Date: October, 4th 1992
Type: Boeing 747-258F
Registration: 4X-AXG
Operator: El Al
Where: Bijlmermeer, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Report No.: Netherlands Aviation Safety Board accident report 92-11
Report Date: Nov. 92
Pages: -

reference: Netherlands Aviation Safety Board accident report 92-11.

4X-AXG Boeing 747-258F El Al 04.10.92 Bijlmermeer, Amsterdam, Netherlands


On 17:20 UTC, El Al flight 1862, a Boeing 747-200 freighter, with 3 crewmembers and one non-revence passenger on board, took off from RWY 01L at Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam. At 17:27:30, with the aircraft at flight level 65, engine 3 and its pylon separated from the aircraft and damaged parts of the leading edge of the right wing. The no.3 engine then struck engine 4, causing this engine and its pylon to depart from the wing.

Both engines fell into a lake near the village of Naarden. The crew reported engine fire on engine 3 and indicated loss of thrust on 3 and 4 and started to dump fuel. They requested RWY 27 for landing (RWY 06 was in use). During the approach, the aircraft overshot the RWY localizer. It was vectored through an approximate 360 degree pattern in a descending turn over Amsterdam in order to intersept the final approach again. On 17:34 the captain commanded to raise all flaps and to lower the landing gear. Because of damage on the hydraulic system, the flaps on the right wing did not raise; the leading edge flaps were damaged. This resulted in a roll moment and bank steepening during the resulted right turn. The crew lost complete control. The aircraft crashed at 17:35:42 into an 11-floor apartment building in the Bijlmermeer, a suburb of Amsterdam, approx. 13 km east of Schiphol.

The impact was centered at the apex of two connected and angled blocks of apartments. Fragments of the aircraft and the building were scattered over an area of approx. 400x600 m. 47 people killed, including the flight crew and passenger of 4X-AXG.

From the investigation it was concluded that the engine seperated because of a large fatigue crack in a fuse pin. The pin design did not address the specific fail-safe requirements.