Stretch 8 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2568 posts, RR: 16 Posted (14 years 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 900 times:
According to a reliable source, the EgyptAir 767 involved in the crash had had the left (no. 1) engine thrust reverser disabled via a pin placement (in order to prevent inflight deployment of the thrust reverser) while on the ground atJFK. Flight 990 made two (2) take-offs from JFK; a warning light forced a quick return. Flight 990 took off a second time from JFK when it hit the drink at 07:52Z. It could be that the pin came loose and fell off in flight, leading to a reverser deployment on engine number 1, tearing the engine off the wing (and probably part of the wing with it). That would explain the full power dive reported by an Air Force radar analysis. If the engines are found far apart from the fuselage, inflight deployment was likely. Don't think this couldn't happen again on another 767, or even a 777.
Maggs swings, it's a drive deep to left! The Tigers are going to the World Series!!!
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8060 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (14 years 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 851 times:
I don't agree with any of this. Nowhere has it been reported that the flight returned to JFK, not would in-flight deployment of reverse thrust tear the engine from the wing. It didn't happen to the Lauda jet and that was with a higher power setting. If the modifications mandated after the Lauda accident were made, then it COULDN'T happen again, and the 777 is a totally different plane with different and more advnaced powerplants and reverse thrust acuator systems. Sorry to come down on you so hard but I think you have been grossly misinformed on a number of points there.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12409 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (14 years 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 839 times:
While I have to agree with some of the points Cedarjet, I don't think I could go quite as far as to say it could never happen on a 777. However, I do agree with the view that the reverser deployment wouldn't take the engine off the wing. I don't know about the second takeoff, but I think we'd have known by now.
Again, we come back to the Lauda incident. There seems to be a general view around that just because the facts don't fit EXACTLY, it couldn't have been the reverser. I still believe the reverser had to have something to do with it - nothing to do with the fact that it was No.282 or even that it had PW engines (which is a relevant point, however). It simply that the general course of events is quite similar to the Lauda crash :-
1) Failure to react on time, the aircraft drops suddenly and descents very steeply. The descent rates of the two aircraft are not far apart
2) breakup around or soon after the rapid descent. The Lauda aircraft lost its stabiliser and tail and it those "nosed over", fuel tanks ruptured due to stress and it blew up. MS 990 seems to have climbed, but this climb didn't last long, probably because the plane was overstressed; it broke up and went down. Different behaviours, but again most likely down to different reactions.
At this stage we are down to the question of, what else could have caused such a dramatic descent, but without robbing the crew completely of control, causing an overstress situation and a breakup. We can, I think rule out sabotage and a rapid loss of cabin pressure, but no doubt the CVR will provide the best evidence.
Ken4556 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 829 times:
According to CNN website, thrust reverser deployment has been rolled out due to the new radar data. The plane did not change heading when going to 16,000 ft. It then rose to 24,000 ft. before going down. If it was a thrust reverser, it would have banked hard in the direction of the thruster. I refer you to the article for more detailed info