--- In sr111@y..., stuart_allsop <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In sr111@y..., barbarafetherolf <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Just want to clarify something I said in my last post. I meant
that
> > Mark spoke with Beanspiller not the source. Just want to be very
> > accurate about this.
> >
> > Barbara
>
> Is Mark still able to contact him? If so, it would be a great
> opportunity to bring up the points I mentioned, and try to get some
> clarification. For example, why did he say that law requires
wiring
> to be run in conduit when this is not true? Why did he say the
IFEN
> was installed down by the leading edge of the left wing, when in
fact
> it was installed in the first-class overhead?
>
> I'm not disagreeing with him on the cause of the fire being the
faulty
> wiring to the IFEN. That has been my number one suspicion for a
long
> time now (I think we have all suspected that as being the root
cause
> of the tragedy). That part certainly rings true.
>
> I can also understand that, if the person is not knowldegeable
about
> aviation, they could have confused the information given to them,
and
> maybe misrepresented it in the post.
>
> But I am questioning the other "facts" that this person presented.
The
> way they are presented in the post does not bring anything new to
> light (there really is nothing in there that hadn't already been
> leaked to the press, either officialy or unofficially, or
speculated
> up widely). I guess Beanspiller was able to provide additional
> information to Mark that was not in the post, since the post still
> does not convince me.
>
> Perhaps it is just a case of Beanspiller getting mixed up due to
lack
> of knowledge. The only way to clarify that is to ask him/her. So,
if
> Beanspiller still has contact with the original source, then I can
> think of a number of questions that I would like to ask of the
source,
> in order to clear up my doubts about the truthfulness of the
> information. Of course, the questions and answers would have to be
> carefully phrased in such a way as to ensure that the identity of
the
> source remains totally concealed.
>
> Do you think that would be possible? Is Mark still able to contact
> Beanspiller, and is Beanspiller still able to contact the source?
>
> Regarding the newspaper article on the contents of the report, yes
I
> did see that. It sounds quite feasible. I have no reason to doubt
> that the information is correct. But it is rather incomplete!
> Personally, I don't see the reason why the families are not allowed
to
> see the report immediately, especially if the Captain's widow has
> already been allowed to read it. I can't see why the TSB wouldn't
> just ask you all to sign a binding Non Disclosure Agreement, then
> allow you to read the report. It seems very unfair, if you ask me.

Stuart all I can really say at this point is that it is important IMO
to believe 'Beanspiller' even if there are some inaccuracies, and the
Swiss press because unfortunately that may be the closest we ever get
to the truth of what happened to sr111. It is very likely that the
final version that we will see will be changed and basically
sanitized into very little information until all is said and done. At
least that is what I'm hearing. It is VERY important that we get
leaks. It would be better and only right if the family members could
see the original. Mark and I totally believe Beanspiller, and we
trust the Swiss newspaper. Nothing in it for either one of them to
lie. Nothing at all. The TSB is not in anyway obligated to give us a
conclusion (legally that is)and if you read Bouchard's remarks you
will see that we probably will never be given one if we don't see the
draft. I think it is an absolute disgrace the way this is being done
but have no idea of what to do about it. It's beyond me that after
what this family has been through (and all the other surviving family
members of sr111) our lives totally ruined probably because of some
greedy airline and their contractors here in the US, that we can't
even officially be told the truth. Outrageous. After 4 yrs of waiting
and suffering we have to beg information from secondary sources. Yeah
makes a lot of sense. Sorry I'm outraged.