Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash

Date:         07 Dec 98 23:19:15 
From:         "Johan Eertink" <eertink@nlr.nl>
Organization: National Aerospace Laboratory NLR
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


saccani@pc.jaring.my wrote in message ...
>cowboy@ram.net.au wrote:
>>A media beat up. The aeroplane will fly on two engines so why not fly
>>to an aerodrome and land rather than to a lake and ditch.

>My understanding was that the aircraft would fly with 2 engines shut
>down, as opposed to 2 engines on the same side missing (at the weight
>in question).  The associated loss of the No.3 & No.4 hydraulic
>systems in an extreme assymetric configuration was not considered when
>designing the aircraft to cope with 2 engines out on the same side.
>In a 2 engine out situation, the No.3 & No.4 ADP would function, even
>if the engine was not windmilling to power the EDP.  The reduction in
>rudder authority from the loss of half the hydraulic systems means
>that the situtation you describe below would appear inevitable,
>considering the speed the aircraft was at when the engines departed.

In addition, the engines coming off damaged the flaps on that side of
the a/c. When the pilots lowered the flaps on approach, they only
extended on the undamaged wing, causing an extreme and unexpected roll.

On the health/radiation problems: The NL Parliament has ordered an
parliamentary investigation on what happened _after_ the crash.

Johan Eertink
National Aerospace Laboratory NLR
Amsterdam