It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Any strengthening done would be to allow it to carry extra monitoring equipment, and to the engine mounts, although it wouldn't be required.
They were under control until the aircraft broke up. They pulled out of one dive and entered a second where they broke apart at low altitude
During the extended dive prior to breaking up, Egypt Air 990 was estimated to have reached mach 0.99 or so.
While the NTSB's report did not determine a specific reason for the relief first officer's alleged actions, their report stated the impact was "a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs". Supporting its deliberate-act conclusion, the NTSB report determined that no mechanical failure scenario could result in aircraft movements that matched those recorded by the flight data recorder (FDR), and that even had any of the failure scenarios put forward by the Egyptian authorities occurred, the aircraft would still have been recoverable because of the 767's redundant elevator control system.
The accident airplane's nose-down movements did not result from a failure in the elevator control system or any other airplane failure.
2. The accident airplane's movements during the initial part of the accident sequence were the result of the relief first officerís manipulation of the controls.
3. The accident airplane's movements after the command captain returned to the cockpit were the result of both pilots inputs, including opposing elevator inputs where the relief first officer continued to command nose-down and the captain commanded nose-up elevator movements.
The dive itself wasn't the problem. The aircraft didn't over G in the dive, it was an over speed. The over G came when they pulled out of the dive and climbed back to 25,000.
Wiki leaves out a few details, such as the climb. I never said the aircraft didn't survive the Gs. The initial point I was making with the reference was that if a zero g flight stays in a dive too long they risk an over speed of the aircraft, as happened with 990.
As for the Gs, the last recorded speed of 990 was mach 0.94. The estimated Gs at pull out of the dive were at least 3-4, possibly 5 or higher. That is going to damage a commercial aircraft. It probably wouldn't cause a crash, but it certainly damaged the aircraft structurally.
Just how many Gs do you think the aircraft was going to suffer pulling out of a dive at near mach 1? Of course it suffered an over G. So what's your reasoning for the recorders shutting down? They just stopped working on their own?
Read the FDR data. Prior to it cutting off they were pulling pretty continuous 2.5+ Gs. They were already at the G limit of the aircraft prior to pulling out of the dive. When they pulled out of the dive they would have had to pull much more than that. Experts all agree that the aircraft suffered significant structural damage as a result. It wasn't included in the NTSB report because they can't prove what was caused by the over G and what by impact.
No one has claimed aircraft can't survive pulling out of a dive.
No secondary radar returns were received from EgyptAir flight 990 after 0150:36
(about the time the CVR and FDR stopped recording); however, after this time, several
radar sites recorded primary radar returns that continued along the accident airplaneís
extended flightpath from its last recorded radar position. As previously discussed, these
primary radar data (with extrapolated FDR data and simulation results) indicated that after
the airplaneís FDR and CVR stopped recording, the airplane descended to an altitude of
about 16,000 feet msl, then climbed to about 25,000 feet msl and changed heading from
80º to 140º before it began its second descent, which continued until it impacted the
I already asked you where you got the notion that they stopped working before that.
Between 0150:31 and 0150:37, the captain repeatedly stated, ìPull with me.î
However, the FDR data indicated that the elevator surfaces remained in a split condition
(with the left surface commanding nose up and the right surface commanding nose down)
until the FDR and CVR stopped recording at 0150:36.64 and 0150:38.47, respectively.
You claimed that the plane suffered damage pulling out of that initial dive, and said that the FDR and CVR stopped recording due to damage occuring at that moment. I don't see this being mentioned anywhere. Can you back this up?
The results of the Safety Boardís exam ination of CVR, FDR, radar, airplane maintenance history, wreckage, trajectory study, and debris field information werenot consistent with any portion of the airplane (including any part of the longitudinal flight controls) separating throughout the initial dive and subsequent climb to about 25,000 feet mean sea level (msl). It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris fiein the western debris field about 1,200 feet
from the eastern debris field. Although no radar or FDR data indicated exactly when (at what altitude) the separation occurred, on the basis of aerodynamic evidence and the proximity of the two debris fields, it is apparent that the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent.
. As previously discussed, the cessation of the CVR recording at 0150:38.47 (shortly after the FDR recorded the airplaneís loss of engine power) was consistent with the loss of electrical power to the recorder that occurred after the engines were shut off