Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Swissair 111 Accident Report  
User currently offlineMarkBoston From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 74 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3868 times:



In the Swissair 111 accident report issued yesterday, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada indicated that the fire started with an "arcing event" in wires located above the cockpit ceiling. I could not find anything in the report to explain why an arcing event occurred.

Does the report explain why an arcing event occurred on this flight?

What causes "arcing"?

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3799 times:

Arcing occurs when voltage differential between surfaces is elevated to a point where electron flow is possible.

The criteria for this to occur can be affected by the distance between the surfaces, and the insulation factor of the gas or other medium the two surfaces share.

Once conduction is started it is often aided by an ionized gas formed around the arc.

The result is burning of the conducting surfaces (wires) and the surrounding material.

In the aircraft industry, the common usage of the term "arcing" can also mean the sparks generated by conducting surfaces rubbing against one another when the insulation breaks down either by wear or damage. This is most likely the type of arcing the report was meant to describe because the voltages used in aircraft electrical distribution systems don't typically "arc" due to the relatively low voltages.

Kapton wire insulation used in the MD11 and other aircraft is made from a film which is wrapped around the wire rather than extruded. Water can sometimes contaminate the insulation by getting trapped between layers of the wrapping. This is called "hyrdorlyzation" among wire geeks! Tiny currents in the trapped water cause ionization of the Kapton and slowly break it down. Eventually the material turns to carbon and creates additional current paths and heat. This leads to further breakdown of the insulation until you get "arcing" between conductors.

Long story huh?

I guess I'm bored....


User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3699 times:

I swear I just read an article somewhere (USA Today, maybe?) that implied that the aftermarket inflight enterainment system was somehow to blame?

User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3688 times:

Living and working in Switzerland, this is big news here. Additionally, I work for SWISS, which has big connections with the former Swissair.

Basically, the IFE system was blamed for faulty wiring, which led to the arcing so well described by Airplay above. Then the aircraft insulation started on fire and was basically out of control before the pilots could do anything.

This scenario is every pilot's worst nightmare. The cockpit was most probably a raging inferno at the end. The pilots tried to keep the plane flying but at the end could not because all systems to keep the wings level and the speed up were destroyed.

Interestingly, the report indicates that the pilots almost certainly could not have landed safely even if they had diverted to Halifax immediately upon smelling the smoke. This runs in the face of the "armchair" pilots here in Switzerland who claim that they should have been able to land if they were not so hung up on following their checklists and troubleshooting procedures.

The fact is that the pilots did their best in a doomed situation. A lot has been learned from this and hopefully MD-11 safety will be increased as a result. Unfortunately, the MD-11 got a bad rap from this when it was really the fault of the IFE system and not the MD-11 per se.

Just my $.02



smrtrthnu
User currently offline707fan From Norway, joined Jun 2001, 36 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3539 times:

If the report is published on internet, could someone give me the link to the site ?

User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X11037&key=1

Here's what's on the NTSB site so far



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineRadarbeam From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 1310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3485 times:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/01report/index.asp Here is the full report by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada

User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3443 times:

Last night I saw a good show on this by the CBC. The point that the TSB kept stressing was that the arcing, while the lead event, was not the biggest problem. Wires chafe and short and arc in a/c on a regular basis. Trust me, I've spent the last 17 years in avionics, repairing such problems. The biggest finding was that the insulation was previously certified as non flammable by a flawed test by the FAA. The show last night showed the tests done on this material, and it burned quite well. It was the covering that was burning, not the insulating material itself. Also, silicone plugs used to close off airconditioning ducts burned easily as well, allowing the smoke to be drawn into the ducting system. This combined with no fire detection equipment other than the human nose, and the hidden nature of the fire above the cabin ceiling, allowed it to progress for far too long before it became apparent ot the crew. As Saab2000 said, the crew appeared to have acted properly given what they knew, and even had they diverted immediately, would have been too high or too fast and heavy to land had they tried to do so.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Swissair 111 Accident Report
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Help Deciphering An Ntsb Accident Report posted Sat Jan 3 2004 01:26:11 by Garnetpalmetto
Accident Report posted Tue Oct 15 2002 09:02:18 by Saintsman
Ntsb Report Into Southwest Accident posted Fri Aug 16 2002 15:24:42 by AJ
Ntsb Report - Giii Accident / Kase posted Thu Jun 20 2002 02:09:38 by Jetguy
747-400 LAX-LHR 3 Engine Flight Report Now Out. posted Thu Jun 8 2006 20:30:37 by JulianUK
What Happens To The Air Carrier After The Accident posted Thu Jun 8 2006 04:50:24 by Nanjack
Fuel Cutoff Accident? posted Mon May 1 2006 18:10:34 by 747LUVR
More Stupid Qs - Bumping Controls By Accident posted Fri Jan 20 2006 00:16:16 by TimePilot
Help In Decoding A Metar Report posted Sat Nov 19 2005 23:55:04 by Julesmusician
Accident Statistics - Links posted Thu Oct 27 2005 05:44:10 by HAWK21M

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format