Search the archive:
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
SR111 - What if? (Read 367 times)
Apr 25th, 2005 at 1:19pm

Vic   Offline
Colonel
Russia - 1060 Years and
Still Strong!
Moscow, Russian Federation

Gender: male
Posts: 234
*****
 
Hey everyone.
I have just been thinking about the tragic events of Swissair 111 that crashed out of control off of Peggy's Cove on a flight from New York to Geneva.
I have heard many people say that if the pilot would have tried to land the aircraft right away (overweight), without dumping fuel, that the outcome would have been not as tragic. The crew followed the proper procedures in this event, but in this case the procedures did not consider this fact.

Recap:
At FL330 (Time - 1:14:18) the flight crew noticed smoke in the cocpit and asked Moncton Center for the nearest airport - Halifax, Runway 6.
1:18.46 - He was cleared to descend to FL310 and a minute later when he reached FL310, he was only 30 miles away from the threshhold. SR111 asked to perform a 360 turn in order to loose altitude and to commence fuel dump.
1:24.45 - SR111 declares an emergency (FL100 - aprox).
1:24.56 - SR111 commences fuel dump, says he has to land immediately.
1:25.49 - SR111 Crashes 35nm from the airport, off of Peggy's Cove, Canada.

Now, if SR111 would have tried to make an emergency descent instead of doing a 360 to loose altitude, would he have made it to the runway in 30 miles? (Assuming he extended landing gear, extended spoilers and the works)
What would have happened to the aircraft if he had landed overweight? (The captain reported a weight of 230 tonnes when asking to land).

I would have tried this situation in a simulator, but I do not know his exact positions when all of this happened, so it would make any experiment pretty useless, anybody have any better information on his location when he discovered smoke?

Note: The official cause was an electrical fire caused by the PTV's onboard the aircraft and improper insulation that was not fire-resistant. The accident report is here at http://www.aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980902-0
The Air Traffic Control Transcript is at http://www.aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/atc_sr111.php
Vic
P.S. I was in Canada when this happened and it was on the news 24/7. Terrible.

« Last Edit: Apr 25th, 2005 at 3:00pm by Vic »  

When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - Apr 25th, 2005 at 1:42pm

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
A straight drop being overweight would have been almost impossible. The plane simply didnt stand a chance. Between emergency being declared and the crash, the plane had 64 seconds. It wasn't emergency as far as the crew could tell, when they asked to return to the nearest airport.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - Apr 25th, 2005 at 2:53pm

Vic   Offline
Colonel
Russia - 1060 Years and
Still Strong!
Moscow, Russian Federation

Gender: male
Posts: 234
*****
 
Quote:
A straight drop being overweight would have been almost impossible. The plane simply didnt stand a chance. Between emergency being declared and the crash, the plane had 64 seconds. It wasn't emergency as far as the crew could tell, when they asked to return to the nearest airport.  


Why did he declare emergency anyways? I can't seem to find the CVR of SR111. So what happened to make him declare emergency when he did not do so already? Did he start encountering control problems? I understand that he only smelled smoke and that is why he did not see it necessary to declare an emergency before, am I right?
Vic
 

When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - Apr 25th, 2005 at 3:53pm

beefhole   Offline
Colonel
common' yigs!
Philadelphia

Gender: male
Posts: 4466
*****
 
I saw a reenactment on National Geographic channel-he declared an emergency when smoke started to fill the cockpit.

The copilot most likely perished fighting the fire, and the captain was losing consciousness with the smoke.  They really didn't stand much of a chance.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - Apr 26th, 2005 at 2:26am

Vic   Offline
Colonel
Russia - 1060 Years and
Still Strong!
Moscow, Russian Federation

Gender: male
Posts: 234
*****
 
Wait - you are saying that they had a FIRE? Not just smoke? Didn't they have masks on anyways?
Vic

From the ATC Tape:
SWR111 1:14:50.3 - Three one zero [Unintelligible words obscured by a noise. Possibly the noise associated with donning oxygen masks] Three one zero *** one one heavy.
 

When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - Apr 26th, 2005 at 3:01pm

beefhole   Offline
Colonel
common' yigs!
Philadelphia

Gender: male
Posts: 4466
*****
 
Yes, there was a fire-note the NTSB report that you posted. Wink

(I'm assuming that's NTSB)
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - Apr 27th, 2005 at 3:59am

cobzz   Offline
Colonel
Melbourne, Australia

Gender: male
Posts: 406
*****
 
in NGEO in the reenactment bit,
they had a huge fire in the cockpit, the course was arking
in the entertainment system. The hole area around the cockpit had burn marks around it. Id say they had no chance at all, the best thing they could of done was,
id say. Go into a dive then pull up and ditch. But they crew never knew it was that serious. Id say that its not the crews fault one bit. Also the insulation in the md-11 could catch alight quickly contributing to it. The arking was caused by
bad wiring and the wiring was made of bad metal.
Airbus still uses that metal but boeing dosnt.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - Apr 27th, 2005 at 4:12am

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
You cant just go into a dive and ditch. A perfectly fine aircraft would struggle to do that, let alone a crippled one. There was nothing that could be done to save it in the end.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #8 - Apr 27th, 2005 at 4:58am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Quote:
Also the insulation in the md-11 could catch alight quickly contributing to it. The arking was caused by
bad wiring and the wiring was made of bad metal.
Airbus still uses that metal but boeing dosnt.

I'm not sure what you mean by bad metal. The wiring was copper which is quite normal in electrical components. From a quick glance at the accident investigation report the fire was initially started by arcing in the wiring, probably due to bad insulation. The circuit breakers were not of a suitable type to protect against this situation. The main cause of the fire spreading was the flammable material used on the acoustic insulation & other components in the entertainment system. There were also no smoke and fire detection and suppression devices in the area where the fire started so the crew would not realise how serious the fire was until too late. One would hope that lessons were learned from this tragic incident. Unfortunately this usually comes down to cost.
Quote:
FINDINGS AS TO CAUSES AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS:
1. Aircraft certification standards for material flammability were inadequate in that they allowed the use of materials that could be ignited and sustain or propagate fire. Consequently, flammable material propagated a fire that started above the ceiling on the right side of the cockpit near the cockpit rear wall. The fire spread and intensified rapidly to the extent that it degraded aircraft systems and the cockpit environment, and ultimately led to the loss of control of the aircraft.

2. Metallized polyethylene terephthalate (MPET)-type cover material on the thermal acoustic insulation blankets used in the aircraft was flammable. The cover material was most likely the first material to ignite, and constituted the largest portion of the combustible materials that contributed to the propagation and intensity of the fire.

3. Once ignited, other types of thermal acoustic insulation cover materials exhibit flame propagation characteristics similar to MPET-covered insulation blankets and do not meet the proposed revised flammability test criteria. Metallized polyvinyl fluoride-type cover material was installed in HB-IWF and was involved in the in-flight fire.

4. Silicone elastomeric end caps, hook-and-loop fasteners, foams, adhesives, and thermal acoustic insulation splicing tapes contributed to the propagation and intensity of the fire.

5. The type of circuit breakers (CB) used in the aircraft were similar to those in general aircraft use, and were not capable of protecting against all types of wire arcing events. The fire most likely started from a wire arcing event.

6. A segment of in-flight entertainment network (IFEN) power supply unit cable (1-3791) exhibited a region of resolidified copper on one wire that was caused by an arcing event. This resolidified copper was determined to be located near manufacturing station 383, in the area where the fire most likely originated. This arc was likely associated with the fire initiation event; however, it could not be determined whether this arced wire was the lead event.

7. There were no built-in smoke and fire detection and suppression devices in the area where the fire started and propagated, nor were they required by regulation. The lack of such devices delayed the identification of the existence of the fire, and allowed the fire to propagate unchecked until it became uncontrollable.

8. There was a reliance on sight and smell to detect and differentiate between odour or smoke from different potential sources. This reliance resulted in the misidentification of the initial odour and smoke as originating from an air conditioning source.

9. There was no integrated in-flight firefighting plan in place for the accident aircraft, nor was such a plan required by regulation. Therefore, the aircraft crew did not have procedures or training directing them to aggressively attempt to locate and eliminate the source of the smoke, and to expedite their preparations for a possible emergency landing. In the absence of such a firefighting plan, they concentrated on preparing the aircraft for the diversion and landing.

10. There is no requirement that a fire-induced failure be considered when completing the system safety analysis required for certification. The fire-related failure of silicone elastomeric end caps installed on air conditioning ducts resulted in the addition of a continuous supply of conditioned air that contributed to the propagation and intensity of the fire.

11. The loss of primary flight displays and lack of outside visual references forced the pilots to be reliant on the standby instruments for at least some portion of the last minutes of the flight. In the deteriorating cockpit environment, the positioning and small size of these instruments would have made it difficult for the pilots to transition to their use, and to continue to maintain the proper spatial orientation of the aircraft.

http://www.aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980902-0
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #9 - Apr 27th, 2005 at 5:47am

cobzz   Offline
Colonel
Melbourne, Australia

Gender: male
Posts: 406
*****
 
when i mean bad wiring,
i mean like the wires got hot, so the b grade plastic covering meltef ogg.
i mean like go down at 6000feet perminute
(blowing someppls eardrums, lol) then pulling up and ditching it. But of ourse the pilots wouldnt do that for obvious reasons!
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #10 - Apr 27th, 2005 at 5:54am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Quote:
when i mean bad wiring,
i mean like the wires got hot, so the b grade plastic covering meltef ogg.

Ah, but that's not what you said. Roll Eyes
Quote:
the wiring was made of bad metal.
Airbus still uses that metal but boeing dosnt.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #11 - Apr 27th, 2005 at 5:25pm

Scottler   Offline
Colonel
Albany, New York USA

Gender: male
Posts: 5989
*****
 
Quote:
I understand that he only smelled smoke and that is why he did not see it necessary to declare an emergency before, am I right?


The MD-11 has a fuel capacity of 258,300 pounds.  When you've got 130 TONS of gas at your disposal, there's no such thing as "only smelled smoke".  It's not a situation where you can downplay the seriousness of the event.

That said, keep in mind that airline crews have VERY strict protocol to follow in the event of an incident.  It would never have crossed his mind to divert from that protocol to take a chance with anything else.  The facts presented themselves to the crew, and the crew made decisions based on those facts.  If the protocol was wrong, that's another issue, and it isn't anything the crew would have ever even considered overriding. Wink
 

Great edit, Bob.&&&&&&Google it. &&&&www.google.com
IP Logged
 
Reply #12 - Apr 27th, 2005 at 5:33pm

beefhole   Offline
Colonel
common' yigs!
Philadelphia

Gender: male
Posts: 4466
*****
 
Actually, they mentioned that it was somewhat normal to smell traces of smoke in the cockpit, from the A/C.  It was when the smoke really started pouring out that they became alarmed.
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print