Read the article from Flight International.

EL AL BLAMES BOEING FOR AMSTERDAM CRASH

El Al has blamed Boeing for the crash of its 747 freighter in Amsterdam on 4 October, 1992, and attacked Dutch air traffic control for making the attempt to land the damaged aircraft at Schipol more difficult than it need have been. The accusations are in the final report by an EL AL committee investigating the crash. The airline's president, Raphael Harley, says, that the airline will ask Boeing to compensate it for the damage which the incident caused to its reputation.

Boeing has responded, saying that it is neither denying nor accepting responsibility for the crash, and is waiting for the final verdict of the official investigation before assessing its position.

The Tel Aviv-bound aircraft crashed on a block of flats in the Amsterdam suburbs as its crew attempted to return to Schipol, killing over 50 people on the ground, the crew of three and the one passenger.

The Israeli report says: ‘The sole responsibility for the accident is on the aircraft manufacturer.’ The investigation committee found that the accident was a result of a sequence of events that began with the breaking of a fuse pin in the No3 (inboard) engine-mount attachment. It is most likely that the sequence started in the right fuse pin and spread from there, leading to the separation of the mount from the wing. After engine No3 separated, it hit engine No4 (outboard), which also separated from the wing, it says.

The report says that there was no technical problem in either engine and ‘... additional damage to the right wing made the control of the aircraft very hard and finally caused the total loss of control.’ The final loss of control, in the last 40s of the flight, resulted as ‘... the right wing lost its lift and the balance of its rolling moment. This was followed by a dropping of the right wing and a yaw to the right which developed into a spiral turn that ended in the crash.

The fact that the engine separated as a result of a failure in the fuse pin appears to be a deviation from the ‘fail-safe design principle,’ says the report. ‘There is a reason to wonder how this principle, which went into effect in the Federal Aviation Administration in 1976, was not applied and does not apply today to 747 aircraft.’