouble.

    Logan Airport is open, but there is no service to New York. Some international flights are being diverted from N.Y. to Boston.
  • by EvilBert ( 66475 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @01:19PM (#2554321)
    Holland has had it's share of planes falling from the sky.

    Details about todays crash are hard to find but it reminds me of the 1992 bijlmer crash. A cargo plain lost 2 engines and crashed into a building. ,9 171,1107990322-22329,00.html
    From the link above:

    The basic facts surrounding the Oct. 4, 1992 accident are not in dispute. The Boeing 747-200F, carrying three crew, one non-commercial passenger and 114 tons of freight, took off from Amsterdam's Schiphol airport at 6:21 p.m. en route to Tel Aviv. Seven minutes later, both starboard engines ripped loose from the wing. The pilot circled back toward the airport to attempt an emergency landing, but the crippled craft came down in the predominantly immigrant neighborhood of Bijlmer, 13 km east of Schiphol. In an October 1994 report, the Netherlands Aviation Safety Board blamed the crash on mechanical failure due to faulty engine mountings.
  • by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @01:24PM (#2554363) Homepage Journal
    It's full of factual errors.

    Donald Rumsfeld said that we're unlikely to catch Bin Laden.

    Bin Laden doesn't matter that much, what matters is that Al Queda is destroyed. Bin Laden will probably be killed, an if not his ability to function will be severely restricted and he will no longer have a friendly national government to protect him.

    Many members of the Taliban are no longer in the Taliban and will never be caught

    We are only at war with the Taliban in so much that they are Helping Bin Laden. Individual Taliban solders didn't have anything to do with the bombing of NYC. If they defect from the Taliban then they are no longer protecting Bin Laden. So who cares? What matters is that we destroy the ablity of Al Queda to harm the US. Not kill everyone we don't like.

    Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afghani.

    The Taliban are pashtoon(sp?) Pashtoon is a large ethnic group in Afghanistan. Many people in Afghanistan identify themselves by their ethnic group. The Taliban was mostly educated in Madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan, but came originally in from Afghanistan.

    We are bombing innocent civilians who happened to have the misfortune of being invaded by people who attacked the US as well

    It is unfortunate that civilians are being killed, but so far there have only been forty eight confirmed dead civilians. The vast, vast majority of individuals killed in Afghanistan have been members of the Taliban.

    Hundreds of thousands, even millions of Afghanis died in the years of strife. The civilian toll caused by our actions are far less then the 'status quo'. Remember, the Taliban kills people for shit like using a computer or adultery. If the taliban is overthrown, there is a possibility that the number of people killed could be made up for in a year or two.
  • by Russ Steffen ( 263 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @01:31PM (#2554402) Homepage
    There are NO such parachutes. Let's do some real simple calcs. I believe a standard human parachute is 28 feet in diameter, for a human weighing 200 pounds. A fully loaded 747 is around 800,000 pounds, 4000 times as much. Let's see, square root of 4000 is roughly 64, and 64 * 28 = 1770 feet -- ONE KILOMETER!

    Right! And Wrong. There is a company called Ballistic Recovery Systems [] 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.

  • by luugi ( 150586 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @01:51PM (#2554458)
    With all the technology we have now, how come we are still looking for that stupid black box? How come the information that is in the black box is not routed wirelessly directly to the airport control towers?
  • by andymac ( 82298 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @02:02PM (#2554504) Homepage
    Not true in this case (possibly others). The Airbus A300 has all of its hydraulics centered in the wing-engine region. An engine falls off and there's a better than 90% chance that you've lost all your hydraulics. Even with double redundancy for the hydraulics there's almost no way that you will NOT lose the hydraulic system, and thus any ability to control the plane. In the event of a general hydraulic system failure, you *could* control the plane via differential power (applying different amounts of power to each engine to perform basic navigation) - however with one engine dropped several kms behind you, you've got no hope in hell for controlling that plane.
  • We dont know! (Score:3, Informative)

    by goodtim ( 458647 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @02:03PM (#2554505) Journal
    it would be very irresponsable for us to jump to any conclusions. So nobody should be saying that it was, or was not, a terrioist attack.

    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.
  • Heard on CNN... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 12, 2001 @03:27PM (#2554847)
    The plane was carrying 246 passengers and 9 crew.

    The Dominican Republic claimed that 150 of the passengers on the flight were its citizens.

    Both statements were cautioned as 'preliminary'
  • by the_great_cornholio ( 83888 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @03:30PM (#2554875)
    Actually, Ockham says we shouldn't mulitply entities unnecessarily. So if there is a non-metaphysical explanation (i.e. no spooky forces) for an event, then that is to be preferred. He certainly does not say that we prefer the simplest physical explanation.
  • Re:Frustrating (Score:2, Informative)

    by Wesley Everest ( 446824 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @03:47PM (#2554966)
    Hell, given that bombing various countries around the world is the status quo for the U.S., I'd say that bombing the hell out of Afghanistan is doing nothing. Now if we really wanted to do something, we'd be stepping up the bombing to include any country that ever supported Bin Laden.

    That would be Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., etc...

    Read how Senator Orrin Hatch said supporting Bin Laden was "worth it" [].

  • by wmoore ( 45078 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @05:04PM (#2555370)
    No, No, No! An engine falling off of a plane will not make it too unbalanced to fly. And yes, I AM an aerospace engineer working in the aerospace industry.

    However, it might cause a momentary loss of control. An engine falling off combined with the loss of power from said engine shortly after takeoff has to be one of the worst case scenarios facing a pilot. Combine that with a possible degredation of hydraulic control (due to fire/explosions) and low altitude, it could be very bad, very quickly.

    For a specific example, I remember a case years ago of an airliner losing an engine (as in falling off, not just losing power) somewhere out west. I'm thining it was over Texas, but I'm not sure. It was able to land safely. And for some reason, I'm thinking that was American also ...
  • by kabloie ( 4638 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @05:33PM (#2555570)
    The GE engine is starting to have a pretty nasty resume:

    From the NY times article on the web (entitled "Pilots could do little if engine fell off")::

    "A CF-6 engine on a Continental Airlines DC-10 broke up on takeoff from Newark International Airport in April 2000, and in June 2000 a CF-6 on a Varig Airlines Boeing 767 broke up."

    In Alaska, there were 1000 geese just hanging out on the runway. It's ALASKA. This is one of the busier airports on the East Coast.

    I reject the bird theory. The POS engine theory is the one I am ascribing to.

  • Re:*Leap* (Score:2, Informative)

    by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Monday November 12, 2001 @06:09PM (#2555784)
    Given that neither reaction nor inaction will prevent further attacks,

    I don't think you can take that as a given.

    but consider these points.
    Which course (action or inaction) will encourage contempt and future aggression? (Clue: Neville Chamberlain, Bin Ladens comments after we retreated from Somolia)

    Which course makes killing Americans a risk free and easy way to advance your political cause (whatever it might be)

    Which course leaves our avowed enemies (which you concede WILL attack us) free to stage those future attacks without interference.

    As for responding to your points:
    Which course will polarise world opinion, leading previously moderate people to support radical organisations? (Clue: look at Pakistan.)

    Answer: Inaction - Yes, lets look at Pakistan for a clue. A nation that supported the Taliban and even Al Queada and a regime that has a lot of sympathy to both. Yet they actively support us - why? I think the answer is our likely "action" if they had continued support for radical organisations. As for the Pakistani "street" where there is unrest (though not really very much by Pakistani standards) as long as individual support for radical organisations is going to organisations that are harrassed by every government, without a safe haven and ineffectual - who cares.

    Which course will kill innocent people abroad, in addition to those who have already died in the US? (Clue: look at Afghanistan.)

    Answer: Inaction - Al Queada as a particular organisation has as a STATED OBJECTIVE the acquisition AND USE of Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons to pursue a holy war against all infidels on formerly Muslim lands (According to bin Laden this includes Spain by the way) - given time and the safety of Afghanistan they will succeed in this objective. Even in Afghanistan direct civillian casualites from US attacks pale in comparison to past attrocities by all other parties to the conflict - Casualties from famine is the real threat and is a powerful argument for a MORE aggresive attack that will put a larger portion of the population behind UF lines where aid can more readily reach them. The increased attention the war is generating is probably a boon to the millions of Afghan refugees *with were already* in Pakistan and Iran.

    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.)

    Inaction: All of the "clues" you provide are instances of people with different ethnic groups occupying the same ground where no lasting "victory" is possible - that is not the case with the US and any muslim land unless you think we are planning to colonise Afghanistan. Why not other "clues" of the inevitable "cycle of violence" war must always create? Look at the "cycle of violence" between the US and it's past enemies: England, Canada (at the time part of the British Empire) Mexico, Spain, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Vichy France, Korea (& China), Russia (a cold war but "enemies" none the less) even Vietnam which we completely botched but I still wouldn't characterise American and Vietnamese relations as a "cycle of violence" like the other "clues" you mentioned. In some of these cases our relationships are actually better for having had a war - can you imagine that we would be as friendly as we are with Germany, Italy and Japan if we had not gone to war against them? And there was a *massively* greater number of civilian casualties, displacement, ethnic expulsions, genocide & atrocities to feed a cycle of violence in those cases.
  • Re:Fuel dumped? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 12, 2001 @06:19PM (#2555849)
    Depending on the altitude the fuel may never have hit the ground. (unknown in this case). It will evaporate quite quickly as it gets dispersed in the air. It isn't that uncommon to dump fuel before an emergency landing and yet we don't hear about significant problems because of it. (ie: neighborhoods bursting into flames).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 12, 2001 @06:47PM (#2555985)
    The titanium vanes in the engines sometimes are not forged properly and are prone to cracking where the vane edge joins the mounting bracket. If the vane breaks the whole engine fails catastrophically, like this one where the engine fell off while in flight.

    There was a similar failure on a DC-10 that crashed in Sioux City, IA in 1989. It was eventually found that the airline in that crash (United) had been sold vanes that had been rejected by the military because of the cracks, but were resold by a broker. United had installed them without doing metallurgy tests on them.

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?