Airline disaster 'caused by terrorism' By Paul Marston and Toby Harnden in Washington Passengers 'would have been conscious' No hope of survivors, families are told

AVIATION experts say sabotage is the likeliest cause of the EgyptAir disaster off the Atlantic coast of America, although mechanical failure is not being ruled out. The facts that the Boeing 767-300ER was cruising at 33,000ft when the disaster occurred, and that the flight crew could not issue a distress call, persuaded most airline engineers that some form of terrorist action was to blame.

Cruising is regarded as the safest phase of flight: stresses on the aircraft's frame and mechanical equipment are lower than during take-off or landing. If a massive technical failure had occurred at such an altitude, the pilots, unless incapacitated, would have had time to alert air traffic control.

The airliner's rate of descent was so fast and steep, 14,000ft in 36 seconds before transponder signals were lost, that it lends weight to the theory that the crew's loss of control was total and immediate. A bomb in the front of the forward hold, underneath the flight deck, could have destroyed the main electronics system.

An explosion which breached the pressurised hull would also have had a catastrophic effect. The aircraft would have begun to descend very quickly and break up due to aerodynamic factors. In this case, the loss of control happened at 33,000ft and it began to break up at 19,100ft, 36 seconds later.

A British Airways pilot said: "In view of the very sudden nature of what happened, an explosion of some sort, causing sudden loss of control, must be the most likely cause." One BA pilot said there had been repeated instances of poor security at Kennedy airport, New York, from which the aircraft took off 31 minutes before the crash.

In some cases, luggage had travelled on different aircraft from the passengers who owned it. He said: "Security at New York has been something of a joke. A cardinal rule of anti-terrorism is that passengers must travel with their baggage."

The experience of Lockerbie and three subsequent mid-air bombings suggests that burn marks can be confined to the immediate vicinity of the device, while the presence of explosive residues in victims' bodies are likely to be found only after lengthy tests.

The fact that no terrorist group had claimed responsibility was not seen as undermining a sabotage explanation. Prof Paul Wilkinson, of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism at St Andrews University, said the lack of credible claims after major outrages was not unusual.He said: "It's now quite common for state-sponsored terrorists to try to disguise their involvement. The point of their action is not publicity, but revenge or damage to confidence in the target country."

Prof Wilkinson also criticised the slowness with which American airports and airlines had implemented improvements in security since the Pan Am bombing 11 years ago. He said: "Given that the US and US passengers are the number one target for international terrorist activities, it is surprising and worrying that there are quite serious loopholes in American aviation security."

Chris Yates, editor of Jane's Airport Security magazine, said a US government report last year showed that new luggage-screening equipment at high-risk airports, including Los Angeles and Kennedy, was used for only a tiny minority of bags. The EgyptAir flight took on baggage at both airports.

But some aviation analysts said the disaster might not have been caused by terrorism and drew parallels with the crash of another 767-300ER eight years ago. The aircraft, belonging to Lauda Air, crashed in Thailand after an engine thrust-reverser suddenly activated itself about 20 minutes after take-off. All 223 people on board were killed. Modifications were ordered after the accident.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000118613908976&rtmo=pbM4UU3e&atmo=pbM4UU3e&pg=/et/99/11/2/wair02.html

-- LOON (blooney10@aol.com), November 02, 1999