SR111 report released
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETOPS?
Can someone with ETOPS or B777 knowledge help me - As I understand ETOPS has more stringent fire detection and fire suppression standards.
Would a fire starting in the same place as SR111 have the same devastating effect on say - a B777 under today's ETOPS 120/180 regulations? Should all aircraft have ETOPS-like fire detection/suppression? Or would it not have made a difference here?
Would a fire starting in the same place as SR111 have the same devastating effect on say - a B777 under today's ETOPS 120/180 regulations? Should all aircraft have ETOPS-like fire detection/suppression? Or would it not have made a difference here?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aardvark2zz
As a generic statement you have a valid concern. However in this incident the investigation determined that the aircraft could not have been landed safely in the time available.
This shouldn't stop pilots from trying to land without undue delay in similar incidents though. The memories of SR111 will ensure that no one forgets what could happen.
I find it frustrating that pilots reading this report will believe that it is almost impossible to land a plane with smoke when in fact a precautionary descent while simultaneously diagnosing the problem could of been done.
# From any point along the Swissair Flight 111 flight path after the initial odour in the cockpit, the time required to complete an approach and landing to the Halifax International Airport would have exceeded the time available before the fire-related conditions in the aircraft cockpit would have precluded a safe landing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aadrvark2zz,
Chuck Yeager? What does that mean? I assume you mean - throw out the checklists, knee jerk react, improvise and 'go for it'. I don't think that Chuck Yeager ever did a 'Chuck Yeager'. He was a well trained test pilot dealing with risky situations and for all of his swagger I am sure that he was well briefed, studied and professional in his approach.
As for the Swiss Air situation: Yes if they proceded to YHZ at 100% at first sign they may have made it. Or they may have crashed in the communities of Dartmouth or Bedford in the latter stages of the approach when the flight deck environment was unbareable.
As a commercial airline pilot I do not assume the first hint of smoke or a tripped circuit breaker is the genesis of a catastrophic situation. I analyse. I have smelled smoke on numerous occasions that turned out to be some paper in the oven. Should I have made an emergency landing at the nearest airport? I have had an inverter burn out with smoke in the flight deck - donned masks, proceded towards an airport and completed checklists. I have had a circuit breaker trip in flight. Should I have made and emergency landing assuming this was the start of something really bad? No I assumed the breaker was functioning normally and protecting a circuit from a short. I don't reset the breaker and I follow a checklist. The Swiss pilots did the same. They reacted in an analytical way and did what most professional commercial airline pilots would do.
As for ditching in the ocean. At night, strangers to the area, over the coast with not many lights for perspective in a hostile cockpit environment - poor chance. This was pointed out.
There are no fields of opportunity to land in the Halifax area. It is rough rocky shore with dense wooded inland areas.
These are points the investigators highlighted. Given the situation and circumstances the crew did their best.
It is always easy to armchair quarter back.
A310
Chuck Yeager? What does that mean? I assume you mean - throw out the checklists, knee jerk react, improvise and 'go for it'. I don't think that Chuck Yeager ever did a 'Chuck Yeager'. He was a well trained test pilot dealing with risky situations and for all of his swagger I am sure that he was well briefed, studied and professional in his approach.
As for the Swiss Air situation: Yes if they proceded to YHZ at 100% at first sign they may have made it. Or they may have crashed in the communities of Dartmouth or Bedford in the latter stages of the approach when the flight deck environment was unbareable.
As a commercial airline pilot I do not assume the first hint of smoke or a tripped circuit breaker is the genesis of a catastrophic situation. I analyse. I have smelled smoke on numerous occasions that turned out to be some paper in the oven. Should I have made an emergency landing at the nearest airport? I have had an inverter burn out with smoke in the flight deck - donned masks, proceded towards an airport and completed checklists. I have had a circuit breaker trip in flight. Should I have made and emergency landing assuming this was the start of something really bad? No I assumed the breaker was functioning normally and protecting a circuit from a short. I don't reset the breaker and I follow a checklist. The Swiss pilots did the same. They reacted in an analytical way and did what most professional commercial airline pilots would do.
As for ditching in the ocean. At night, strangers to the area, over the coast with not many lights for perspective in a hostile cockpit environment - poor chance. This was pointed out.
There are no fields of opportunity to land in the Halifax area. It is rough rocky shore with dense wooded inland areas.
These are points the investigators highlighted. Given the situation and circumstances the crew did their best.
It is always easy to armchair quarter back.
A310
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Bishops Stortford
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's an excellent audio-video feature of the Swisair 111 investigation at the CBC website: http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/swissair_feature.html#
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aardvark2zz. It seems regardless of what the TSB of Canada concluded from months of investigation, you have a VERY considered opinion to state. It is always easy to be critical after the fact and about people who are not around anymore to defend their decisions made under it appears very difficult circumstances. Hopefully you will never be put in the situation to prove what a Hot Shot "Chuck Yaeger" you actually are!
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video
19 F,
If that is the same thing shown a few times on various Swiss TV stations, then it answers all the questions and accusations made here. The situation was hopeless and the runway could not have been reached before the ship became unflyable.
By the way, this was not Swissair's first experience of smoke;
Coronado lost after terrorist device caused smoke after takeoff from cargo hold - last words - we cannot see the instruments - we are crashing - goodbye everyone. This particular case MAY have been rescuable with quicker action.
MD-80 with heavy smoke in cockpit and subsequent landing in MUC in almost blind conditions. This was caused by a short to the emergency power switch which could have only been disconnected by a crewmember descending through the small hatch to the EE compartment and pulling th 80A CB by the battery - if they had known. Try that by the way with the other pilot flying on minimum panel and fixed stabilizer, with your smoke mask and goggles on!
As a result of that incident the checklist philosophy was changed from the FAA approved "try this and wait""try that and wait" version, to the MDC "switch off everything and build up again as smoke clears" philosophy. It was printed in thick letters at the very back of the checklist (QRH) where it could be easily found and began with the words "consider immediate diversion" or similar.
The MD-80 fleet got sold and the lessons learned were rather filtered as they reached the rest of the fleet.
If that is the same thing shown a few times on various Swiss TV stations, then it answers all the questions and accusations made here. The situation was hopeless and the runway could not have been reached before the ship became unflyable.
By the way, this was not Swissair's first experience of smoke;
Coronado lost after terrorist device caused smoke after takeoff from cargo hold - last words - we cannot see the instruments - we are crashing - goodbye everyone. This particular case MAY have been rescuable with quicker action.
MD-80 with heavy smoke in cockpit and subsequent landing in MUC in almost blind conditions. This was caused by a short to the emergency power switch which could have only been disconnected by a crewmember descending through the small hatch to the EE compartment and pulling th 80A CB by the battery - if they had known. Try that by the way with the other pilot flying on minimum panel and fixed stabilizer, with your smoke mask and goggles on!
As a result of that incident the checklist philosophy was changed from the FAA approved "try this and wait""try that and wait" version, to the MDC "switch off everything and build up again as smoke clears" philosophy. It was printed in thick letters at the very back of the checklist (QRH) where it could be easily found and began with the words "consider immediate diversion" or similar.
The MD-80 fleet got sold and the lessons learned were rather filtered as they reached the rest of the fleet.
