Aircraft Accident Brief Ntsb/aab-02/01 (Pb2002-910401): Egypt Air Flight 990, Boeing 767-366er, Su-Gap - National Transportation Safety Board Page 157
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 fails to discuss the reasons that such recovery was not ultimately successful. Again, without any
analysis, the NTSB asserts that a successful recovery was possible. Not only does this
conclusory statement substitute speculation for fact, it ignores the real possibility that the
airplane, in passing through a range of g forces and approaching 1.0 Mach, experienced shock
waves and aerodynamic forces that led to structural damage, including the loss of the right
elevator and the left engine. Under those circumstances, the airplane would have been out of
control and -- contrary to the NTSB’s claim -- unrecoverable.
38.
(Page 69) The entire Pilot Action Scenario is developed by selectively using
information developed during the investigation to prove that the RFO deliberately crashed the
airplane. The same information could be presented in a different manner to prove that the RFO
had no idea what was happening and that the Captain did not suspect that the RFO was
performing any actions that were contributing to the airplane dive. See comments in No. 36
above.
39.
(Page 70) See previous comment No. 1.
40.
(Page 72) The RFO could have disconnected the autopilot in response to
unexplained movements of the control wheel or column. Further, all radar targets have not been
adequately resolved. The Pilot Action Scenario does not account for the fact that the airplane
maintained an essentially wings level attitude which would be unexplained if the RFO was trying
to dive/crash the airplane or if a struggle was underway with the Captain. Further, the NTSB
fails to note that if the RFO were intending to dive the airplane, he could have used an additional
9 degrees of nose down elevator authority. The fact that full elevator authority was not used
indicates that the RFO was not intending to dive the airplane.
Similarly, the NTSB implies that retarding the throttles at the beginning of the dive
indicates that the RFO intended to dive the airplane. The NTSB is wrong; this action implies
precisely the opposite conclusion. If he had intended to crash the airplane, the RFO would have
increased power to enhance the dive, rather than slowing the dive by retarding the throttles.
40
ADVERTISEMENT
0 votes
Related Articles
Related forms
Related Categories
Parent category: Legal