PBS will be showing a show on Swissair's crash of flight 111. Here is summary that I got from our local PBS station here in Chicago

>Nova "Crash of Flight 111"
On September 2, 1998, Swissair Flight 111 plummeted into the sea off Nova Scotia while en route from New York to Geneva. All 229 people on board died. In May of 2003, Canada's Transportation Safety Board published its final conclusions from an investigation that took more than four years and cost $30 million. NOVA's cameras were there from the beginning, revealing the inside story of one of the most baffling and intricate aviation investigations ever mounted. <

The show will be on Tuesday 2/17 at 8p.m. here in Chicago. For everyone else in the U.S. you have to check your local PBS station to see when it will be on.

I think it's 8pm for every PBS station I live In Hawaii and it's coming on at 8pm Hawaiian Time

There was a programme on it in the UK several weeks ago. It was done in the form of a reconstruction form inside the cockpit. Very disturbing, but well made.
Craig.

Should be an interesting watch.... is this a new broadcast, or a rerun of one from circa 1998/1999?

To answer my own question, yes this is a new broadcast... and it's at 7pm for us in Central time.

The show you saw in the UK was the National Geographic one. This is made by NOVA and a program just for U.S. viewers on PBS. I had a post about this last week when I got word from a family member who works for PBS.

I have seen that show. Looks a combination of pilot error and ATC error
caused that plane to crash. Looks like they could have landed that plane
if there wasn't so much second guessing.

PIA777

Looks a combination of pilot error and ATC error caused that plane to crash.

The raging fire which burned through the flight controls might have had something to do with it as well.... not sure though

This oughta be interesting...have not seen a TV show about plane crashes since I saw a video about Flight 800 a few years ago. Does PBS plan to ever show a video about American Airlines Flight 191? Or about Pan Am Flight 103?

Well, I would like to see that but seeing as there is no possible way that I can, I hope there is a DVD produced by Nova.

@PIA777
"I have seen that show. Looks a combination of pilot error and ATC error
caused that plane to crash. Looks like they could have landed that plane
if there wasn't so much second guessing."

If you take your time to read the report on this link http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1762_en
you'll see that there is a broad discussion of whether they could have made it or not, and the conclusion is, that the time was simply too short........ ATC did a good job, and so did the pilots. The blame goes mostly on the installation and certification procedures of the fancy IFE system.

Cheers, Thomas

There was a detailed documentary about SR111 crash on air a couple of month ago here in Switzerland. It was co-produced by Swiss TV and a Canadian Station. If they show this one - it's defenately worth watching, even though a very very sad story!

My confidence in this was somewhat diminished by the fact that the programme did not apparently know the correct IATA letter designation for Swissair.

AApilot2b

Nova usually has a dvd/vhs of their programs. So I'm guessing they will have one about this one.

Yep there was a show on sky about swiss air 111

Was very intresting and gave u alot of insight into why the crash happened and how fast the fire took hold.

Also on that night 3 hours before was a 1/2 hour show on the events surrounding pan am 103, also made very well.

Finally someone sees that it was a combiniation of errors that should have been preventable. And someone sees that they plane could have landed safely if the pilots would have not second guessed.

Many people on this fourm who have posted on this topic say that if they had not deviated to dump fuel and landed heavy that they would have not made it. Others say they were too high to even have landed at Halifax. I don't see it that way. There would have been a rough landing and yes there could have been injures or lives lost, however, there would have been less lives lost.

I am not trying to be rude or hurt anyone who lost thier loved ones in this tragic accident. However, common senese was ignored thus causing this accident.

1) Why put IFE in without testing the wiring and providing accurate cooling.
2) Why place insulation in an a/c that is flammable
3) Why second guess. Smoke = fire. In an a/c fire means land at the nearest airport and as soon as possible.

4) Why decide when you are lined up for landing in a emergency situation and your 60 miles out from landing that you need to dump fuel.

I know these are all why questions and questions after the fact, but these questions in my mind were overlooked that also caused this accident.

Once again let me say I am not trying to hurt any one. Its just a shame that it takes something like this to happen for anyone to react to it. And that is wrong.


[Edited 2004-02-16 21:26:19]

Our CEO was the CEO of Swiss Air at the time of the crash, but he doesn't like to talk about.....I guess for obvious reasons. I have a ton of questions I want to ask, but I wouldn't dare.

@Cmckeithen

If you read the official accident report (link in reply 10), you'll find the answers and the resposibles for the approval of the IFE system and so on.....

Cheers, Thomas

My 2 cents is this.... Why are ac cabin insulations still made of the same combustible material?
I thought one of the points of crash investigations was also to correct problems so they are NOT repeated?

Here's the PBS link to the show: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/

Yes you will find the requirements for approval for the IFE's, however that is the Canadian Report's veiw and requirements. Americans were on-board that flight and I am sure if this occured in the USA, a much different report would be filed as well as requirements for IFE's.

In my view, the accident occured from the fire that started from the overheating from the IFE's and the pilots error in not landing the plane as soon as he could and flying back out to dump fuel. Sometimes by the book is not the best way to handle an emergency situation.

Adequate cooling of the IFE wiring would have prevented the fire and the use of not combustable insulation would have prevented the fire from spreading.

And on and on and on. Man I get sick of reading everyones second guesses of what happened in these situations. If they would have done this, or that. They should have done this or that. No one has the right to second guess what dead people were thinking. They did what they thought was right, and it didn't work out. They did their best with the informations available in a highly stressful situation. I just hate reading second guessing. I have my reasons.

Then dont read it if it bothers you that much. Who made you God or in this case who can think what and about what regulator. Common sense was lacked in this case. I cant stand people who lack common sense. I also have my reasons.

[Edited 2004-02-17 20:22:58]

[Edited 2004-02-17 20:23:39]

I just checked and the program is on right now, in the New York area it is on Channel 13.

ConcordeBoy said: Should be an interesting watch.... is this a new broadcast, or a rerun of one from circa 1998/1999?

I remind you of what you posted on FT last year:

ConcordeBoy on FT: Does that mean no 747s/A340s/MD11s carry fire suppression? Of course not. .... Bet SwissAir wishes it had chosen to do so with its MD11s!
http://www.flyertalk.com/pasttalk/ftpasttalk_forum/Forum88/HTML/001029-2.html

I hope this show will finally educate you, so as to stop spreading your nonsense that ETOPS regulations for trijets would have prevented the accident. Pay particular attention to where the fire started.

Watching it right now ... very interesting indeed!

They all give different accounts as to what happened. Simply, fire and pilot hesitations is what caused SR111 to crash.

It was an interesting show. I knew about the arcing problems related to the Kapton wiring used on the MD-11 and a large number of western-built commerical a/c. I did not realise the other factors that were involved in the events that led to the crash. But it is sad that the recommendations by the Transportation Safety Board in Canada have pretty much fallen on deaf ears by the FAA and other aviation regulatory bodies.

@Cmckeithen

Stop this "pilot hesitation" nonsense please! Did you really read the report? Here's the most interesting point:
"During that time, the aircraft was travelling in the general direction of the Halifax International Airport at a ground speed of more than 8 nautical miles (nm) per minute. From the actual descent start point, it would not have been possible for the pilots to position the aircraft for a landing on Runway 06, without some form of off-track manoeuvre to lose altitude and slow to
the appropriate speed. In a best-case scenario, the extra manoeuvring would have added two or three minutes to the landing time. More likely, a manoeuvre such as a 360-degree turn would have been necessary, or they would have had to switch to a different runway. Either choice would have added several minutes to the earliest possible landing time, and the effects of the fire would have negated the possibility of completing a safe landing.
At about 0125, when the fire condition became distinctly evident in the cockpit, the aircraft was about 25 nm from the airport, at an altitude of about 10 000 feet, and at an airspeed of about 320 knots. It was flying in a southerly direction, away from the airport. In optimum circumstances, from that point it would have taken a minimum of about six minutes to get to the
runway.
Theoretical calculations confirm that from any point along the actual flight path after the aircraft started to descend, it would not have been possible for the pilots to continue maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and complete a landing."

And to answer this statement from you :
"Yes you will find the requirements for approval for the IFE's, however that is the Canadian Report's veiw and requirements. Americans were on-board that flight and I am sure if this occured in the USA, a much different report would be filed as well as requirements for IFE's."

Here's the comment about the certification from the report, that clears up things in my opinion:
"4.3.8 Role of the FAA’s Aircraft Evaluation Group Title 49 United States Code section 44702(d) provides the FAA Administrator with the authority to delegate matters related to the examination, testing, and inspection necessary to issue certificates as part of its type certification process. The Administrator has determined that there exist certain aspects that are not to be delegated. One such function is the role of the FAA’s Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG), which is responsible for providing operations and
maintenance input to all facets of the type certification process. For STCs, the FAA has determined that no delegate may make determinations regarding operations and maintenance issues; that role is reserved for the AEG.
For STC ST00236LA-D, the impact on the operations and maintenance of the MD-11 was determined by the STC applicant without direct AEG involvement. A survey of similar “non-essential, non-required” IFE system STCs revealed that approximately 10 per cent had been designed, installed, and certified in such a way that the flight crew could not remove electrical power from the IFE system without also interfering with essential aircraft systems. The
survey results indicate that the operational review conducted as part of the STC ST00236LA-D approval process, was not unique in not detecting operational shortfalls.
The Board is concerned that a de facto delegation of the AEG’s role has evolved with respect to the type certification process, which has resulted in less-than-adequate assessments of the operations and maintenance impact of some STCs, particularly those STCs designated as “non-essential, non-required.”"

So you really understood that the STC for the IFEN system was issued following the FAA process? How would that "different" report look like, what would it say? It's clear that the process of STC approval was clearly a contributing factor of this crash, and in my opinion the Canadian Report is clear enough stating this. I don't know if the FAA in the meantime changed the process, do you? Or does your statement imply, that the FAA corrects procedures only if they are mentioned in American reports?

Cheers, Thomas

[Edited 2004-02-18 08:35:56]

MD-11, excellent argument.
Just a general question, has the certification for IFE changed on major airlines since this catastrophe? I've been to the memorial twice before, and I hope something like this will never happen again
Hardkor

"I have seen that show. Looks a combination of pilot error and ATC error
caused that plane to crash. Looks like they could have landed that plane
if there wasn't so much second guessing."


A 777 CPT I flew with the other day told me the same thing. Actually he went even further and called the Swissair Cpt a pretty bad name and said it was all his fault and that if they hadn't wasted time trying to dump fuel they would have made it. I've never heard a pilot blame another pilot for an accident like that. (Note: This is not MY opinion, I don't know enough about it to have one. Just repeating what this guy told me.)

I'm not sure if you watched the show or not, but it did reveal some unknows to me that certianly augmented the human element in the crash. Two lessons learned by yours truly:

1. The poor quality of the auxilliary instruments in the -11 had a significant impact on the ability to visually navigate the aircraft in normal conditions...now add smoke and fire to that.

2. It appeared as though there was little or no backup instrumentation to keep the flight crew aware of attitude and altitude. The disorientation in that smoke, at night, over water could very well have led to the accidental impact into the water.

I saw it last night and found it amazing they were able to deduct as much as they did from an airplane that was so completely destroyed. Canada's TSB did a great job and deserves a lot of credit.

cheers, Ralph

I didn't see the show, but did read an interview of an investigator on the PBS website (link on a previous post). I'll try to look for a repeat of it soon. I recall this accident very well, as found out about it just after a flight EWR-Salt Lake City. To me the complexity of modern aircraft and all the whistle and bells on them today, the massive amount of electronic controls, all add to risk. Could there be something done about the wiring and insulation, either replacing or making changes to reduce risk to be done during a rehab or major check? Should there be more frequent inspections of wiring and insulation components?

This never would have occured if the IFE's were tested and intsalled properly the first time with adequate cooling for the wires. Also, the fire would have not spread so quickly had the AVIATION INDUSTRY not USED COMBUSTABLE INSULATION.

This and other documentaries mention that it took at that time 20mins to declare a fire emergency according to Swiss Air regulation. That I also feel contributed to this.

Also, the fire would have not spread so quickly had the AVIATION INDUSTRY not USED COMBUSTABLE INSULATION.


Lets not forget the fact that the FAA fast-tracked the M-M insulation to certification using methods from some thirty years past.

Thomas (MD-11 Forever): great reply, (SARCASM ON) even if the biggest part of it was copied an pasted from another source, which could have been read by some others here   (SARCASM OFF)

I saw this report last year (assuming it was the same one as discussed here). An absolutely outstanding report!!

Cheers
Gerardo

they had this on Australia's Channel 9 late last year..... i'm pretty sure its the same one...