Swiss Air 111
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you are, respectfully, missing the point Ontario raised. The assumption you are making is that the transcript accurately reflects what was said. If that is the case, fine, I accept there is no technical insight to be gained from listening to them. But I have been involved - peripherally - in an A320 incident in the sandpit in 1999. The reason I joined PPrune, actually. One of the things about knoteetingham is that the community is so small, you likely know all the players and without pointing fingers, let me just say that at the time there was a lack of confidence that the transcript accurately reflected some exchanges when CVR and tower tapes were reconciled. The alleged lack of transparency in the early stages was so bad that at one stage Airbus was reportedly contemplating issuing an independant report of its findings however it was ultimately accepted by the state of ownership & occurrence (which were the same) that the a/c was in perfect condition. I'm not a conspiracy theorist....if there was a way of validating the transcript without releasing the harrowing conversations on the actual tapes, then great. But in the big wide world of vested interests I simply don't accept that can happen in every case. Paradoxically, this is one region I wouldnt have much of a problem trusting the transcript. I accept that in most cases its just prurient and macabre interest driving this. But don't opine on that without also telling me how you can ensure transparency and accuracy without releasing the tapes.
Last edited by Pinkman; 23rd May 2007 at 07:42.
Controversial, moi?
Suppose you are a pilot, all your transmissions are public, like it or not, that is our job. Exploiting an accident, you bet the greedy press will, they do so every way they can. However few people will show interest in the real reasons of aviation accidents, most might be pilots wanting to know answers what happened and how to avoid it in the future.
I repeat absolutely nothing is gained from the release of the tapes. The only reason people will listen is for some macabre reason similar to people eyeballing a car crash.
............let me just say that at the time there was a lack of confidence that the transcript accurately reflected some exchanges when CVR and tower tapes were reconciled.
According to a documentary on this crash on National Geographic channel - even if they had immediately diverted to Halifax after the first signs of smoke - they would still not have made it such was the fury of the fire that apparently was caused by the 1st class in-flight entertainment system.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right mouse
Most probably nobody was listening in Halifax, and now millions click on it out of boredom and they know jacksh..about aviation. They don't care about the pilots nor the people that died nor are they interested why this horrific accdient happened nor are they intelligent enough to even understand why it happened. I agree with I-Ford that it serves no other purpose than the greedy press and gruesome entertainment.
The point I want to make is that we cannot avoid it, we have to live with it. If an accident would happen on a major airport there would be plenty of spotters filming it and selling the story to the news.
However I am not against having access to this information in an accident report.
The point I want to make is that we cannot avoid it, we have to live with it. If an accident would happen on a major airport there would be plenty of spotters filming it and selling the story to the news.
However I am not against having access to this information in an accident report.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 757 I was flying got smoke fumes in the cabin and cockpit about 6 months after this incident. Our company had not revised our smoke procedure so devised my own to not suffer the same consequences they did. We shut down non essential circuits and did an emergency descent to an airport. A week later after I filled out the report we had a new smoke in cockpit procedure. The smoke was coming from the galley which is one of the systems I shut down. Most aircraft fly just fine with all of the generators off so letting yourself get killed to maintain electrical power to keep everything powered doesn't make a lot of sense. I know following the checklist is the way we are supposed to do things but if nobody changes a known faulty checklist then what do you do?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the company I was flying at the time of the accident the we had following procedure in case of Cockpit Smoke is:
1. Decleare a emergency
2. start to dump fuel
3. go down asap. and head for a long Runway
I guess if they had such procedure it would have made a difference.
1. Decleare a emergency
2. start to dump fuel
3. go down asap. and head for a long Runway
I guess if they had such procedure it would have made a difference.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our procedure was shut off utility busses, wait, and see if smoke decreases using a check list. Meanwhile you end up over Cuba 100 miles farther from Miami than when the problem started. Swiss Air using that procedure would have ended up exactly where their procedure ended up off Halifax. I have been to the memorial site.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two distinct kinds of smoke in the cockpit, detectable by smell; either electric or airconditioning. If it's electric of unknown origin, I [captain] would turn off all generators as a first step. Keep thrust set and maintain wings level with SAI, powered by the battery bus. Assuming that the smoke has stopped and is not generated by the battery, then I would power up one generator and one bus at a time. I would exercise my emergency authority and NOT follow the "Electrical Smoke/Fumes or Fire" drill. . . because it could kill me! The checklist drill is too casual and too slow; it begins with isolating DC and AC busses, then by turning all unnecessary equipment Off. . . with smoke rapidly increasing there's no time for that. The SR111 crash had been a real eye opener for many crews.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We both agreed it was electrical smoke we sensed and the flight attendants confirmed smoke smell in the cabain. I would have turned off all generators if required to stop the smoke. A 757 does not need generators to fly or land. I think more emphasis should be put on the mentality of a house fire where most are electrical faults and simply tripping the breakers stops the source. Why not in an airplane? Most of the time you are VFR and don't need instruments to land. If you want to try a bus, turn it on and see what happens.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mouse, you're normally spot on but I am sorry - you're wrong on this one! Transparency is a HUGE problem in some countries. There's a world of difference between 'mishearing' something as its typed up with the minister for transport breathing down your neck in a small room, and being able to doctor a CVR tape to a point of non detectability (almost impossible without facilities and without someone finding out). Its the same reason there is a row between Kenya and Cameroun over the KQ 507 DFDR. They know what can happen. I agree, its about as likely as Russian secret agents poisoning dissidents with radioactive .... oh, that really did happen, didn't it?
Releasing CVR tapes onto the internet is unsavoury but aids transparency.
Releasing CVR tapes onto the internet is unsavoury but aids transparency.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we must strive to find some good, and do some good while reflecting upon this tragedy. if the tapes help us reflect, so much the better.
we as pilots must remember many of the fire caused crashes, and wonder why the super long checklists still exist. we are zooming along at mach.80 or so and expected to be electrical engineers.
we must also remember the air canada DC9 crash at CVG due to problems with the toilet electrical system.
the VALUJET (now called air tran) DC9 that plunged into the everglades with a super hot fire excited by oxygen generators.
sounds like: GO down to a field
Shut down non essential electrics (like turn off all gens as an expedient)
Get down to business...personal protection gear on etc.
make them memory items like the old GUMP checklist for landing. Make them standard on all transports so that it carries over regardless of type of plane.
certainly some memory items exist already, but by simplifying, it will work at any airline with any type.
we as pilots must remember many of the fire caused crashes, and wonder why the super long checklists still exist. we are zooming along at mach.80 or so and expected to be electrical engineers.
we must also remember the air canada DC9 crash at CVG due to problems with the toilet electrical system.
the VALUJET (now called air tran) DC9 that plunged into the everglades with a super hot fire excited by oxygen generators.
sounds like: GO down to a field
Shut down non essential electrics (like turn off all gens as an expedient)
Get down to business...personal protection gear on etc.
make them memory items like the old GUMP checklist for landing. Make them standard on all transports so that it carries over regardless of type of plane.
certainly some memory items exist already, but by simplifying, it will work at any airline with any type.
Pinkman;
Re, "Releasing CVR tapes onto the internet is unsavoury but aids transparency."
Understand the argument for transparency and that public postings may counter powerful vested interests in some countries.
That argument would not apply in this case nor, I suspect, in the vast majority of cases. The accident investigation process is already highly transparent, but within a broad, highly-trained specialist group. In most accident investigations, Annex 13 provides for wide participation of all interested groups and not just special interests. We know that the process is not perfect but placing actual audio recordings on the internet "for transparency reasons" is an extreme and unwarranted solution.
Setting aside the unanswerable question of how this court decision somehow serves "the public interest" in a positive way, the door is now open to all media (the original plaintiffs in this case) and courts in all jurisdictions to demand and publish all flight safety information after an incident/accident.
The argument that anyone with a scanner can record and publish conversations on the internet is a red herring. The court ruling has the power of law and precedent.
In the interest of true transparency, are we to see CVR, FOQA, LOSA, DFDR and even pdf's of the crew's line check reports on the internet next? Transparency is transparency, is it not? The appetite of the internet (the viewing public) is fathomless and, like television, treats the sublime and the heinous equally.
The real question in all this must then be asked: What will be the level of "chill" to flight safety programs and aviation safety reporting systems now that the courts have ruled that ATC tapes will be made "available to the public", (ie, put on the internet)?
As SMS (Safety Management Systems. For those who may not know, this approach to flight safety requires the collection and analysis of safety data and independant audits of safety processes within the airline), is implemented and matures over the years, will open safety reporting systems fold their tents knowing that on any day, their vast amounts of data will be subpoenaed and posted on the internet?
Re, "Releasing CVR tapes onto the internet is unsavoury but aids transparency."
Understand the argument for transparency and that public postings may counter powerful vested interests in some countries.
That argument would not apply in this case nor, I suspect, in the vast majority of cases. The accident investigation process is already highly transparent, but within a broad, highly-trained specialist group. In most accident investigations, Annex 13 provides for wide participation of all interested groups and not just special interests. We know that the process is not perfect but placing actual audio recordings on the internet "for transparency reasons" is an extreme and unwarranted solution.
Setting aside the unanswerable question of how this court decision somehow serves "the public interest" in a positive way, the door is now open to all media (the original plaintiffs in this case) and courts in all jurisdictions to demand and publish all flight safety information after an incident/accident.
The argument that anyone with a scanner can record and publish conversations on the internet is a red herring. The court ruling has the power of law and precedent.
In the interest of true transparency, are we to see CVR, FOQA, LOSA, DFDR and even pdf's of the crew's line check reports on the internet next? Transparency is transparency, is it not? The appetite of the internet (the viewing public) is fathomless and, like television, treats the sublime and the heinous equally.
The real question in all this must then be asked: What will be the level of "chill" to flight safety programs and aviation safety reporting systems now that the courts have ruled that ATC tapes will be made "available to the public", (ie, put on the internet)?
As SMS (Safety Management Systems. For those who may not know, this approach to flight safety requires the collection and analysis of safety data and independant audits of safety processes within the airline), is implemented and matures over the years, will open safety reporting systems fold their tents knowing that on any day, their vast amounts of data will be subpoenaed and posted on the internet?
Bomarc;
Re, "Shut down non essential electrics (like turn off all gens as an expedient)"
Not sure of your background but for those on the forum not familiar, the Airbus widebodies have a "commercial" switch which, in one action, shuts down most electrical services but retains all cockpit indications.
I agree with posters here who state that some smoke checklists are too long and focus too strongly on keeping the electrics going while troubleshooting. In the face of Swissair's experience, such checklists beg for crews to "make up their own response". The poster's story about his company "changing the checklist a week later" rather than right after Swissair is startling though sadly familiar. Many years ago now, our DC8's "Smoke of Unknown Origin" (the title was disconcerting in itself) focussed on being (as someone aptly described) an electrical engineer and usually ran about 20 minutes while one generator and bus at a time was shut off while the crew "looked and waited for less smoke"...
Our checklist (A340/330) has us donning the masks, establishing communications and starting the descent/diversion immediately. While descending the smoke source is assessed (air conditioning or electrical, obvious/not obvious source).
The "Commercial" switch removes electrical power from:
– Galleys
– Passenger entertainment system (music and video)
– Cargo loading system
– Electrical service
– Escape slide lock mechanism ice protection
– Water/waste (drain mast) ice protection
– Lavatory and cabin lights
– Water heater
The Emergency Electrical Configuration (considered if smoke continues after the Commercial switch is off), removes all non-essential services including some cockpit indications, nav equipment and communications.
The biggest concern for crews of course is smoke/fire over the ocean.
Re, "Shut down non essential electrics (like turn off all gens as an expedient)"
Not sure of your background but for those on the forum not familiar, the Airbus widebodies have a "commercial" switch which, in one action, shuts down most electrical services but retains all cockpit indications.
I agree with posters here who state that some smoke checklists are too long and focus too strongly on keeping the electrics going while troubleshooting. In the face of Swissair's experience, such checklists beg for crews to "make up their own response". The poster's story about his company "changing the checklist a week later" rather than right after Swissair is startling though sadly familiar. Many years ago now, our DC8's "Smoke of Unknown Origin" (the title was disconcerting in itself) focussed on being (as someone aptly described) an electrical engineer and usually ran about 20 minutes while one generator and bus at a time was shut off while the crew "looked and waited for less smoke"...
Our checklist (A340/330) has us donning the masks, establishing communications and starting the descent/diversion immediately. While descending the smoke source is assessed (air conditioning or electrical, obvious/not obvious source).
The "Commercial" switch removes electrical power from:
– Galleys
– Passenger entertainment system (music and video)
– Cargo loading system
– Electrical service
– Escape slide lock mechanism ice protection
– Water/waste (drain mast) ice protection
– Lavatory and cabin lights
– Water heater
The Emergency Electrical Configuration (considered if smoke continues after the Commercial switch is off), removes all non-essential services including some cockpit indications, nav equipment and communications.
The biggest concern for crews of course is smoke/fire over the ocean.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: YUL
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Background
In Air Canada we had an uncontrolled fire in a DC-9 that involved a "needle,ball, and airspeed " enroute landing. approx 10 pax died on the ground as the fire consumed the '9.
Up until that time our sops reflected the stupidity of isolating a fire even to the point of reetablishing electrical power to determine the cause! Un-friggin-real , isn't it?
Welllll-there was a total rethink and it became SOP to land asap-PERIOD. It is also part of the cockpit culture that at the first sign of smell,smoke, that airmanship comes first.That means divert to the nearest pub,NOW.
In many ways our company SOPS are out of date,but this isn't one of them.
I FLY 767s trans-atlantic.
Up until that time our sops reflected the stupidity of isolating a fire even to the point of reetablishing electrical power to determine the cause! Un-friggin-real , isn't it?
Welllll-there was a total rethink and it became SOP to land asap-PERIOD. It is also part of the cockpit culture that at the first sign of smell,smoke, that airmanship comes first.That means divert to the nearest pub,NOW.
In many ways our company SOPS are out of date,but this isn't one of them.
I FLY 767s trans-atlantic.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe we are dealing with ATC tapes here, right? To my knowledge the CVR tapes have never been released. In fact one of the glaring faults of the TSB report is that it does not even contain a transcript of the CVR. The reader has to take it on faith that what went on in the cockpit supports the TSB conclusions. Why would this important information be withheld? NTSB reports I believe, always contain this if available.
Edited to remove first sentence - I was able to hear the tape on the link. Wide distribution is controversial but a transcript is a different thing.
Edited to remove first sentence - I was able to hear the tape on the link. Wide distribution is controversial but a transcript is a different thing.
Last edited by Idle Thrust; 23rd May 2007 at 14:41.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bubbers,
Some time after SR111, BA had a 744 return to Sydney about 16 mins after departure (for Singapore) after a cargo fire warning. I don't know exactly what the company procedures said, but it was pretty clear that these guys weren't about to hang around dumping whilst it propagated. They wheeled her around, I think opened the taps and dumped what they could on their return run and put her back on a nice 13,000' strip as pronto as they could.
And walked away.
Would SR111 have gone in anyway? No-one can ever be sure but I have to think that if they'd have done a couple less orbits, they might've had a better chance. We live, and hopefully learn from what's gone before us.
Some time after SR111, BA had a 744 return to Sydney about 16 mins after departure (for Singapore) after a cargo fire warning. I don't know exactly what the company procedures said, but it was pretty clear that these guys weren't about to hang around dumping whilst it propagated. They wheeled her around, I think opened the taps and dumped what they could on their return run and put her back on a nice 13,000' strip as pronto as they could.
And walked away.
Would SR111 have gone in anyway? No-one can ever be sure but I have to think that if they'd have done a couple less orbits, they might've had a better chance. We live, and hopefully learn from what's gone before us.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Taildragger 67:
Landing sooner might have helped as you said but maybe not. I just wanted to say I did things that day knowing what didn't work for them. I didn't delay, I thought about what I needed generators for, decided to use or not use them then landed as soon as possible. I thought maybe someone else might think through a problem they might have some day and not just go to the checklist to save them if they have an electrical fire. If you don't have electrical power feeding a fire it will usually go out. My first airplane didn't have a battery and I have noticed every one I have flown since doesn't require one either to fly. The 767 200 domestic version you can't get the gear or flaps down after the battery goes dead but you can shut it off until you need it for landing. Keeping it simple works.
Landing sooner might have helped as you said but maybe not. I just wanted to say I did things that day knowing what didn't work for them. I didn't delay, I thought about what I needed generators for, decided to use or not use them then landed as soon as possible. I thought maybe someone else might think through a problem they might have some day and not just go to the checklist to save them if they have an electrical fire. If you don't have electrical power feeding a fire it will usually go out. My first airplane didn't have a battery and I have noticed every one I have flown since doesn't require one either to fly. The 767 200 domestic version you can't get the gear or flaps down after the battery goes dead but you can shut it off until you need it for landing. Keeping it simple works.