Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:50 pm

1989worstyear wrote:

I will NEVER fly or tell anyone to fly on a Kapton-wired aircraft.


How would you know?
 
EAARbrat
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:39 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:55 am

I would like to know if the crew had immediately focused on getting on the ground would it have been possible. Smoke/fire means get on the ground immediately! The MD11, considering its freight hauling chops, could likely have easily handled an over weight passenger flight landing and in the end an over weight inspection would have been a minor irritation in comparison to the ultimate horrific loss!
AB4,6 318 319 320 321 333 342 B703 712 721 722 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 741 742 74D 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 CR2 7 9 10 D91 93 94 95 101 E135 145 170 190 L10 M80 81 82 83 87 88 M90 Q400

AA AC AF AR CO CL DL EA F9 KE LH NW N7 PA TW WN UA
 
FlapsOne
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:13 pm

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:44 am

EAARbrat wrote:
I would like to know if the crew had immediately focused on getting on the ground would it have been possible. Smoke/fire means get on the ground immediately! The MD11, considering its freight hauling chops, could likely have easily handled an over weight passenger flight landing and in the end an over weight inspection would have been a minor irritation in comparison to the ultimate horrific loss!


We know a lot better nowadays. Airliners and airframers have improved their handling of such events.

Airbus are clear and that is if there's smoke or fire and it's not immediately identified where the smoke is from (ie an oven, electronic flight bag or a pax screen) then you're immediately into a divert along with associated actions.

I had a fume event myself and within seconds we had done a 180, were in a rapid decent toward the nearest suitable runway at high speed with aspects of the smoke and fumes QRH completed but we were under no misconception that getting on the deck ASAP was the priority.

I believe there was a lot more faff and a grip of the non essential in the days of SR111.

As it happens the source of my incident was never found and the APU, TRs, cabin fans and all of the usual main smoke and fume sources were replaced and pack burn offs completed and there's been no feoccurance.
 
EAARbrat
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:39 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:46 pm

FlapsOne wrote:
We know a lot better nowadays. Airliners and airframers have improved their handling of such events.

Airbus are clear and that is if there's smoke or fire and it's not immediately identified where the smoke is from (ie an oven, electronic flight bag or a pax screen) then you're immediately into a divert along with associated actions.

I had a fume event myself and within seconds we had done a 180, were in a rapid decent toward the nearest suitable runway at high speed with aspects of the smoke and fumes QRH completed but we were under no misconception that getting on the deck ASAP was the priority.

I believe there was a lot more faff and a grip of the non essential in the days of SR111.

As it happens the source of my incident was never found and the APU, TRs, cabin fans and all of the usual main smoke and fume sources were replaced and pack burn offs completed and there's been no feoccurance.


Scary! Glad to hear it worked out safely and weird they couldn't find anything. That is frustrating especially since it could pop up again.

Sadly there was waaaay to much following of the checklists and unnecessary procedural nonesense. Being Swiss myself I understand the affliction of following the book and doing everything to a tee but in the case of fire its just fool hardy! I would really like to see a sim test/data for an immediate diversion and fuel dump within the first minute/two of smelling smoke. I think they would all be here today had this been done...
AB4,6 318 319 320 321 333 342 B703 712 721 722 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 741 742 74D 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 CR2 7 9 10 D91 93 94 95 101 E135 145 170 190 L10 M80 81 82 83 87 88 M90 Q400

AA AC AF AR CO CL DL EA F9 KE LH NW N7 PA TW WN UA
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:59 pm

EAARbrat wrote:
I would like to know if the crew had immediately focused on getting on the ground would it have been possible. Smoke/fire means get on the ground immediately! The MD11, considering its freight hauling chops, could likely have easily handled an over weight passenger flight landing and in the end an over weight inspection would have been a minor irritation in comparison to the ultimate horrific loss!

As always noted when discussing this accident and even noted earlier in this thread, a theoretical earliest landing time was calculated. This was a direct to and land time at the closest airport, Halifax. They lost control of the aircraft 3 minutes before this time.

So even if they were "focused" (?) on getting on the ground, it would not have been possible unless they chose to land on the water or on land off airport.

Read this entire thread. In fact, someone above linked to the TSB report. Read that too ... it's all there.
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:00 pm

EAARbrat wrote:
I think they would all be here today had this been done...


You think incorrectly.
 
DDR
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:21 pm

Sadly SR 111 was doomed. From all the test scenarios that were conducted, once the fire was confirmed, it was too late. There wasn't much more that Captain Zimmermann and First Officer Löw could have done differently. I have always felt bad for this crew. They were in the position where there really was nothing they could do to save the flight. I suspect they knew this after a few minutes. I personally believe they may have tried to end the suffering of those onboard, much like I believe the Valujet crew did.
 
EAARbrat
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:39 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:51 am

CrewBunk wrote:
As always noted when discussing this accident and even noted earlier in this thread, a theoretical earliest landing time was calculated. This was a direct to and land time at the closest airport, Halifax. They lost control of the aircraft 3 minutes before this time.

So even if they were "focused" (?) on getting on the ground, it would not have been possible unless they chose to land on the water or on land off airport.

Read this entire thread. In fact, someone above linked to the TSB report. Read that too ... it's all there.


All read, read years ago when it was issued. So reading the "entire" thread was unnecessary although I did read it.

Theoretically calculated based on within the manufacturers envelope control characteristics. Never say never! Look the UA Sioux City accident as others couldn't even get as far as the accident flight crew in the sim.

So in the end its "NOT" all there as this was purely a conjecture question/comment. Flying outside the box is absolutely possible, unfortunately they didn't and couldn't have known attempting something at that level might have been necessary. Nonetheless my curiosity is based on what could/might have be possible.
AB4,6 318 319 320 321 333 342 B703 712 721 722 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 741 742 74D 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 CR2 7 9 10 D91 93 94 95 101 E135 145 170 190 L10 M80 81 82 83 87 88 M90 Q400

AA AC AF AR CO CL DL EA F9 KE LH NW N7 PA TW WN UA
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:09 pm

EAARbrat wrote:
So in the end its "NOT" all there as this was purely a conjecture question/comment. Flying outside the box is absolutely possible, unfortunately they didn't and couldn't have known attempting something at that level might have been necessary. Nonetheless my curiosity is based on what could/might have be possible.

I have to assume you are not a pilot. Getting to the closest airport is simple physics. You have distance to cover and you have energy to manage/burn. There is not much "outside the box" or "by the seat of your pants", that is going to get you there any quicker. When the TSB calculated the quickest time to YHZ, they assumed MMO/VMO to 10 miles on final, quick configuration, then land. Even I am suspicious that their estimate was even possible as VMO to 0 in 10 miles would be pretty tough.

But I think your comments are valid. But not for why you think ...

I lived in Switzerland for 4 years, many years ago attending school. The "Swiss attention to detail" is well known and infuriating at times. I had often wondered if the Swiss thought "doing it right" was more important than actually getting the task done! If one did not know what actually happened on SR111 that night, one might fear that was the case. But trust me, as molten aluminum started to drip on the pilots' laps, "attention to detail" was tossed out the window!

Control of the aircraft was starting to be lost about 5 minutes before they hit the water. Flight controls were the last to go, but a lot of other ancillary controls were first lost. Things like speed brakes, flaps/slats, stabilizer trim, for example. The TSB mentions that also wheel brakes and reverse thrust were already lost, just not used as they never made it that far.

As someone mentioned above, their only option would have been to put it down on the water, while still in control. And ... as things degraded so quickly, even that probably would not have been successful.

So in my opinion, your comments/thoughts are vaild, they just don't apply in this case. That night, there really was no way to get the aircraft to YHZ in time. And for the record, they didn't "just miss it", they would have needed quite a bit more time than they had.

Also note. As a result of this accident, (and a few more), line one of the smoke/fumes checklist, in bold print, at three times the font size is the line "Initiate diversion to the closest airport". ATC is advised. The cabin is advised. The FMS is programmed and set up. Then ... and only then, does the checklist continue.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
EAARbrat
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:39 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:41 am

Thank you for your response! :)
AB4,6 318 319 320 321 333 342 B703 712 721 722 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 741 742 74D 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 CR2 7 9 10 D91 93 94 95 101 E135 145 170 190 L10 M80 81 82 83 87 88 M90 Q400

AA AC AF AR CO CL DL EA F9 KE LH NW N7 PA TW WN UA
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:27 am

EAARbrat wrote:
I would like to know if the crew had immediately focused on getting on the ground would it have been possible. Smoke/fire means get on the ground immediately! The MD11, considering its freight hauling chops, could likely have easily handled an over weight passenger flight landing and in the end an over weight inspection would have been a minor irritation in comparison to the ultimate horrific loss!


The MD11 isn't landed overweight for freight operations.
 
hitower3
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:21 am

1989worstyear wrote:
I will NEVER fly or tell anyone to fly on a Kapton-wired aircraft.


Dear 1989,

In this case, you should stop flying altogether. Kapton is found in every single commercial jetliner since the 1960 to this date.

Best regards,
Hendric
 
KICT
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:45 am

Where is the wreckage now? Was it retained like TWA800?
People are saying. Believe me.
 
aussieben
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:28 am

I've also always been haunted by this crash. I live in Australia but I'm very proud of my Swiss heritage, I always held Swissair in the same esteem as Qantas as far as their safety record goes. I remember when it happened I was immediately of course shocked and saddened but also almost in disbelief. This couldn't possibly happen to Swissair. They're just one of those airlines that don't crash.

Of course they have had a few crashes over the years - but still few and far between compared to most other major carriers. Beaten on safety record probably only by Hawaiian airlines, Finnair, Qantas and Aer Lingus that I can think of off the top of my head. There are probably others.

Being Swiss I appreciate the precision and attention to detail. It is much more apparent in my father than it is in me. It can be charming and yes at times can be infuriating.

However re: the debate weather they could have made it to airport is reasonably debunked - but for one item - that everyone seems to overlook - so I just thought I'd ask. Please be aware I'm an enthusiast - not a pilot - so please feel free to correct me:

Turning off the cabin bus switch.

This was an item on the checklist and the captain, having declared a PAN was going through the checklist - they were descending and preparing for a fuel dump. Things were reasonably urgent but under control. However it seemed that turning off the cabin bus switch may have had the affect of creating some kind of vacuum or other affect that concentrated and intensified the fire in the ceiling of the flight deck. It seemed up until this occurring - there was smoke, but no visible threat of fire. It was then changed from a PAN to a mayday in a matter of seconds. Autopilot was lost - the captain became incapacitated trying to fight the flames and the first officer was unable to use instruments and probably became disorientated and incapacitated in the final few minutes.

I think knowing what they knew - the crew did everything they could to heroically try and save the aircraft. I don't wish to take away from their efforts, their memory, or the memories of all those who so sadly perished. May they all rest in peace.

Hindsight being what it is. Had they started an immediate/emergency descent. (idle thrust/speed brakes etc - not sure of physics) maybe accompanied by a simultaneous fuel dump under full emergency declaration and NOT turned off the cabin bus switch. i.e. don't worry about checklist - just fly the plane to the quickest way for getting safety to Halifax ASAP - would they have made it?

I realise this is just a theory and hindsight cannot reverse such a tragedy. There's no way the crew could have known exactly what not to do as they're becoming aware of things in very short order. I also realise turning off the cabin bus switch wasn't the start of their problems, however I do think it inadvertently accelerated events to an extent where they were quickly overwhelmed. I may be (and probably am) completely wrong. However I would be interested if anyone has any thoughts on this.
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:02 am

The MD11 has two controls located adjacent to one another; one is a square switch, labeled CAB BUS. That switch opens the remote control circuit breaker and removes power from all the cabin busses; it's a rapid way of removing power from all the busses, including galley, serving everything aft of the cockpit. That's all it does. It does not create a vacuum. In fact, nothing on the panel will create a vacuum.

The other switch is a rotary switch directly above the CAB BUS switch. The rotary switch is called the SMOKE ELEC/AIR switch, and is a selector that serves two purposes at once. It has four positions: NORM, 3/1 OFF, 2/3 OFF, and 1/2 OFF.

In the NORM position, all power is normal; whether the electrical system is in auto or manual mode. All generator relays, bus ties, DC remote control circuit breakers, aux power, etc, are functioning normally.

In the 3/1 OFF position, Generator 3 is taken off line and associated relays and ties are opened, as well as the galley 3 bus. Air conditioning pack 1 is off, and it's associated bleed air is shut off. The First Officer looses his display units; the others go full bright.

In the 2/3 OFF position, generator 3 is returned to operational as is Pack 1. Generator 2 is taken off line along with associated relays and busses, and bleed system 3 and pack 3 are disabled.

In the 1/2 OFF position, Generator 2 and Pack 3 are restored, but Generator 1 and bleed system 2 and Pack 2 are disabled.

This switch is used for rapid troubleshooting of systems during a smoke situation when it's unknown if bleed air or electrical is causing the problem. Note that None of these positions cause a vacuum, and given at least two bleed sources available for pressure at all times, none of those positions shut off air to the cabin. They're seeking to eliminate the bleed system as a source of smoke. The Smoke/Fire/Fumes checklist calls for the switches to remain in each respective position for up to 2 minutes, but that if smoke increases, to go immediately to the next position. The procedure also states that an immediate landing should be considered if the smoke or fire becomes uncontrollable. It calls for the crew to consider landing overweight, with a tailwind, off airport, or ditching.

The problem in the case of Swiss Air 111 was that there was insufficient time to do anything; the aircraft was burning too quickly.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9348
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:14 am

DDR wrote:
Sadly SR 111 was doomed. From all the test scenarios that were conducted, once the fire was confirmed, it was too late. There wasn't much more that Captain Zimmermann and First Officer Löw could have done differently.


would reduced oxygen via depressurizing the fuselage have been any help in extending time available?
Murphy is an optimist
 
aussieben
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:18 pm

747Whale wrote:
The problem in the case of Swiss Air 111 was that there was insufficient time to do anything; the aircraft was burning too quickly.


Vacuum might be the wrong word I used. By a vacuum, I mean I think I heard or read somewhere that when they turned the cabin bus switch, it did something to isolate the electrical systems, so that every section behind the flight deck was isolated electrically, Somehow this then served to fan the flames and concentrate the fire to the area of the flight deck.

However this was at or close to the source of the fire anyway. So thank you for your explanation. This answers my question to the extent that the item on the checklist and the acceleration of the emergency seemed to be coincidental. It didn't make a difference in prolonging the potential for the aircraft to remain flyable or not incapacitate the crew.

WIederling wrote:
would reduced oxygen via depressurizing the fuselage have been any help in extending time available?


I seem to recall a similar matter in the case of SA295 in 1987. They depressurised and opened the door mid flight to try to rid the cabin of smoke etc. I think it worked momentarily, but then that aircraft sadly broke apart after being inundated with fire. Only real difference was this fire was in the cabin itself, In SR111 the fire was behind the flight deck ceiling panels.

Either way, it seems both flights were tragically unrecoverable from the moment the emergency started.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:34 pm

aussieben wrote:
I seem to recall a similar matter in the case of SA295 in 1987. They depressurised and opened the door mid flight to try to rid the cabin of smoke etc. I think it worked momentarily, but then that aircraft sadly broke apart after being inundated with fire. Only real difference was this fire was in the cabin itself, In SR111 the fire was behind the flight deck ceiling panels.

Either way, it seems both flights were tragically unrecoverable from the moment the emergency started.


I mentioned this accident above, as in my opinion, it was the closest to SR111. Not just in the severity of the fire, but also in that in those two cases, the crew would have been better off ditching while still in control. Moreso with South African, as they had more time. But, that is a huge and difficult decision to make. And a decision that in reality can only be made correctly after months of study!!

The "smoke evacuation" procedure noted also is a tough decision. Namely, to use it, one has to assume the fire is out, as it does add more oxygen to the cabin environment. But in a last ditch effort, moving smoke from front to back, it may give the cockpit a minute or two more time to get the boat on the ground.

Our last passenger fatality (touching wood here) was AC797 in 1983. You would be surprised how many procedures, how much training we do and how thought has changed internally as a result of that accident ... even today. When they landed in CVG, it was estimated that they were within a minute of losing control of the aircraft!!!

But the point I am making though, is that when landing they were in a "smoke evacuation" configuration. But ... seconds after opening the doors the flash fire killed all of those not immediately beside an exit. So the smoke evacuation configuration may not add as much oxygen to the cabin as one might think.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
747Whale
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:31 pm

I'm a long-time firefighter, including some years doing structures, and in that time, 30-50 trips through a flashover simulator. When I say simulator, it's not entirely correct, as ww experienced a couple hundred flashovers, and came out with helmets hot enough to burn hands and even the air in our tanks painfully hot, and occasionally masks crazed over. It was hot. Just set up to be surviveable, whereas a flashover in a structure fire (or fuselage) is not.

In a flashover, the atmosphere is rich in fuel; smoke burns, but if the mixture isn't right, if there's insufficient oxygen, it waits for the room to be ventilated, and when the right amount of oxygen enters, the room is already primed to burn, already smoldering, and it goes. It's something you will probably never see in your lifetime. It's incredibly beautiful, but very deadly. The air around you begins to burn, streaks of flame shooting this way and that, "snakes" of flame, the atmosphere around you simply catching fire in flashes and waves, and then everything explodes, bursts into flame , seemingly coming from nowhere as the entire room flashes over. Unless the room is designed for it and you're in the right place in that room, it will killl you. If you're in fire gear and stand up, it will burn the gear right off your body, even in the simulator, and can go through 2,000 degrees very, very quickly, depending on the environment.

Vent a room or space that's hot and ready to go, and you. may as well have thrown in gasoline and a grenade.

I vented a window on a structure fire once, using an axe handle, and cleared the glass on the frame. It vented the room and it flashed, melting glass on the other side, and crazed over the mask of a firefighter outside the window. It melted the rubber on his mask, and he was just outside the room.

Those inside such a room are usually going to be in bad shape, if alive at all, long before it flashes, but it's possible to be alive and seeking escape, and to open a door and initiate the flash. Typically when vented, the smoke goes back into the room; it may pull, then take a breath, drawing in fresh air, before the flash. Firefighters sometimes refer to the structure breathing when that happens, and it's a sign that things are about to go. The fire then vents out the opening.

It's one of the reasons that if we make an emergency landing with a cargo fire, we instruct fire personnel to not open the lower cargo areas until we're out, because opening them will likely cause the fire to increase, rapidly and we want people out.

When the structure, fuselage, compartment, etc, is vented, oxygen enters there, but right after that, the fire moves toward that opening or vent, or if a vent is elsewhere, it sets up a path like a blowtorch between the two. Anyone who has ever blown into the base of a camp fire gets the picture.
 
aussieben
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:35 am

747Whale wrote:
I'm a long-time firefighter, including some years doing structures, and in that time, 30-50 trips through a flashover simulator. When I say simulator, it's not entirely correct, as ww experienced a couple hundred flashovers, and came out with helmets hot enough to burn hands and even the air in our tanks painfully hot, and occasionally masks crazed over. It was hot. Just set up to be surviveable, whereas a flashover in a structure fire (or fuselage) is not.

In a flashover, the atmosphere is rich in fuel; smoke burns, but if the mixture isn't right, if there's insufficient oxygen, it waits for the room to be ventilated, and when the right amount of oxygen enters, the room is already primed to burn, already smoldering, and it goes. It's something you will probably never see in your lifetime. It's incredibly beautiful, but very deadly. The air around you begins to burn, streaks of flame shooting this way and that, "snakes" of flame, the atmosphere around you simply catching fire in flashes and waves, and then everything explodes, bursts into flame , seemingly coming from nowhere as the entire room flashes over. Unless the room is designed for it and you're in the right place in that room, it will killl you. If you're in fire gear and stand up, it will burn the gear right off your body, even in the simulator, and can go through 2,000 degrees very, very quickly, depending on the environment.

Vent a room or space that's hot and ready to go, and you. may as well have thrown in gasoline and a grenade.

I vented a window on a structure fire once, using an axe handle, and cleared the glass on the frame. It vented the room and it flashed, melting glass on the other side, and crazed over the mask of a firefighter outside the window. It melted the rubber on his mask, and he was just outside the room.

Those inside such a room are usually going to be in bad shape, if alive at all, long before it flashes, but it's possible to be alive and seeking escape, and to open a door and initiate the flash. Typically when vented, the smoke goes back into the room; it may pull, then take a breath, drawing in fresh air, before the flash. Firefighters sometimes refer to the structure breathing when that happens, and it's a sign that things are about to go. The fire then vents out the opening.

It's one of the reasons that if we make an emergency landing with a cargo fire, we instruct fire personnel to not open the lower cargo areas until we're out, because opening them will likely cause the fire to increase, rapidly and we want people out.

When the structure, fuselage, compartment, etc, is vented, oxygen enters there, but right after that, the fire moves toward that opening or vent, or if a vent is elsewhere, it sets up a path like a blowtorch between the two. Anyone who has ever blown into the base of a camp fire gets the picture.


Thank you. You've explained much better and more expertly the theory I was trying to make in my earlier posts. The smoke was originating from the air conditioning vent at the rear of the flight deck. I was basically wanting to know if turning off the cabin bus switch would have intensified or caused a flash over. Bearing in mind that the plane went from under control with smoke in the flight deck to burning out of control (on the flight deck at least) within a matter of seconds.

In your earlier post you provided an in depth explanation in to the functions of the cabin bus switch. I'm satisfied that is not what caused the fire to accelerate. However what occurred happened in the flight deck, from the air conditioning vent and source of smoke. It seems remarkably like your definition of a flashover.

The only question then is: Could anything have been done to prevent the fire intensifying so quickly? Sadly I think not.
 
Galvan316
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:43 pm

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:19 pm

Im not an expert by any stretch of anything.

But could the extension of the gear in a theoretical landing scenario could cause a situation like Nation Air 2120?
ORD and MDW is where youll find Me!
 
EAARbrat
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:39 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:10 am

No fire in that area so no but could have helped in an extraordinary attempt to drop speed and altitude.
AB4,6 318 319 320 321 333 342 B703 712 721 722 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 741 742 74D 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 CR2 7 9 10 D91 93 94 95 101 E135 145 170 190 L10 M80 81 82 83 87 88 M90 Q400

AA AC AF AR CO CL DL EA F9 KE LH NW N7 PA TW WN UA
 
EAARbrat
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:39 am

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:49 am

747Whale wrote:
The MD11 has two controls located adjacent to one another; one is a square switch, labeled CAB BUS. That switch opens the remote control circuit breaker and removes power from all the cabin busses; it's a rapid way of removing power from all the busses, including galley, serving everything aft of the cockpit. That's all it does. It does not create a vacuum. In fact, nothing on the panel will create a vacuum.


The fixation on the term vacuum seems to be the error in the first place. The description or descriptor was simply beyond the previous posters reach and I don't mean that derogatorily. What was clearly stated in the investigation was that turning the buss off had the effect of shutting everything down in the cabin except the overheating/burning/smoldering IFE which without the A/C working was free to expand its flash over exponentially.

Curiosity refuses to let me stop wondering that if the moment they smelled the smoke they immediately strapped in, donned the O2 madks, told the cabin to button down, declared a full emergency, picked Halifax or maybe a local military base (may not have been any alternates prior to ir beyond Halifax), proverbially stuck all the hands out and manuevered with one goal of descent and speed reduction (speed brakes, landing gear, side slip, etc, etc, etc.) and started dumping fuel. None of sadly time wasting in turns they did, might a fast, hard and overweight landing have occurred.with Gods blessing being successful woukd have fir the most part resulted in an overweight inspection

I've heard stories up to the Gimli Glider and after Air Transat intobthe Azores our with Sully that talk about non-standard flying saving the day. Or even I little creative fun for posterities sake. My own father told me one where a former WWII Luftwaffe pilot then working for Air France as a 707 Captain in the 60's was curious to see if the altitude, configuration, weight and meteorological conditions would allow him to litterally glide (idle setting) from YUL to PHL. The weather was right and ATC cooperated and allowed a direct in, so away they went and completed this what you could call stunt safely and unbeknownst to cabin crew and passengers. It saved a alot of fuel to the dispatchers, including my Dad, delight. All of this with none of todays advanced computer modeling.

Older is not necessarily better and newer is certainly not worse but the older generations were much more as one with their aircraft and able to fly by the seat of their pants.
AB4,6 318 319 320 321 333 342 B703 712 721 722 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 741 742 74D 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 CR2 7 9 10 D91 93 94 95 101 E135 145 170 190 L10 M80 81 82 83 87 88 M90 Q400

AA AC AF AR CO CL DL EA F9 KE LH NW N7 PA TW WN UA
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Swissair 111 crash 20 years ago

Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:06 am

hitower3 wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:
I will NEVER fly or tell anyone to fly on a Kapton-wired aircraft.


Dear 1989,

In this case, you should stop flying altogether. Kapton is found in every single commercial jetliner since the 1960 to this date.

Best regards,
Hendric


Not quite. Boeing banned it around '92, and AB phased it out in the mid 2000's.

There are modern insulation types that still use Kapton as a layer that the OEM's currently use, but this actually complies with the actual JAR smoke and tox requirements.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos