Posted on 03/27/2003 3:53:46 PM PST by ganesha
Entertainment system contributed to Swissair crash By ALISON AULD Swissair crash report, closure for victim's sister
HALIFAX (CP) - Wiring that powered a controversial entertainment system combined with highly flammable insulation to feed a deadly fire that brought down Swissair Flight 111 off Nova Scotia in 1998, investigators said Thursday.
In releasing its final report into the country's longest and costliest accident investigation, the Transportation Safety Board didn't identify the exact source of a fire that caused a massive electrical failure on the MD-11, but concluded it was linked to the improperly installed gaming system.
The 338-page document outlined a fateful sequence of events that started when wire began arcing in a hidden area above the cockpit ceiling.
"This particular arc site was found on one of the wires that supplied power to the inflight entertainment network," lead investigator Vic Gerden said at the release of the report into the Sept. 2, 1998, crash that killed 229 people.
The arcing - a phenomenon in which a wire's coating is corroded and can lead to sparking - ignited a flammable insulation covering, allowing the fire to race through the plane's wiring system.
"It is important to emphasize that without the presence of this and other flammable materials, this accident would not have happened," Gerden said, holding up a pillow-sized piece of the metallic insulation.
The board recovered 20 pieces of wire from the plane that showed melted copper, indicative of arcing damage. At least one of the damaged wires was from the entertainment unit, but others were retrieved from the wreckage, leading investigators to believe it was likely not the only wire involved in the arcing.
"We strongly suspect that at least one other wire was involved, either an aircraft wire or another entertainment system wire," Gerden said.
The TSB, charged with determining cause and issuing safety recommendations, also implicated the powerful U.S. Federal Aviation Administration for failing to ensure the entertainment system was installed and certified properly.
The program, which allowed passengers in the first-class section to gamble, play video games and watch movies, was found on test flights to raise cabin temperatures and cause hard drives in the seats to fail.
Officials said the FAA, which sets international aviation standards, distanced itself too much from the installation of the entertainment unit, which was unique to Swissair's fleet.
As part of its 23 recommendations, the TSB called for increased scrutiny in the certification of systems added to aircraft.
"The FAA failed in every respect to ensure the safety of the 229 people that boarded that aircraft," said Lyn Romano, whose husband Ray was on board the flight.
Les Dorr, a spokesman for the FAA, said the group has already begun looking into the process since media reports surfaced about the installation being rushed and safety concerns overlooked.
Miles Gerety, whose older brother Pierce died in the crash, said he has no doubt the entertainment system caused the sparking that led to the fire and crash.
"I do believe the TSB has found the cause of the crash," said Gerety, a lawyer from Bridgeport, Conn., and one of a handful of family members who made the trip to Halifax.
Investigators also determined the pilots acted appropriately in not trying to land the plane immediately, something critics have argued could have saved some or all of those on board.
The pilots spent valuable minutes trying to identify the source of the fire after smelling smoke 53 minutes into the flight. They initially thought it was coming from the air conditioners, a normally benign occurrence that wouldn't haven't warranted an emergency landing.
Their instrument panel didn't indicate problems with the electrical system, leaving them fatally unaware of the fire that was spreading rapidly outside the cockpit.
The pilots, one a veteran flyer, also didn't know the area over their heads was lined with the flammable insulation. This lack of information led them to believe they had time to go through a lengthy checklist to determine the source of the smoke, and prepare for a precautionary landing.
Heavy with fuel for the trip from New York to Geneva, they diverted away from the Halifax airport to dump fuel over the ocean.
The board did a theoretical "descent profile" and found the pilots would not have been able to bring it down safely in Halifax.
"Even if the pilots could have foreseen the eventual deterioration due to the fire, because of the rapid progression of the fire they would not have been able to complete a safe landing in Halifax," Gerden said.
He said the pilots would have been battling smoke and heat in the cockpit and that parts of the ceiling had likely given way, creating a horrifying environment for the crew.
Moments later, they lost all communications and most of their navigation capabilities. The crippled aircraft then got locked in a steep, right-banked turn and dove into the ocean at a speed of 350 mph.
The agency, which has spent $57 million and 4½ years examining millions of pieces of wreckage, issued nine new recommendations. Two address testing and flammability standards of thermal acoustic insulation materials.
The material, known as metallized polyethylene terephthalate, has been removed from all commercial planes in Canada. About 700 American jetliners are still lined with the insulation and have until 2005 to have it replaced.
It also recommended improved certification standards for planes' add-on systems, such as the entertainment system.
Four recommendations propose improvements to how information from the flight data and cockpit voice recorders is captured and stored.
The board has released several recommendations and advisories over the course of the investigation. They have included calls for more stringent testing of electrical wiring in aircraft, inspection of cockpit wiring of all MD-11s and independent power sources for flight recorders.
RE: Your tagline-
(Thanks, Dixie Chicks for accusing me of being a Freeper. I first heard of FR on the Chicks' website.)
Welcome to FR!
What was the initial controversy over?
Yeah, I've never figured that out. Is it just a justification for price gouging on their $2/minute phones?
Sniff sniff - something is not passing the smell test ...
Weren't these circuits FUSED?
(Wiring/circuits are NORMALLY fused/"breakered" below the point at which the wiring ITSELF will 'fuse' or melt.)
Do I detect doubt in your voice?
I think you've hit the nail on the head! It's all a collusion on the part of airline operators to 'fix the price' of cellular in the air!
(Forgetting for a minute that cell phones work on the principles of radio in conjunction with cell sites normally placed no more than eight miles apart and as close as a half mile in urban areas ...)
REPORT
Interference Levels In Aircraft at
Radio Frequencies used by Portable TelephonesThis report makes recommendations based on results and observations from interference tests sponsored by the Civil Aviation Authority and performed on a British Airways Boeing 737-236 and a Virgin Atlantic Airways Boeing 747- 243B at London Gatwick Airport on 15th February 2000. The report may be downloaded in Adobe Portable Document Format from:
www.srg.caa.co.uk/srg/srg_news.asp
Executive Summary
Measurements made on two types of civil transport aircraft confirm that transmissions made in the cabin from portable telephones can produce interference levels that exceed demonstrated susceptibility levels for aircraft equipment approved against earlier standards. Since aircraft equipment in this class is currently in use, and can be installed, and is known to be installed, in newly built aircraft, current policy restricting the use of portable telephones on aircraft must continue. Recommendations are made to reduce the interference risk and for further studies to understand more precisely the effects of interference to aircraft equipment arising from the use of portable telephones.
This is a pretty serious problem, the FAA has farmed out certification to various private companies, some of which are incompetent and others are just corrupt and will bless just about anything with FAA certification. FAA Certification doesn't mean anyone from the FAA had any involvement what so ever.
In this case it was a now defuct company called Santa Barbra Aerospace who was one of the companies allowed to do FAA certifications, it was a pretty big company at one time and did mantainence for alot of airlines and corporations.
Unfortunetly, they were either corrupt or incompetent as hell, they would approve ANYTHING - you could refloat the Yorktown and take one of the planes out of it's hanger and Santa Barbra would declare it airworthy and grant it FAA certification.
Eventually the FAA would pull the plug on them and they would ultimately go out of business, but not before they certifired the SwissAir MD-11's with the poorly installed entertainment system that had been installed by some unknown European contractor. Given the jet crashed... I think we can say they were wrong
Next time you get on a plane remember this, most of the FAA's certification responsibilities are farmed out to the private sector. When airlines are paying the private companies to certify their planes, how strict do you think they are going to be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.