It's posted in a PDF file on Swissair111.org for anyone interested in
the FAA's 2 yr. study of the IFEN (entertainment system)following the
sr111 crash.

Shape of Swissair memorial a shame, NDP says

By David Jackson / Provincial Reporter

Finding which branch of government handles what issues can be a
headache even for an MLA, New Democrat Bill Estabrooks discovered
this week.

Mr. Estabrooks said Tuesday he wants someone to fix the pathway from
the parking lot to the Swissair memorial site at Whalesback near
Peggys Cove, established three years ago.

The path winds around rocks for about 100 metres to the memorial, and
Mr. Estabrooks said it's worn away enough that the drainage system is
visible in some places and it's possible someone could roll an ankle.

"To allow it to deteriorate so quickly is just embarrassing," said
Mr. Estabrooks, MLA for Timberlea-Prospect.

Mr. Estabrooks said he spent hours on the phone Monday afternoon,
calling a Peggys Cove community organization, Halifax Regional
Municipality and provincial departments of Public Works, Natural
Resources and Tourism trying to find who's responsible for the path's
upkeep.

He said a Public Works official told him a committee of senior
bureaucrats is responsible for the site, but the committee hasn't
held any meetings yet.

Mr. Estabrooks said the runaround irritated him, and he issued a news
release Tuesday calling on the Hamm government to come up with a plan
for maintaining the site.

A Public Works spokesman referred this newspaper's call to a Natural
Resources spokeswoman, who didn't return the call Tuesday afternoon.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2002/10/30/p197.raw.html

To anyone that is trying to subscribe to this board: Please send me
an email explaining your interest in becoming a member. Due to the
fact that some inappropriate ads have shown up and the nature of this
board, I would appreciate a little information before approving a
membership. Thanks.

babsf342@...

--- In sr111@y..., donaldnj00 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I do not often come into SR111 room but please know that my
thoughts
> are with all.  I too lost 2 family members in the accident, and as
> you
> all know never a day goes by without thinking of our loved ones.
Well
> this is to my extending family--YOU.  God's Blessing to Us All.  Don

Donald, It's good to hear from you again. I hope you are doing okay
under the circumstances. Just wanted to tell you that Mark set up a
site at http://swissair111.org where we have more current posts. Hope
you'll join us there. God bless you and your family also.

Barbara

I do not often come into SR111 room but please know that my thoughts
are with all.  I too lost 2 family members in the accident, and as
you
all know never a day goes by without thinking of our loved ones. Well
this is to my extending family--YOU.  God's Blessing to Us All.  Don

SR111 Operations Center
1901 Research Road
Ottawa Ontario
K1A1K8

23 September 2002

Salutation

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) would like to take
this opportunity to provide you with some additional information
regarding the confidential draft review process.

As you may know, the Board has completed its review of the initial
draft report, and the confidential draft report review process is now
under way. As part of that process, and in accordance with Canadian
legislation, the Board has sent the draft report. in confidence to
designated reviewers. Designated reviewers are individuals or
organizations whose performance, behaviour or products may be
commented on in the draft report as well as those who may contribute
to the completeness and overall accuracy of the report. Designated
reviewers play an important role in clarifying technical and factual
information and ensuring accuracy. The Board will assess the
representations from designated reviewers and determine whether any
changes to the draft report are necessary to ensure accuracy, only
then will the final draft report be approved by the Board for release
to the public.

As mentioned, the review process is to be completed in confidence.
Therefore, the contents of the confidential draft report cannot be
released to anyone who is not a designated reviewer, and designated
reviewers have agreed to protect the confidentiality of the draft
report.

Recently, there has been some speculation circulating about the
content of the draft report. Given the provision for confidentiality
of the draft report at this stage at the process, it would be
inappropriate for the TSB to comment on this speculation. Because of
the complexity of this accident, the investigation has taken more
time than might have been anticipated and the TSB understands your
desire to be kept informed. However we solicit your patience in
waiting until the final report is released to receive thorough and
accurate information about the accident. We hope you share our
conviction that the safety deficiencies identified during this
investigation must be well supported in the final public report and
that, by ensuring factual accuracy; we will have helped to advance
air safety worldwide.

Before the final report is released as expected in the first quarter
of 2003, we will again contact you to provide you with information
about the public release, and to ascertain if you wish to receive a
copy of the final report and by what means. We also plan to provide
you with an opportunity to attend a briefing session immediately
preceding the public release of the final report.
Again I appreciate your patience as the TSB finalizes its
investigation report into this tragic accident. If you have any
questions, please write to us at the above address or e-mail us at
Communications@...

Yours truly,

Vic Gerden
TSB Investigator in-charge

Also see http://www.swissair111.org for translated excerpts from the
SonntagZeitung article on the draft report.

From: Mark Fetherolf


Please see:

http://www.swissair111.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000187

--- 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.

--- 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.

It would be so much better if the families had access to the draft
report obviously because there is no question that we are the
affected parties. Unfortunately because we apparently are not privy
to that information, we are forced to pay attention to the leaks that
will come out as a result of this Canadian policy. We can only put 2
and 2 together based on what we've learned from the few updates we've
been given and the research done by other parties. Looking for
consistency in the comments from the different sources is one clue.
That is the position we are in. We think it is grossly unfair that we
are left to wait until the responsible parties have had an
opportunity to make their comments as we would like to see the
original for obvious reasons. IMO we've waited long enough- 4 yrs. It
isn't even clear to me when we will actually receive that final
report. Are the affected parties allowed to make changes to it if
they don't like something that is stated? I guess it depends on how
long the involved parties tie it up. Sounds absurd to me, but as far
as I know there is nothing we can do about that.

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

--- In sr111@y..., stuart_allsop <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Mark and Barbara,
>
> I wanted to comment that I'm not at all convinced that this person
is
> who he claims to be, or has the information that he claims to
have.  I
> tried to post these same sentiments here right after "beanspillers"
> first post, but for some reason that only Yahoo knows, the post
never
> made it.
>
> The way I see it, beanspillers post tells us essentially nothing
that
> we didn't know already, and is wrong on several technical points.
>
> For example, he claims that by law wiring must be installed in
> conduit.  While this is true of houses, it is NOT true of
aircraft.
> Wiring is run in the open spaces of the airframe itself, not in
> conduit.  There is no such requirement as he claims "all of this
> wiring was laid bare in the space above the cabin, instead of in
> conduit as required by law.".  Not true.
>
> He also says "all the A/V equipment was stored in Galley 8 just
ahead
> of the leading edge of the port wing", but that is NOT where the
IFEN
> was installed!  It was in the overhead of the first class cabin,
just
> behind the cockpit bulkhead, in the vicinty of doors 1L and 1R.  It
> was nowhere near the "leading edge of the front wing".  That is
more
> or less where the main power bay is, but NOT where the Audio/Video
> (ie, then IFEN), was installed.
>
> Next, he says "The wiring exited the cabin throught the ceiling,
and
> ran along the top of the cabin bulkhead, and down into the first
class
> secxtion and to the LCD screens in the back of the headrests in the
> first class section. "  As far as I know (and I'm not 100% certain
on
> this), but the LCD screens were NOT installed in the head rests,
but
> rather mounted on stalks that folded up into the seat frame.  If
you
> think about it, it isn;t much use to have the creen in the head
rest
> of the seat in front of you in first class: If the person in the
seat
> in front of you reclines their seat, the LCD screen is now facing
the
> floor, where you cannot see it.  So I'm pretty sure that
beanspiller
> is wrong on this point too.
>
> Finally, he says: "The temperature in the cockpit was approximately
> 3000 degrees farenheight. It was so hot, that kevlar was burnt.
> Everyone from the cockpit, back to the middle of first class were
> unconcious upon impact."  There is no way of knowing that for sure,
> and the forensic evidence that was mentioned indicates that this is
> probably not true.  While localized temperatures in the region of
> electrical arcing may well have reached temperatures of 3000
degrees,
> the interior of the cockpit and cabin could not have.  At that
> temperature, even aluminium vaporizes, and since the recovery
effort
> came up with many pieces of aluminium, there could not have been
such
> high temperatures.  Also recall that the sheepskin seatcovers from
the
> cockpit were recovered, basically in tact, but with molten plastic
on
> them.  Since they were in tact, it is impossible that the
temperature
> in the cockpit was anything close to 3000 degrees.  Not even 300.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't buy this at all.  It seems very suspect.
The
> kindest thing I can say for this person is that maybe they were
leaked
> some information, but got it totally confused and didn't understand
> it, and garbled it even more in that post.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
>
> --- In sr111@y..., "markfetherolf" <fetherolf@y...> wrote:
> > --- In sr111@y..., "beanspiller_ca" <rburnell@a...> wrote:
> > > Ok here goes. The cause of the crash has been identified, but
will
> > > not be released for some time. How do I know this..?? I have a
> > friend
> > > who was involved in the aircraft reconstruction in Shearwater.
He
> > has
> > > informed me, that the cause was wiring, but it was not the
kapton
> > > wiring. It was the wiring for the inflight entertainment
system.
> It
> > > seems that all the A/V equipment was stored in Galley 8 just
ahead
> > of
> > > the leading edge of the port wing. The wiring exited the cabin
> > > throught the ceiling, and ran along the top of the cabin
bulkhead,
> > > and down into the first class secxtion and to the LCD screens
in
> > the
> > > back of the headrests in the first class section. The
> investigators
> > > discovered that all of this wiring was laid bare in the space
> above
> > > the cabin, instead of in conduit as required by law. This
explains
> > > why the flight data and cockpit voice recorders stopped working
6
> > and
> > > a half minutes before impact. The aircraft hit the water
inverted,
> > > and on an approximate angle of 79 degrees. The temperature in
the
> > > cockpit was approximately 3000 degrees farenheight. It was so
hot,
> > > that kevlar was burnt. Everyone from the cockpit, back to the
> > middle
> > > of first class were unconcious upon impact. It is not known if
or
> > > when this will be released. It still has to be accepted by the
> > CTSB.
> > > I have also seen pictures of some of the debris. I was shown a
pic
> > of
> > > a piece of metal that was very blued and heat distorted. It was
> > very
> > > obvious that this piece of metal had been exposed to a very
high
> > heat
> > > to look like this. When I asked where it was from, I was told
it
> > was
> > > part of the door frame from the front passenger door behind the
> > > cockpit. I hope this helps some people. I'm putting my neck on
the
> > > line printing this, but you have a right to know.
> > >
> > > Beanspiller_ca
> >
> > Please see continued discussion regarding this at
> > http://swissair111.org and I want to praise the poster for coming
> > forward with this information and invite him to the new sr111
site.
> > Barbara

Stuart, With all due respect to your pov I want to point out that
Beanspiller has clearly stated that he is not in anyway involved in
aviation nor an expert. As he has said, he received this information
from a friend who was involved in the investigation. Mark has spoken
to this person who was kind enough to explain how he came by this
information and he was convinced that this man was telling the truth.

Also I wondered if you had seen the recent article in the Swiss
paper? As I stated on the other swissair111 site, it is a reputable
paper and they claim to be quoting from sources that have read the
draft report. Furthermore, how surprised can any of us be that the
IFEN would be named as a suspect in the crash of sr111 given all the
information we have read about the way it was installed on that
aircraft? Remember the wiring to it was found to be burnt following
the tragedy.

The paper also mentions that the pilots' actions (following the
lenghty swissair checklist)also contributed to the crash. We already
know that is true because one of the TSB's updates regarding sr111
states that they are very concerned that pilots aren't responding
quickly enough to smoke/odor in the cockpit situations and they
recommend getting the aircraft down as soon as possible.

Barbara

Mark and Barbara,

I wanted to comment that I'm not at all convinced that this person is
who he claims to be, or has the information that he claims to have.  I
tried to post these same sentiments here right after "beanspillers"
first post, but for some reason that only Yahoo knows, the post never
made it.

The way I see it, beanspillers post tells us essentially nothing that
we didn't know already, and is wrong on several technical points.

For example, he claims that by law wiring must be installed in
conduit.  While this is true of houses, it is NOT true of aircraft.
Wiring is run in the open spaces of the airframe itself, not in
conduit.  There is no such requirement as he claims "all of this
wiring was laid bare in the space above the cabin, instead of in
conduit as required by law.".  Not true.

He also says "all the A/V equipment was stored in Galley 8 just ahead
of the leading edge of the port wing", but that is NOT where the IFEN
was installed!  It was in the overhead of the first class cabin, just
behind the cockpit bulkhead, in the vicinty of doors 1L and 1R.  It
was nowhere near the "leading edge of the front wing".  That is more
or less where the main power bay is, but NOT where the Audio/Video
(ie, then IFEN), was installed.

Next, he says "The wiring exited the cabin throught the ceiling, and
ran along the top of the cabin bulkhead, and down into the first class
secxtion and to the LCD screens in the back of the headrests in the
first class section. "  As far as I know (and I'm not 100% certain on
this), but the LCD screens were NOT installed in the head rests, but
rather mounted on stalks that folded up into the seat frame.  If you
think about it, it isn;t much use to have the creen in the head rest
of the seat in front of you in first class: If the person in the seat
in front of you reclines their seat, the LCD screen is now facing the
floor, where you cannot see it.  So I'm pretty sure that beanspiller
is wrong on this point too.

Finally, he says: "The temperature in the cockpit was approximately
3000 degrees farenheight. It was so hot, that kevlar was burnt.
Everyone from the cockpit, back to the middle of first class were
unconcious upon impact."  There is no way of knowing that for sure,
and the forensic evidence that was mentioned indicates that this is
probably not true.  While localized temperatures in the region of
electrical arcing may well have reached temperatures of 3000 degrees,
the interior of the cockpit and cabin could not have.  At that
temperature, even aluminium vaporizes, and since the recovery effort
came up with many pieces of aluminium, there could not have been such
high temperatures.  Also recall that the sheepskin seatcovers from the
cockpit were recovered, basically in tact, but with molten plastic on
them.  Since they were in tact, it is impossible that the temperature
in the cockpit was anything close to 3000 degrees.  Not even 300.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this at all.  It seems very suspect.  The
kindest thing I can say for this person is that maybe they were leaked
some information, but got it totally confused and didn't understand
it, and garbled it even more in that post.

Stuart




--- In sr111@y..., "markfetherolf" <fetherolf@y...> wrote:
> --- In sr111@y..., "beanspiller_ca" <rburnell@a...> wrote:
> > Ok here goes. The cause of the crash has been identified, but will
> > not be released for some time. How do I know this..?? I have a
> friend
> > who was involved in the aircraft reconstruction in Shearwater. He
> has
> > informed me, that the cause was wiring, but it was not the kapton
> > wiring. It was the wiring for the inflight entertainment system.
It
> > seems that all the A/V equipment was stored in Galley 8 just ahead
> of
> > the leading edge of the port wing. The wiring exited the cabin
> > throught the ceiling, and ran along the top of the cabin bulkhead,
> > and down into the first class secxtion and to the LCD screens in
> the
> > back of the headrests in the first class section. The
investigators
> > discovered that all of this wiring was laid bare in the space
above
> > the cabin, instead of in conduit as required by law. This explains
> > why the flight data and cockpit voice recorders stopped working 6
> and
> > a half minutes before impact. The aircraft hit the water inverted,
> > and on an approximate angle of 79 degrees. The temperature in the
> > cockpit was approximately 3000 degrees farenheight. It was so hot,
> > that kevlar was burnt. Everyone from the cockpit, back to the
> middle
> > of first class were unconcious upon impact. It is not known if or
> > when this will be released. It still has to be accepted by the
> CTSB.
> > I have also seen pictures of some of the debris. I was shown a pic
> of
> > a piece of metal that was very blued and heat distorted. It was
> very
> > obvious that this piece of metal had been exposed to a very high
> heat
> > to look like this. When I asked where it was from, I was told it
> was
> > part of the door frame from the front passenger door behind the
> > cockpit. I hope this helps some people. I'm putting my neck on the
> > line printing this, but you have a right to know.
> >
> > Beanspiller_ca
>
> Please see continued discussion regarding this at
> http://swissair111.org and I want to praise the poster for coming
> forward with this information and invite him to the new sr111 site.
> Barbara

From: Mark Fetherolf

In an article that appears in the Swiss paper SonntagsZeitung Von Andrea
Bleicher and Adrian Schulthess report (excerpts translated from German, emphasis
added):

"An energy consuming monster," says Barbara Fetherolf - revealing the anger of
the American who lost her 16 year old daughter Tara in the crash. Her anger is
justified!

The investigation authority has concluded that the onboard TV (entertainment
system) is responsible, at least in part, for the catastrophe near Halifax.

This information is from the official draft accident report, which devotes
several dozen pages to the IFEN.

Sonntagzeitung has learned from Several independent sources that the IFEN is
substantially involved in the actual crash.

The manufacturer of the supposed high tech miracle was Interactive Flight
Technologies, of Phoenix, Arizona. The fact that the firm had no experience in
the manufacture of on-board aircraft support systems - Swissair was its first
and only large customer - didn't bother the Swissair management. Weaknesses in
the IFEN appeared almost immediately after the installation; it drew too much
current, the cabin heated up and it was not immune to total blackouts. Moreover,
the IFEN was connected to the aircraft's main power supply - a fact that played
an important role in the crash.

The report also suggests that the pilots waited too long to land, but how
heavily this weighs is not determined.

An anonymous informant who directed an email to survivors last week and who is
close to the investigation reported that the origin of the accident was traced
to the cables of the IFEN. For people (loved ones) of the victims, this
communication, the contents of which they believe is correct, has let loose a
new wave of anger at the time of the anniversary of the crash.

Discussion on Swissair111.org:
http://www.swissair111.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000184

Relatives fight for look at Swissair draft report
Safety officials might send copy to families after distributing it
to 'involved parties' for comment
By Michael Lightstone

Days before the fourth anniversary of the Swissair disaster, families
of those killed were stunned to learn Ottawa has distributed a draft
report on the crash investigation's findings.

But relatives of 229 people who died in the accident may also get
copies of the confidential document, a Transportation Safety Board
spokesman said Friday.

John Cottreau said board policy "doesn't exclude the families" but
didn't know how or when they might find out the details.

Earlier this month, the board sent the report to "involved parties"
for comment. A senior official with the Swiss Federal Office for
Civil Aviation confirmed the agency got a copy.

Miles Gerety, an American whose brother died in the Sept. 2, 1998,
plane crash off Peggys Cove, said that means government regulators
and aviation manufacturers will review the draft report before
families do.

The board has said a final report will be released early in 2003.

Mr. Gerety said Canadian investigators "have been very good to the
families" since the probe began, showing compassion and "bending over
backwards" to share information with them.

"But I'd like to know what killed my brother," Mr. Gerety said.

Now that a draft report on the crash of Swissair Flight 111 is
circulating, he said the victims' relatives may hear leaked details
that could be sensationalized in media reports.

Mr. Gerety, head of an international association of Swissair
families, recently sent letters to relatives of those killed and to
the board, saying investigators should brief the families now.

"The news of why a loved one died is still a sensitive topic that
opens an old wound," he wrote.

"Thus it is particularly important for the well-being of air-crash
families that bad news be broken gently and not through news
headlines or the calls of aggressive reporters seeking family
reaction."

Mr. Cottreau refused comment on Mr. Gerety's letter but said Swissair
families might be eligible to read the draft report.

He said board policy stipulates that those allowed to review the
document are people "who might see themselves as being adversely
affected by the report."

This may include next of kin."

But Mr. Cottreau couldn't say whether any copies have been sent to
victims' relatives.

New Jersey resident Hans Ephraimson-Abt, chairman of a group of air-
crash families, was buoyed by Ottawa's policy of possibly releasing a
draft report to Swissair families.

He said only French investigators provided families with their draft
on the first anniversary of the July 2000 Concorde crash.

"If we could create a second precedent after the Concorde, then maybe
we can institutionalize it in other countries," said Mr. Ephraimson-
Apt, whose daughter died in 1983 on Korean Airlines Flight 007 when
it was shot down over Russia.

Swissair's Boeing MD-11 plunged into St. Margarets Bay en route to
Geneva from New York City. The pilot reported smoke in the cockpit
and was dumping fuel over the Atlantic Ocean when the plane went
down, killing everyone aboard.

Investigators have determined there was a fire in the ceiling at the
front of the plane but haven't made public the fire's cause.

The recovery operation and crash probe cost $54.8 million.

Mr. Gerety, a lawyer in Bridgeport, Conn., lost his 56-year-old
brother, Pierce, in the disaster. Four years later, he and others are
still waiting to find out what went wrong on Flight 111.

"The families have been told we will have a briefing shortly before
the final report is released in 2003," Mr. Gerety said.

"We think we should be briefed now or at least receive a summary" of
the draft document.

On Monday, public and private anniversary events are planned for
Peggys Cove, Bayswater and Blandford.

Mr. Gerety said a number of Swissair victims' relatives will be in
Nova Scotia for the anniversary, but he couldn't say how many.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2002/08/31/f202.raw.html

World - AP Canada

Swissair Crash Probe Completed
Thu Aug 29, 9:57 PM ET
By TOM COHEN, Associated Press Writer

TORONTO (AP) - Canadian investigators have sent out a draft report on
the 1998 Swissair crash off Nova Scotia, completing their probe
almost four years after the accident that killed all 229 people on
board.



Transportation Safety Board spokesman John Cottreau said Thursday the
confidential report was distributed to all involved parties this
month for comment.

The final report was expected to be made public early next year, said
Cottreau, who declined to discuss any details of the draft report.

"The data collection and investigation has concluded," he said. "Now
we're into the confidential draft report phase."

Jean Overney, head of the Swiss investigation office, confirmed the
Swiss Federal Office for Civil Aviation received a copy of the draft
report. Overney said no official comment would come until the final
report gets published.

Swissair Flight 111 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean en route from New
York to Geneva on Sept. 2, 1998. Pilots reported smoke in the cockpit
53 minutes into the trip, and the electrical systems began failing 15
minutes later.

Cottreau called the investigation the largest ever conducted by
Canada's transportation safety board. Investigators used 2 million
pieces of recovered wreckage, some as small as a dollar coin, to
partially reconstruct the MD-11 jetliner.

Asked why it took almost four years to conclude the investigation,
Cottreau said the board takes however much time is required to
complete its work.

Swissair went out of business in October 2001, shortly after the
Sept. 11 attacks in the United States that crippled the air travel
industry worldwide.

The investigation has determined a fire in the ceiling at the front
of the plane caused the crash. Investigators focused their probe on
charred wiring, but have yet to say what caused the fire.

Two years ago, the Canadian safety board recommended that airlines do
a better job of training and equipping crews to detect and fight
fires on planes.

An earlier recommendation by investigators noted safety problems with
the plane's insulation blankets, which have been suspected of
spreading fire. The FAA ( news - web sites) in the United States
responded by requiring removal of the insulation blankets from all
U.S.-registered MD-11 aircraft.

In March, a U.S. federal judge dismissed claims for punitive damages
for families of victims of the Swissair crash.

______

but we don't get to see it.

--- In sr111@y..., "beanspiller_ca" <rburnell@a...> wrote:
> Ok here goes. The cause of the crash has been identified, but will
> not be released for some time. How do I know this..?? I have a
friend
> who was involved in the aircraft reconstruction in Shearwater. He
has
> informed me, that the cause was wiring, but it was not the kapton
> wiring. It was the wiring for the inflight entertainment system. It
> seems that all the A/V equipment was stored in Galley 8 just ahead
of
> the leading edge of the port wing. The wiring exited the cabin
> throught the ceiling, and ran along the top of the cabin bulkhead,
> and down into the first class secxtion and to the LCD screens in
the
> back of the headrests in the first class section. The investigators
> discovered that all of this wiring was laid bare in the space above
> the cabin, instead of in conduit as required by law. This explains
> why the flight data and cockpit voice recorders stopped working 6
and
> a half minutes before impact. The aircraft hit the water inverted,
> and on an approximate angle of 79 degrees. The temperature in the
> cockpit was approximately 3000 degrees farenheight. It was so hot,
> that kevlar was burnt. Everyone from the cockpit, back to the
middle
> of first class were unconcious upon impact. It is not known if or
> when this will be released. It still has to be accepted by the
CTSB.
> I have also seen pictures of some of the debris. I was shown a pic
of
> a piece of metal that was very blued and heat distorted. It was
very
> obvious that this piece of metal had been exposed to a very high
heat
> to look like this. When I asked where it was from, I was told it
was
> part of the door frame from the front passenger door behind the
> cockpit. I hope this helps some people. I'm putting my neck on the
> line printing this, but you have a right to know.
>
> Beanspiller_ca

Please see continued discussion regarding this at
http://swissair111.org and I want to praise the poster for coming
forward with this information and invite him to the new sr111 site.
Barbara

Ok here goes. The cause of the crash has been identified, but will
not be released for some time. How do I know this..?? I have a friend
who was involved in the aircraft reconstruction in Shearwater. He has
informed me, that the cause was wiring, but it was not the kapton
wiring. It was the wiring for the inflight entertainment system. It
seems that all the A/V equipment was stored in Galley 8 just ahead of
the leading edge of the port wing. The wiring exited the cabin
throught the ceiling, and ran along the top of the cabin bulkhead,
and down into the first class secxtion and to the LCD screens in the
back of the headrests in the first class section. The investigators
discovered that all of this wiring was laid bare in the space above
the cabin, instead of in conduit as required by law. This explains
why the flight data and cockpit voice recorders stopped working 6 and
a half minutes before impact. The aircraft hit the water inverted,
and on an approximate angle of 79 degrees. The temperature in the
cockpit was approximately 3000 degrees farenheight. It was so hot,
that kevlar was burnt. Everyone from the cockpit, back to the middle
of first class were unconcious upon impact. It is not known if or
when this will be released. It still has to be accepted by the CTSB.
I have also seen pictures of some of the debris. I was shown a pic of
a piece of metal that was very blued and heat distorted. It was very
obvious that this piece of metal had been exposed to a very high heat
to look like this. When I asked where it was from, I was told it was
part of the door frame from the front passenger door behind the
cockpit. I hope this helps some people. I'm putting my neck on the
line printing this, but you have a right to know.

Beanspiller_ca

--- In sr111@y..., napa_monte <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> HI and thanks Barbara.
>
> Hope you and the family are well and enjoying the summer.
>
> I've been up to my ears in camshafts and connecting rods as orders
> for our engines  skyrocket at this time of year.
>
> Thanks for the info on the new site. Ill go have a look.
>
> Speak to you soon.
>
>
> Napa

Napa, thanks- it sure sounds as though you are very busy!  Please
visit anytime you can as you are always welcome.
I don't know if you saw the latest article regarding sr111 on the
other site, but it looks as though the final report will not be
released until '03.

I hope you have a great summer!

Barbara

HI and thanks Barbara.

Hope you and the family are well and enjoying the summer.

I've been up to my ears in camshafts and connecting rods as orders
for our engines  skyrocket at this time of year.

Thanks for the info on the new site. Ill go have a look.

Speak to you soon.


Napa

Napa, It's really good to see you back again. I just wanted to tell
you that we've moved to http://swissair111.org and you are most
welcome to join us. Many still follow this site too though and we
plan to keep this going as well. Thanks so much for the article.

Barbara

Officials at Skyguide did not return several telephone calls. But a
spokesman for the Federal Office of Civil Aviation, which oversees
the company, said that commercial pressures had not eroded its safety
standards. "Privatization of air traffic control does not raise
safety questions," said the spokesman, Daniel Göring. "Safety comes
first, whether it is a government agency or a private company."



I would have to strongly disagree with that.

Talk of privatizing the ATC system in America should send chills down
the spine of everyone involved or who uses commercial aviation here
at home.

When ATC is run like a private company, it only means there is a
bottom line.

While it may not be the most efficient govt. agency, perhaps we are
better off with it being just what it is---a govt. agency.














--- In sr111@y..., napa_monte <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> It's been my busy season so I haven't had time to get on-line, but
> when I read this article this morning, I knew Barbara and everyone
> here would be interested.
>
> Hope to see you more often.
>
> Take care.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/13/international/europe/13SWIS.html

It's been my busy season so I haven't had time to get on-line, but
when I read this article this morning, I knew Barbara and everyone
here would be interested.

Hope to see you more often.

Take care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/13/international/europe/13SWIS.html

http://www.swissair111.org

View at http://swissair111.org

Also updated information regarding the tragic collision of the two
large jets a couple of days ago.

--- In sr111@y..., libra75de <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> this is such a horrible tragedy and it happened not far away from
> where i live (switzerland). but in my opinion i think we should
> better wait until the investigations and facts will tell us more
> before we start overreacting and accusing "the swiss". I do not
> believe that if it really was the fault of Skyguide that they're
> gonna try to talk themselves out. And it's not fair either
to "throw
> all the swiss into the same pot"....
>
> libra
>

Simply going from the lessons learned about their way of acting after
the SR111 tragedy near Halifax on Sept. 2 1998 - crashing with an
aircraft that was technically un-airworthy and more like a flying
coffin - does not provide much hope that they will provide much more
humanity in this case. Typically, in the first events after the
recent crash, it was cited that the Russian plane was cruising at an
un-approved altitude. Distributing blame....

The epilogue will maybe be something like after the Linate tragedy,
with all kinds of officials trying to blame each other.

Such covards....

len
>
>
> --- In sr111@y..., lenkarl <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > so cool...and yet they "fixed it" again...created an inferno in
the
> > sky by not taking timely and effective action to separate the
> russian
> > and the DHL airplanes over southern Germany.
> > And do not get surprised if they try to talk themselves out of
any
> > sort of guilt or responsability.....
> >
> > len

this is such a horrible tragedy and it happened not far away from
where i live (switzerland). but in my opinion i think we should
better wait until the investigations and facts will tell us more
before we start overreacting and accusing "the swiss". I do not
believe that if it really was the fault of Skyguide that they're
gonna try to talk themselves out. And it's not fair either to "throw
all the swiss into the same pot"....

libra



--- In sr111@y..., lenkarl <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> so cool...and yet they "fixed it" again...created an inferno in the
> sky by not taking timely and effective action to separate the
russian
> and the DHL airplanes over southern Germany.
> And do not get surprised if they try to talk themselves out of any
> sort of guilt or responsability.....
>
> len

so cool...and yet they "fixed it" again...created an inferno in the
sky by not taking timely and effective action to separate the russian
and the DHL airplanes over southern Germany.
And do not get surprised if they try to talk themselves out of any
sort of guilt or responsability.....

len

http://www.swissair111.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?
ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000104