Head in the sand sightings

Every year the Ostriches Anonymous Association (OAA) recognizes the
most obtuse statement coming out of the mouths of aviation industry
officials that "deny, discount or ignore" a significant aviation
risk. The intent of this effort is to improve air safety through
greater application of common sense. Members submit "sightings," of
which more than 60 were made in 2003. The member submitting the
winning sighting will be recognized at the association's annual ball
Feb. 27. Herewith, a sampling from the year just completed:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) spokesperson: Who reported
that the agency had enough people to monitor maintenance at all
airlines because "the cyclical nature of the aviation business" has
conditioned the agency to deal with a number of troubled airlines at
once. "We've been here before so there's nothing particularly
extraordinary that would leave us unprepared." To put this in
context, in the previous week 1) United Airlines [OTC: UALAQ] filed
for Chapter 11 reorganization, and 2) an FAA inspectors union
spokesperson estimated the need for 500 more inspectors to do the
job right.

Airline security personnel: Who kept a pilot from his plane after a
security agent said he smelled alcohol and mint on the pilot's
breath. After passing a field sobriety test, he was taken away to
the county jail where he was given a BAC [blood alcohol content]
test, the results of which were 0.4 mg per 100 ml of blood, one-
tenth the FAA's limit. Medical experts reported that the presence of
0.4 mg alcohol would easily be within the "clutter" around zero, and
which could have been induced gargling with Listerine (13.5- proof).

Federal regulators: Whose decrees mandated that U.S. Marines flying
to the Middle East on chartered airliners (to take the U.S. war on
terrorism to the enemy) could not carry their knives in the cabin
but could keep the M-16 rifles and M-60 machine guns with them.

U.S. Forest Service spokesman: Who responded to reports that the
pilot of a crashed firefighting air tanker had expressed concerns
about being "pushed" to fly planes of questionable structural
integrity: "Whatever Steve was thinking about his equipment or
pressures in his company was Steve's thing, not something the Forest
Service was involved in."

FAA spokesperson: While agreeing with a Department of Transportation
Inspector General (DOT/IG) finding that 18 of 21 outside contractors
of commercial airliners were using incorrect parts, improperly
calibrated tools and outdated repair manuals, stressed that the
report did not say passengers were in any danger.

Freight forwarding company CEO: Whose company booked a crate
containing a man shipping himself as air freight: "The incident
highlights the effectiveness of the TSA [Transportation Security
Administration] known shipper program and how it is safeguarding
American skies. The shipment in question was consigned to [our
company], which rigidly complied with the known shipper program and
routed the shipment to an all-cargo transport. The end result is
that through our diligence, no passengers were placed at risk.
Strict adherence to TSA regulations establishes that the
government's procedures are effective." To this statement, the OAA
remarked, "Of course, the 'known shipper' didn't know what/who was
in the crate, either. Try explaining if he had popped out during
flight, shot the crew, and flown the plane into downtown Pittsburgh,
or Memphis."

Airline spokesperson: Who said, noting that all twin-engine
airplanes are certified by the FAA to fly on one engine if
necessary, "While it may be a little bit alarming for a passenger to
see the propeller stop, at no time did we compromise their safety."
This statement was made in reaction to one of the company's aircraft
returning to the same field twice because of engine problems.

FAA spokesperson: Who said, "Any time there's a fire, there's a
concern to us, but cracked windshields rarely affect the safety of
the aircraft," after an electrical short in the windshield heater on
a B777 caused it to crack violently at cruise altitude over the
North Atlantic, accompanied by a cockpit fire (extinguished by the
crew).

An update on 'Robert's Run'. Robert's uncle Philip Baker,
participated in the 25th Ironman Triathlon World Championship in
Kailua Kona, Hawaii, in memory of Robert, and his parents who were
tragically killed on sr111.

http://www.robertsfund.com/Robert's%20Ride%202003.htm

--- In sr111@yahoogroups.com, Erdal Hanyaloglu <ehan@y...> wrote:
> Hi All,
> Does anybody aware of any funds to support Aviation Accidents
related? We are a support group formed after THY-634 accident to but
civil action group should be turned to an organization to control
necessery precautions to prevent such disasters to achieve its goal.
Also any suggestions to form a international league among Aviation
Accident support groups?.
>
> Looking for information related this
> Regards
>

Mr. Hanyaloglu, You might want to contact the following group as
they are a large air safety group based in Washington, D.C. They
accept contributions, and offer membership to family members. Gail
Dunham is very dedicated to air safety and might be able to answer
some of your questions.

Gail Dunham, is the head of this organization- National Air Disaster
Alliance/Foundation (NADAF), located in Washington D.C.
www.planesafe.org  Hope this helps.

Barbara

Hi All,
Does anybody aware of any funds to support Aviation Accidents related? We are a
support group formed after THY-634 accident to but civil action group should be
turned to an organization to control necessery precautions to prevent such
disasters to achieve its goal. Also any suggestions to form a international
league among Aviation Accident support groups?.

Looking for information related this
Regards

barbarafetherolf <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Just wanted to bring your attention the Robert Martin Maillet
Memorial Fund. Robert was 14 months old when he and his parents,
Karen and Denis were tragically killed in the sr111 crash. The
mission of this fund is to 'support organizations that improve the
lives of children.'

In '03, the money contributed was used to support, a big buddy
program, a crisis shelter for children, as well as awarding 8
scholarships to high school students 'who have demonstrated a
significant committment to building bridges, between people of
different races, religions and/or cultures, or are otherwise
deserving of aid.'

To contribute to this fund:

Robert Martin Maillet Memorial Fund
Baton Rouge Area Foundation
402 N. Fourth Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
sr111-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just wanted to bring your attention the Robert Martin Maillet
Memorial Fund. Robert was 14 months old when he and his parents,
Karen and Denis were tragically killed in the sr111 crash. The
mission of this fund is to 'support organizations that improve the
lives of children.'

In '03, the money contributed was used to support, a big buddy
program, a crisis shelter for children, as well as awarding 8
scholarships to high school students 'who have demonstrated a
significant committment to building bridges, between people of
different races, religions and/or cultures, or are otherwise
deserving of aid.'

To contribute to this fund:

Robert Martin Maillet Memorial Fund
Baton Rouge Area Foundation
402 N. Fourth Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802

--- In sr111@yahoogroups.com, maillet_isabelle <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> 5 years...
> with all my love,
> Isabelle

Isabelle, I don't check this site very often anymore now that Mark
and I are at swissair111.org but I wanted to send your family our
thoughts and love. Also could you please post (or another family
member) the address to which members of this group can send a
contribution in memory of Robert and his parents who were tragically
killed on swissair 111? Thank you.

With much love,
Barbara

" ANOTHER DAY"


I still have a sad heart since you went away

Things in life have never been the same

Sometimes my belief and trust in God sways

Yet, I remember your smiling face and forget the blame.


You were not alone on that dark night

Many loved ones were with you when God called your name

It has been 5 years but it seems like yesterday

So when I go to sleep I remember tomorrow is the same....another day

without you.

Today would have been Dr. Robert L. Stauter's 51st birthday.  He was
a  a passenger on Swissair 111.

He was 45 years old when he was taken from us.  His life was one of
dedication to learning, caring, and giving to his family and friends.

He was a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, a pilot, a son, a brother, an
uncle, and a friend.


God bless Stauter.

From his friend, Carla.

5 years...
with all my love,
Isabelle

--- In sr111@yahoogroups.com, paxsafetyguy <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Dear Barbara, Mark, Lyn and Dr. Hanyalioglu and all others who
> suffered from these two tragedies:
>
> Even for someone who did not lose a friend or a family member in
> either crash, it is impossible not to pause and reflect on the
> terrible loss --- for the living and the dead --- in these
terrible
> tragedies. The passage of time does not dim the pain that even
those
> of us who are on the periphery of the events feel, knowing that
> family members are feeling so much more.
>
> Sorry to have been silent for so long - my activism continues,
albeit
> under the ARFF banner. The fight continues, as it always must. The
> price of complacency is simply too dear.
>
> For those with the stomach for more heartache, read the recently
> released Report on the Columbia (space shuttle)tragedy.  It's
> available at www.caib.us  So many common themes . . . it's both
> incredibly sad and unbelievably ironic.
>
> Pax

Pax Thanks so much for caring all these years later. You have been a
great help to us over the years and we always welcome your
intelligent posts. You are so right that time has not dulled the
pain. If you stop back here and read this, I was wondering if I
could move your post over to the new swissair111.org board. I will
only do that with your permission. Thanks again for being here &
caring about all those suffering from losing loved ones on airplanes.

Barbara

Dear Barbara, Mark, Lyn and Dr. Hanyalioglu and all others who
suffered from these two tragedies:

Even for someone who did not lose a friend or a family member in
either crash, it is impossible not to pause and reflect on the
terrible loss --- for the living and the dead --- in these terrible
tragedies. The passage of time does not dim the pain that even those
of us who are on the periphery of the events feel, knowing that
family members are feeling so much more.

Sorry to have been silent for so long - my activism continues, albeit
under the ARFF banner. The fight continues, as it always must. The
price of complacency is simply too dear.

For those with the stomach for more heartache, read the recently
released Report on the Columbia (space shuttle)tragedy.  It's
available at www.caib.us  So many common themes . . . it's both
incredibly sad and unbelievably ironic.

Pax

--- In sr111@yahoogroups.com, "ehan" <ehan@y...> wrote:
> We are a group of families/friends victims of the Turkish Airlines
> THY-634 accident in Diyarbakir Turkey, at January 8, 2002. We are
> looking for the answer of the same questions you did ask and
having
> the same terrible experience you had before.
> Please accept our heartfelt condolences for your losses on the
> Swissair 111 an this fifth anniversary.
>
> best regards,
> E. Hanyalioglu, MD
>
>
> Our website is:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thykaza/
>
> and e-mail address is:
> ehan@y...

Dr. Hanyalioglu,

Thank you so much for your very kind comments. I hope you and the
other family members of that terrible crash get some answers. I
personally feel that for the most part the families of swissair 111
did from the final report released in March. The implications are
very disturbing.

Thanks for your condolences and if you have a chance check out
swissair111.org.

Sincerely,
Barbara Fetherolf
Mother of Tara Fetherolf, age 16, killed in the swissair 111 crash

We are a group of families/friends victims of the Turkish Airlines
THY-634 accident in Diyarbakir Turkey, at January 8, 2002. We are
looking for the answer of the same questions you did ask and having
the same terrible experience you had before.
Please accept our heartfelt condolences for your losses on the
Swissair 111 an this fifth anniversary.

best regards,
E. Hanyalioglu, MD


Our website is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thykaza/

and e-mail address is:
ehan@...

Wednesday, August 27, 2003  The Halifax Herald Limited

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
...

Families to observe fifth Swissair anniversary
May be last formal event marking crash
By Michael Lightstone / Staff Reporter

The fifth - and perhaps last - annual formal function honouring the
229 people killed in the Swissair disaster off Nova Scotia is set
for next week.

Organizer John O'Donnell said Tuesday some of the victims' relatives
are already in metro to mark the tragedy. Most are due to arrive
during the Labour Day weekend.

Swissair Flight 111 crashed into St. Margarets Bay on the night of
Sept. 2, 1998, after a fire onboard. The plane was en route to
Geneva from New York, and all passengers and crew died.

"My sense is this year is probably the last of the so-called formal
observances," said Mr. O'Donnell, a military reserves chaplain in
Halifax and member of an interfaith group handling the Swissair
anniversary. The interfaith group won't be involved next year, he
said.

Mr. O'Donnell said that for many relatives, the five-year milestone,
which follows a final accident report in March by Canada's
Transportation Safety Board, seems like a logical time to end the
planned ritual.

But he said family and others close to those who perished "will
always" come here to remember their loved ones.

Several families from other parts of North America and from Europe
are intending to attend the fifth anniversary events. Mr. O'Donnell
said others taking part will be Nova Scotians who helped with the
recovery operation and crash investigation.

On Tuesday, a public gathering and prayer service is scheduled for
11 a.m. at the Bayswater memorial. A reception will follow at the
Blandford community centre.

Mr. O'Donnell said that at 4 p.m., about 25 family members will
travel by boat to the crash site, 11 kilometres from Peggys Cove.

A brief prayer service will be held on the water.

According to Ottawa's crash report, wiring feeding the jet's
entertainment system likely contributed to the fire, which filled
the Boeing MD-11's cockpit with smoke.

The $57-million probe, which produced 23 recommendations, concluded
the pilots acted appropriately after smelling smoke 53 minutes into
the doomed flight.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2003/08/27/fNovaScotia125.raw.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

I have posted the following message on several flight attendant
forums...

I am asking any flight attendants who read these open letters to Mr.
Ward and Ms. Friend to forward it again to them at the following
email addresses and ask them why they will not talk with us. Your
unions have known about these problems for years and have refused to
get involved while they know your lives are in imminent danger.

If you die in a future crash, will your family believe the lie the
NTSB tells them about your passing?

apfa-president@...,apfa-vice-president@..., apfa-
secretary@...,apfa-treasurer@...,afatalk@...

John Ward
President
Association of Professional Flight Attendants

Mr. Ward,

Please read the enclosed letter to Patricia Friend, President of the
Association of Flight Attendants, and contact me. I would like to
discuss this issue which is putting your membership in imminent
danger. I have CC'd this to APFA's Vice President, Secretary, and
Treasurer.

James Bergquist

Ms. Friend,

My name is James Bergquist, former FAA air traffic controller and
head of our union, NATCA, in San Diego. I am concerned about the
lives of your membership and felt compelled to contact you again.

From the press release on your site at...

www.afanet.org/april8_let...a_sars.asp

I see Mr. Witkowski, your Director of air safety, is in communication
with the FAA and others in high places in our government.

Please read my open letter to President Bush which I posted on the
VJ592 memorial site at...

http://www.flight592.com/Flight592Discussion-
Current/_disc10/00000373.htm

and contact me. I would like to talk with you again. If you no longer
have my home phone number, email me and I'll send it to you again.

I am asking that you send the letter to him again at

president@...

You should know that I contacted Mr. Witkowski some ten years ago
when he worked at Ralph Nader's organization, the Aviation Consumer
Action Project (ACAP), with this information and he did nothing.

Maybe we can clean up the system and save the lives of a few of your
flight attendants.

On a lighter note, you might enjoy the cartoon on my website at...

users.sdccu.net/chickenlittle


Best Regards,


James Bergquist
air safety activist
chickenlittle92071@...

Beyond Conflict Of Interest

More than conflict of interest is involved in the designated
engineering representative/designated alteration station (DER/DAS)
system criticized recently by Ray Hudson (see ASW, April 28). There
also is a failure of accountability, asserts Mark Fetherolf, an
experienced software developer who has managed a number of large
projects, some of them critical systems (oil refinery process
monitoring and military weapons systems).

Fetherolf believes that Hudson "correctly identifies a loophole in
the federal aviation regulations [FARs] and suggests eminently
sensible design requirements."

Hudson was discussing the process by which a supplemental type
certificate (STC) was granted for the in-flight entertainment (IFE)
system installed in the Swissair MD-11 that crashed in 1998. The
Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada found significant
shortcomings in the STC process by which the installation was
approved, as did a special certification review (SCR) conducted by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) after the crash (see ASW,
Sept. 13, 1999, and April 7, 2003).

Briefly, the TSB said the safety analysis for the IFE, described by
the STC applicant as a non-essential system, could be based on "a
qualitative analysis to be based on prior engineering judgement and
past experience."

So, in light of Hudson's question about what sort of safety analysis
was done, Fetherolf said the answer appears to be "none."

It gets worse. According to Fetherolf, both the TSB and the FAA's
scathing SCR of the IFE installation involve a formality of
discussion that "obfuscates accountability in the process."

Fetherolf argued as follows:

"Regulations require the approval of the STC by an appointed
designee, which was, in this case, Santa Barbara Aerospace (SBA)."
(SBA supplied the IFE and obtained the STC for its installation.)
"The TSB report indicates that the design associated with the STC,
as approved by SBA and its associated DER's call for powering the
IFE from the cabin bus, was modified by Hollingshead International
(HI) when it was discovered that the cabin bus lacked adequate
capacity." (HI installed the system.)
"It is unknown if this change was communicated to SBA. Therefore,
there must be no documentation to support that it was communicated."
"The installed system varied materially from the approved design.
There is no documentation to support that the modification was
approved."
"And so, therefore, the system as installed was effectively not
certified."
Fetherolf went on to say, "I don't believe it is proper for all
parties to avoid accountability by effectively stating that, in the
absence of a rigorously defined process, we follow the (obviously
incomplete) regulations (most of the time) and when we didn't it was
because we lacked the training or expertise."

"Contemporary engineering practices embody the view that poor
quality is the result of flawed processes [which must be corrected].
It is assumed that workers have the best of intentions and that
processes must embody a tolerance of inherent human imperfection.
Where the assumption of best intention is correct, the result is the
miracle of continuous product improvement. But the benefit is undone
if the intentional compromise of quality can be concealed behind
letter-of-the-law compliance with regulations.

"It is a huge red flag when a project follows a circuitous path for
no apparent reason other than threading its way through loophole
after loophole - exactly the behavior described in the SCR report.
As one example, the SCR determined that the IFE system's electrical
power switching arrangement was 'not compatible with the design
concept of the MD- 11.' The proposition that type-compatibility for
a supplemental system is not a requirement - or not a requirement
unless explicitly stated - strikes me as absurd.

"The perpetrators deliberately compromised quality and safety.

"Some specific reforms that might be considered include:

"An independent body to review the qualifications, the certification
and the performance of designees, and of the FAA's overall
regulatory performance. The Department of Transportation Inspector
General (DOT/IG) should undertake a one-time special review of this
process as an absolute minimum."
"The FAA should be more active in imposing judicial and disciplinary
consequences to egregious breaches of regulations and of DER/DAS
responsibilities."
"Independent DERs should be indemnified to the same extent as FAA
employees."
"These are Band-Aid actions. They do not go to the heart of the
matter: intentional circumvention of the regulatory system is
laughably easy. And to further compound the problem, there seems to
be pervasive industry-wide denial that this could ever happen
again." >> Fetherolf, e-mail mark@... <<

An Incompatible Installation
"The IFE was connected to a flight-essential bus, not a cabin bus,
and the only way it could be turned off was by pulling circuit
breakers. In other words, shutting off the cabin bus, one of the
first steps in the emergency checklist for troubleshooting smoke and
fire of unknown origin (the Swissair case) would not disconnect IFE
power.

"And since the IFE was a 'passenger convenience' item, there was no
requirement for changes in the pilot's operating manual to inform
the crew about the system's functioning. [An FAA official] explained
that because there were no requirements, the arrangement 'wasn't
inherently unsafe, although it wasn't understandable to the flight
crew - it wasn't clear to them in an emergency situation.'

"In operation, the system generated so much heat that ... engineers
had to vary the range of air-conditioning temperature controllers.
This gambit was a tip-off that this system was a voracious energy
parasite and a possible source of real grief."

Source: Avionics Magazine, May 2001, p. 53

Here's an open letter to President Bush which I posted on the VJ592
wbsite...

http://www.flight592.com/Flight592Discussion-
Current/_disc10/00000373.htm

James A. Bergquist
Air Safety Activist
chickenlittle92071@...

With the AA587 crash in N.Y. , it was also revealed that the
experimentaion with human lives failed desperately.

For years, it had been acknowledged that wake turbulence was a treat
to aircrafts - but still, too short horisontal separation between the
jets was utilized. Until a fin was broken and 260+ lifes were lost.

Greed ("compression" within the available airspace) eventually
proving wrong, then also disclosing non-existing safety-analyzis...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3008385.stm

Disgusting....

len

It is not only in the O´Hare airspace that deliberate risk-exposure
takes place these days - here is an event that sends chilly
remembrances to a tragic event off the coast of California,US ;

SAS-flight in dramatic incident at ARN.

A SAS´flight on it´s way from ARN to London (UK) was forced to turn
back to ARN at lunch time on May 1, one hour into the flt.

The pilot reported that chafing in the controls for the
aircraft´s "steering and rudder" occured.
There were 147 pax and 5 crew on board.
- The descision was made to return to the place of departure, since
this is where there are good perspectives on investigating and
repairing the aircraft, as the stetment o Ulf Thorne, media contact
in SAS.
According to Thorne, there never was any risk for the flight.
Emergency vehicles and police was standing by at the landing, which
was un-eventful.


len

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2003-03-09-swissair_x.htm

Officials to probe use of aviation contractors
By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY

The General Accounting Office is launching an investigation into the
federal government's use of thousands of private companies to inspect
and certify airlines' planes and aircraft alterations.

GAO officials say the new probe was triggered by a Feb. 17 USA TODAY
article and a letter Friday from Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. He said
that the Federal Aviation Administration's use of private companies
has been criticized and that the newspaper story suggested "the
aviation industry was supervising itself without adequate controls
and oversight by FAA." (Related story: Doomed plane's gaming system
exposes holes in FAA oversight)

The article documented how a faulty interactive entertainment system
on a Swissair jet that crashed in September 1998 was incorrectly
installed and improperly certified by private companies. All 229
people aboard Flight 111, which left New York and plunged into the
Atlantic Ocean near Nova Scotia, were killed.

Canada's Transportation Safety Board will announce the findings of
its investigation on March 27. The board, which has been assisted by
the FAA, found early on that wires in the system and other wires
short-circuited and could have led to a fire.

The system was made by a small Las Vegas company, Interactive Flight
Technologies.

An FAA-approved contractor, Santa Barbara Aerospace, was hired to
certify that the system met FAA safety standards and oversee its
installation on Swissair jets. SBA's certification violated FAA
procedures, according to the FAA's post-crash review.

The FAA did not oversee SBA's work on the project aggressively, even
though it had criticized the company's work in the past, USA TODAY
reported, based on a review of FAA documents.

After the Swissair crash, the FAA found problems with the design,
installation and certification of IFT's systems and banned them. SBA
lost operating authority and went bankrupt.

Unknown to much of the traveling public, thousands of individuals and
companies like SBA have been increasingly used in the past few
decades to do the FAA's inspection and certification work. The FAA
relies on designees because it doesn't have enough staff or expertise
to monitor the large number of planes flying today. Critics charge
that designees may not be impartial certifiers, because they are
hired and paid by the companies that want their products certified.

The GAO has not yet set a timetable for completing its investigation
of the designee program, says Gerald Dillingham, the agency's
director of civil aviation issues.

The program and other issues raised by USA TODAY's article also
concern the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector
General. Deputy IG Todd Zinser says the office is "evaluating the
information to determine whether further investigation is warranted."

FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto says the agency is "ready to assist in
any review" of its programs. He wouldn't comment further.

It was just reported from Zurich, that new-old Swissair is about to
cut down in staffing by 700 heads and with 20 Alu tubes in their
fleet.

len

It was a MD81.
Problem was in a fan in one of the galleys.
Noticeable is that it took a long time to locate the source of the
smoke.

len
'--- In sr111@yahoogroups.com, lenkarl <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> SAS plane made emergency landing in Denmark (Source:TT Gothenburg)
>
> A passenger jet from SAS , enroute from London UK to Gothenburg
made
> an emergency landing in Aaalborg, Denmark, after that a dense smoke
> odeur had spread in the cabin.
>
> The landing at the Aalborg airport was uneventful and the
passengers
> were expected to be provided with another aircraft, for proceeding
to
> their dest. (Gothenburg).
>
> The plane , with 101 pax on board, was expected to arrive in Goth.
at
> 10.10 pm local time, but was instead forced to execute a so-called
> precautionary landing in Aalborg. The airport´s fire brigade and
> ambulances were standing by, there.
>
> The situation was very uncomfortable, but none of the people on
board
> panic´d , says passenger Anneli Young.
>
> -It started to smell from melted plastics inside the cabin. It was
an
> intense odeur. The cabin crew was seen running forth and back in
the
> aisles with fire extinguishers.
>
> Acc. to Ulf Thorné, media spokes man within SAS, the safety landing
> was fully according to the protocol.
> -In a situation like this, it is mandatory to land as soon as
> possible. It is not possible to make a risk assessment, while still
> being air borne, he stated.
>
> The plane was held at the airport, where a full technical
inspection
> now will be carried out.
>
>
>
>
> /len

SAS plane made emergency landing in Denmark (Source:TT Gothenburg)

A passenger jet from SAS , enroute from London UK to Gothenburg made
an emergency landing in Aaalborg, Denmark, after that a dense smoke
odeur had spread in the cabin.

The landing at the Aalborg airport was uneventful and the passengers
were expected to be provided with another aircraft, for proceeding to
their dest. (Gothenburg).

The plane , with 101 pax on board, was expected to arrive in Goth. at
10.10 pm local time, but was instead forced to execute a so-called
precautionary landing in Aalborg. The airport´s fire brigade and
ambulances were standing by, there.

The situation was very uncomfortable, but none of the people on board
panic´d , says passenger Anneli Young.

-It started to smell from melted plastics inside the cabin. It was an
intense odeur. The cabin crew was seen running forth and back in the
aisles with fire extinguishers.

Acc. to Ulf Thorné, media spokes man within SAS, the safety landing
was fully according to the protocol.
-In a situation like this, it is mandatory to land as soon as
possible. It is not possible to make a risk assessment, while still
being air borne, he stated.

The plane was held at the airport, where a full technical inspection
now will be carried out.




/len

http://usatoday.com/usatonline/20030217/4871800s.htm

Service limited to fixing leaks!

We have become aware recently, based on direct information confirmed
by reliable sources, that it is highly likely that the RCMP, and
possibly other authorities, are conducting an investigation to
determine the identity of the source of the information reported on
this board and on the SR111 Yahoo Group by beanspiller_ca. We
apologize for being cryptic. We never expected to have much of
anything in common with the CIA, but like them we can't say much more
without compromising the sources.

Of course the obvious question is: If the information "leaked" is not
factually correct, why bother looking for the source? I'm quite sure
that if we reported that we had learned from a highly placed source
in the TSB that the crash had been caused by faulty lavatory smoke
detectors, there would be no investigation. The report would be
dismissed on the assumption that either we were lying or misinformed.
What other than a distinct ring of truth or the presence of factual
information not known outside the investigative inner circle would
motivate such an inquiry?

If the fact of this inquiry, in combination with the other evidence
reported here, leads one to presume that the IFEN was indeed a
significant contributor, if not the root cause, of the fire and
resultant crash, then why not investigate its finance, design,
engineering, approval, purchase and installation, aspects of every
one of which give rise to reasonable cause to investigate further? To
be specific,

- Financed by a investment banker who was subsequently indicted for
securities fraud (IFT's IPO is named in the indictment)
- *Led by individuals with little or no experience in the development
of aviation products
- Guided through the approval process by a company whose FAA
designations were "surrendered" along with the IFEN certification
after an extensive investigation
- Assisted in governmental and regulatory affairs by the same
consultants who helped American Home Products gain FDA approval for
Fen-Phen
- Purchased for Swissair by one or more individual(s) who held IFT
company stock
- *Installation rushed based on incomplete specifications
- *Wiring practices questioned
- Electrical design found to be fundamentally incompatible with the
architecture of the MD11
- Rejected after being tested by other major air carriers, sold only
to Swissair
- Sold based on the promise of huge profits from in-flight gambling
(that never materialized)
- *Overheated, failed frequently

(*reported or suggested strongly by credible sources; all other items
are, to the best of our knowledge, unchallenged on factual basis)

The TSB takes the position, ostensibly on the basis of Canadian law,
that the information gathered in the course of its investigations
shall not be used for the purpose of civil litigation or criminal
prosecution. The stated rationale behind this is that any other
policy would diminish the TSB's investigative effectiveness. And
there is undoubtedly some truth to this. To the extent that the TSB
is credible in its assurance of complete confidentiality and
protection from prosecution, backed by the full weight of the law,
one would reasonably expect witnesses to be more forthcoming than
they might be otherwise. Leaks undermine the credibility of such
assurances and are therefore are, we suggest, an anathema to the TSB.
This all hangs together logically given the assumption that accidents
are just that and nothing more. Ever. Ah, but therein lies the rub.
What of the case, however rare, when there is true criminal conduct
that leads directly to loss of life? Does the end (better future
safety) then justify the means (letting the guilty go)? One inclined
toward forgiveness (to a fault IMHO) might assert that indeed it
does. Nothing can be done to bring back the dead. Better to
concentrate on averting future tragedy. But the obvious flaw in this
logic is that criminals repeat their offenses. We don't just punish
criminals to satisfy an abstract sense of justice. We do so to deter
future crimes. If reckless disregard for human life (especially in
the pursuit of personal gain) is unpunished, it is encouraged. The
prospect of consequences is removed. The prospect of gain remains.

It is generally culpable act to: Do something one shouldn't do; or
not do something one should do, that creates substantial and
unjustifiable risk. Statutes lay out degrees of culpability. One who:
should be aware of an unjustifiable risk is negligent ; is aware of
an unjustifiable risk, but takes it anyway, is reckless; knows that a
harmful outcome is nearly certain to occur is knowing; has the
conscious object of achieving a harmful result is purposeful. A drunk
driver who causes a fatal car crash is criminally liable. To the
extent he knows the risk involved but takes it anyway, he may be
guilty of reckless homicide. If he was able to convince the court
that he was unaware of the risk (not likely these days), he might be
found guilty of negligent homicide. So, one can be liable if he
reasonably should have known that his action or inaction created
substantial risk. Furthermore, criminal liability is not limited to
actively and knowingly doing something that endangers another, but
can be the result of failure to take actions that one should have
known were necessary to avoid the unjustifiable risk.

So we ask:
- Should people who built add-on systems for aircraft be aware of
issues such as "compatibility with the design philosophy" of the
aircraft.
- Doesn't skirting the mandated certification process pose a risk
(even if "no regulations were violated", technically)?
- Doesn't hasty installation of a complex system introduce the risk
of mistakes?
- Does solving an add-in systems "heat problem" by simply cranking up
the air conditioning sound like the safe solution or a risky one?

As we see it, there is a more than ample basis to suspect that the
actions of various parties did indeed constitute criminal behavior.
Yet the TSB insists that confidentiality is the more important
matter. This goes well beyond just giving the parties the benefit of
the doubt. No, we don't have the smoking gun in hand. If the TSB
encountered a memo from a senior engineer to the CEO of one of the
companies involved that said, "This system is unsafe and will cause
in-flight fires!" would they keep it a secret according to the
mandate of Canadian law? The evidence is mounting. In our opinion,
there is already "probably cause" to conduct a criminal
investigation. The TSB might well take the position that this is not
their concern, but all other authorities are waiting with bated
breath for the pronouncement of cause by the TSB. We already know
that their conclusion will be that that crash was the result of a
number of coincident factors. Even if they report that the IFEN was a
substantial contributing factor, they will not disclose the details
from which that conclusion was drawn. In fact, one can only suppose
that, if a particular item of information is incriminating, they are
bound by law to withhold it!

So the criminal is protected and the citizen who has the courage to
tell the truth to the families of the victims becomes the object of a
police investigation. A system, no matter how well-intentioned that
could have this as its outcome is broken and needs to be repaired.

Mark

http://www.swissair111.org

Commission Criticizes Swissair Management



ZURICH, Switzerland - The leadership of the now defunct Swiss flag
carrier Swissair made serious mistakes prior to the airline's
collapse, but it is unclear whether this will have any legal
consequences, an official report said Friday.


In a long-awaited 3,300 page report, the management consultancy firm
Ernst & Young said the sudden grounding of the carrier on Oct. 2,
2001 — leaving thousands of passengers stranded — was unnecessary
because Swissair had 123 million Swiss francs (then worth $76.9
million) at its disposal, and not just the 14.5 million francs it
claimed.

Swissair's parent company SAirGroup was heavily indebted at the end
of 2000. But the company's accounting practices masked the gravity of
the financial crisis, the report said. It criticized Swissair's board
and its auditors for being negligent.

It also said that Swissair, by taking sizable stakes in troubled
European carriers, failed to comply with its own strategy calling for
minority holdings of 10 percent to 30 percent.

The law firm overseeing Swissair's liquidation, Wenger Plattner, said
the report would be studied in depth before any decision was taken on
possible legal action against Swissair's former management. A
decision would not be made until the second half of the year, it
said.

Swissair was long a symbol of reliability and quality. After its
abrupt demise, the Swiss government and big banks were forced to
inject billions of dollars into a new airline, called Swiss.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030124/ap_on_bi_ge/swissair_1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Swissair souvenir sale 'boggles' widow's mind

By RICHARD DOOLEY
The Daily News


The widow of a man killed in the 1998 crash of Swissair Flight 111
says the sale of souvenirs purporting to be from the crash site is
tantamount to trampling a cemetery.

"That is the only graveyard we have," said Lyn Romano, a New York
state woman who also has a home in Hants County. Her husband, Ray,
was one of 229 people who died when Swissair Flight 111 crashed into
St. Margarets Bay on Sept. 2, 1998.

A small advertisement in the latest Bargain Hunter offered "sand,
rock and water wrapped in ribbon and lace. From the location where
Swissair plunged into the Atlantic Ocean."

"I really didn't expect to see something like this," said Romano. The
fourth anniversary of her husband's funeral was Saturday, the day Lyn
Romano read The Daily News story about the souvenirs.

Had to respond

"It just boggles my mind," she said. "I had to make a response to it."

The phone number in the advertisement has been disconnected, but not
until after a Hants County man called the woman offering the
souvenirs. He expressed his outrage and asked her to consider the
victims' families.

Glenn Nelson told The Daily News he considers the ad one of the
crudest things he's read.

Romano wants to thank him personally.

"I am so glad he spoke out about it," she said. "Our loved ones
deserve the dignity they were robbed of."

Romano said Nelson's kindness is more typical of the connection she
feels with many of her Nova Scotian friends and Hants County
neighbours.

Lost electricity

Romano spent Christmas at her Nova Scotia home, but lost electricity
one bitterly cold night. A stranger stopped at her door to invite
Romano and her family to his home because he had a generator and heat.

"We had a wood stove, so we were fine, but that is they type of
connection I've made with so many people here," she said. "That's why
I have to speak out against this."

rdooley@...

http://www.canada.com/halifax/story.asp?id={07E49FF3-F081-4F83-91F8-
2A1A84540A3E}

More information at http://www.swissair111.org

--- In sr111@yahoogroups.com, maillet_isabelle <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Best wishes for this christmas,
> again an either christmas
> all my simpathy for all members
> With all my love,
> Isabelle

Isabelle I just want to wish you best wishes this holiday season also
and let you know that your family will always be in my heart.

Love,
Barbara

Best wishes for this christmas,
again an either christmas
all my simpathy for all members
With all my love,
Isabelle

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.