Aircraft Accident Brief Ntsb/aab-02/01 (Pb2002-910401): Egypt Air Flight 990, Boeing 767-366er, Su-Gap - National Transportation Safety Board Page 132
ADVERTISEMENT
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 Reference
Egyptian Investigation Team Requests
Reason of request and current status
Action 4: autopilot
EIT in its response on the Boeing submission to
Refer to B.1 Exhibit #10 Flight Data Recorder, B
disconnect
NTSB dated 31 October 2000, showed its
disagreement with Boeing conclusion regarding
elevator behavior in the events of auto pilot
disengagement.
Action 5: elevator failure
To support the analysis of possible mechanical
EIT requests clarification of the conditions causing
scenario
failure.
elevator pogo deflection during both single and dual
valve jams (reference Boeing letter B-H200-17032-
Boeing presented the letter “Column forces
ASI).
required to deflect elevator input pogo”, B-H200-
17030-ASI, dated 11-Aug-2000
Action 7: inner marker
Refer to B.1 Exhibit # 10 Flight Data Recorder
EIT requests Boeing to study the reason for having
“inner marker bit” appearing in the FDR at the end
of the dive. Boeing indicated that it would confirm
this condition by checking the CVR for marker aural
warning associated with this condition.
Action 10: Air Data System
EIT did not receive Boeing answer yet.
For the purpose of verifying instruments behavior
during the dive, EIT requested Boeing to perform
pitot static test using FDR data on a B767 airplane.
Boeing refused to perform this test at Boeing
claiming that it has not a similar Boeing 767-300
airplane. EIT offered to perform the test on the MS
sistership airplane on condition that Boeing would
provide the test plan, pitot static test equipment, and
that the test should be supervised by Boeing.
Action 12: elevator failure
Refer to B.1 Exhibit #9 systems, split elevator
EIT requests an explanation of the reason why the
scenario
elevator model presented by Boeing (Boeing report
B-H200-17026-ASI-R1, dated 14 Sept 2000,
767Elevator System Operation with Regard to
Column Splits, Aft Quadrant Splits, and Column
Jams), does not accurately predict the effects of
single and dual PCA failures.
Boeing is also requested to provide an explanation
for the large deflection of the elevator surface
associated with the column being held at neutral and
how it is consistent with normal column sweep test
data in the Failure Analysis Report.
Action 14: high rate column
EIT did not receive Boeing answer yet.
EIT requests the tabular data (e-fi1e) that support
inputs
Boeing study regarding the effect of high rate
column inputs (letter B-H200-17065-ASI))
15
ADVERTISEMENT
0 votes
Related Articles
Related forms
Related Categories
Parent category: Legal