From the report: https://catsr.vse.gmu.edu/SYST460/TA1951_AccidentReport.pdf https://catsr.vse.gmu.edu/SYST460/TA1951_AccidentReport.pdf "Interference as a sin

From the report: https://catsr.vse.gmu.edu/SYST460/TA1951_AccidentReport.pdf https://catsr.vse.gmu.edu/SYST460/TA1951_AccidentReport.pdf "Interference as a singular cause appears to be extremely improbable." Interference is mentioned a few times in the report as likely not being the cause or at least sole cause. The only entity seeming to push interference as a cause was Boeing, which led to this remark: "We are not aware that interference has been conclusively identified as the explanation for the radio altimeter anomalies. In fact, some airlines have found that their incidence of radio altimeter anomalies decreased when they chose to install the new gaskets. If the conclusions here are intended to be DSB conclusions, rather than conclusions of Boeing and the airlines, the text should be revised to indicate they are DSB conclusions." in which they struck out the text "The negative values of the radio height were an indication of interference"