Aircraft Accident Brief Ntsb/aab-02/01 (Pb2002-910401): Egypt Air Flight 990, Boeing 767-366er, Su-Gap - National Transportation Safety Board Page 155
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 36.
(Pages 67-68) As part of its conclusion that there was no mechanical failure, the
NTSB argues that the RFO “exhibited no audible expression of anxiety or surprise.” This fact --
even if true -- does not mean that there was no PCA jam or that the elevator bellcrank rivets did
not shear. By making this argument in the mechanical defect analysis section of the draft report,
the NTSB illustrates the biased and predetermined nature of the report. Clearly, there are no
scientific or behavior studies that link the existence of a surprised utterance with proof of a
mechanical defect in an airplane.
In its apparent haste to place blame on the RFO, the NTSB has overlooked three other
important considerations. First, when the Captain returned, he asked several times, in an excited
way, “What’s happening?” Presumably, if an excited utterance were the hallmark of the
existence of a mechanical defect, the Captain’s statements would tend to support that theory --
particularly when made under circumstances where it should have been obvious to the Captain if
the RFO were trying to crash the airplane.
Second, the NTSB’s contention that the RFO showed no audible anxiety fails to account
for the rapid repetition of the phrase, “I rely on God.” That repetition in itself is likely an
indicator of stress. Moreover, the NTSB has failed to offer any evidence to support its theory
that the lack of discernable stress or anxiety means that the RFO was intentionally diving the
airplane. Without such evidence, the RFO’s “passive behavior” is just that -- passive behavior.
At worst, the RFO’s behavior is unexplained -- a vastly different conclusion than that his
behavior proves he intentionally dove the airplane.
Third, the NTSB’s assessment that the RFO did not exhibit undue anxiety is based, in
part, on its analysis of fundamental frequency characteristics, described on pages 29-30 of the
draft report. The NTSB’s assessment of the RFO was that he exhibited a 25 percent increase in
fundamental frequency -- below the 30 percent threshold the NTSB identifies as the indication of
“stage 1 level of stress.” Interestingly, a similar study of the Captain when he returned to the
cockpit and asked “What’s happening?” showed an increase of only 29 percent -- still below the
38
ADVERTISEMENT
0 votes
Related Articles
Related forms
Related Categories
Parent category: Legal