Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Swissair 111 CVR finally made public

  • Thread starter Thread starter jonjuan
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 10

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

jonjuan

Honey Ryder
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Posts
4,155
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...air_recordings_070521/20070522?hub=TopStories

Air traffic control tapes of Swissair Flight 111 have finally been released after a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The ATC tapes, released by the Canadian Press, have not been made public since the 1998 crash that killed 229 people.
The tapes contain hours of recording including the final dramatic 12 minutes of the flight before the aircraft plunged at high speed into St. Margaret's Bay, N.S., near Halifax.
"Swissair one eleven is declaring pan pan pan we have smoke in the cockpit," one pilot said. "Pan pan pan" is the international distress signal for the airline industry.
Later, another said, "We are declaring emergency now" (this can be heard on part four of the audio link to the right).
They were told they could commence the fuel dump, discussed altitude and the approach to Halifax airport with air traffic controllers. They were asked to advise when it was complete.
There was one last garbled "hello," then presumably electrical failure cut off communications. About six minutes after the last transmission, everyone was dead.
The MD-11 aircraft left New York for Geneva on Sept. 2, 1998.
The aircraft smashed into the dark water off Peggy's Cove at 10:31 p.m. Atlantic Time at an estimated 550 kilometres an hour, killing everyone onboard and shattering the plane into literally millions of tiny fragments.
The impact of the jet hitting the water made seismographic needles in Moncton and Halifax flutter as if an earthquake had struck.
Vic Gerden, chief investigator into the crash, said families of the victims have not yet heard the audio although they were briefed extensively at the time of the disaster.
"I don't recall them having the opportunity to listen to the tapes,'' Gerden, who retired last year, told the Canadian Press from Winnipeg.
Some family member predicted the tapes would be hard to hear, even after so many years.
"These things bring an event back to people, the family members, who've put a lot of time and distance between the crash ... and their losses,'' Miles Gerety, who lost his brother Pierce in the crash, told the Canadian Press from his home in Redding, Conn. "I think it would be hard to hear.''
After the crash, the Transportation Safety Board refused to release the ATC audio, saying it contained personal information.
John Reid, then Canada's information commissioner, initially supported the refusal. "In my view, the voices, along with the tonal and emotive characteristics, constitute personal information of three air traffic controllers and the two pilots,'' he ruled in 1999.
Reid eventually reversed on his decision after he received complaints about the board's refusal to release audio from four other air disasters.
He fought the board and Nav Canada all the way to the Supreme Court, which eventually ruled the transmissions should be released to the public.
The ruling brings Canada in line with countries that have allowed ATC recordings to be available for years.
 
It never stops amazing me how stupid the press is. There's a big difference between CVR tapes and ATC tapes. CVR is in the headline but never mentioned once in the body of the article.
Idiots.
 
The press referred to them as ATC tapes, your flight info member threw in the CVR word.
 
Last edited:
The press referred to them as ATC tapes, your flight info member threw in the CVR word.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. The headline of the article, not quoted above, is "Swissair crash cockpit recordings made public"
 
As a part of my briefing I remind everyone that depending on the nature of the emergency an overweight landing may be required and we'll skip the dumping or dump to a short final. That is one of the things this crash taught me. An overweight landing is the Mechanics problem and depending on how overweight maybe a big problem maybe not, but either way they can bitch about it to a vertical version of me.
 
I wonder if they would have made the airport it they didnt worry about dumping fuel!

It's always easy to come after the fact and say "what if...".
What if they didn't dump the fuel and got off the runway and kill a bunch of people ? If the pilots had survived it, they would have been blamed for not dumping the fuel.

I truly believe that they did the best they could, unfortunately, luck was not with them that night. The way the fire started, could only be confirmed when it had already done a lot of damaged.

By the way i was on that flight 2 days prior to the crash.

What if....
 
The way the fire started, could only be confirmed when it had already done a lot of damaged.
The ValuJet crash taught us the lesson that any smoke in the cockpit = land immediately. That's what's so confounding about the Swissair pilot's decision.
 
I wonder if they would have made the airport it they didnt worry about dumping fuel!


I thought I saw something where some invevestigators came to a conclusion on this. If they had turned to YHZ right away, not tried to dump, and make the overweight landing there would have been something like 10 minutes (or more) to get everybody off before the plane burned up.
 
I wasnt trying to second guess them at all. I have no fuel dumping experience and have never been to Halifax to where I know there runway layout/length. I assume the crew didn't understand the severity of the fire that had started or they would have made a straight line to the airport. This was the first time I heard first hand what had happened and it seems they were vectoring them around for fuel issues. Very sad indeed............Valuejet also taught me a very valuable lesson when theres smoke/fire anywhere on the airplane. Sort it out on the ground!
 
I've had smoke 5 times and never a serious fire. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. It would be easy to have these kind of experiences cloud our judgment. Without playing armchair quarterback we can honor the Swiss air crew by learning from their fate....
 
The ValuJet crash taught us the lesson that any smoke in the cockpit = land immediately. That's what's so confounding about the Swissair pilot's decision.

Did you even read the final report ?
They had electrical problems before they even had the fire. Once the fire was identified, it spreaded rapidly. Would you right away associate an electrical problem with a fire ? Now I do, but thanks to their experience.

Read the report before drawing such easy conclusion.
 
Read the report before drawing such easy conclusion.
I can't believe you're arguing about this. I read the report several years ago. Obviously they didn't know how serious their problem was until it was too late. Same thing for the Valuejet crash. The Swissair guys already made the decision for a precautionary landing but delayed it for unecessary fuel dumping. I flew a plane last week which had logged an overweight landing after an air turn-back due to all three lavs not functioning. My point being that an overweight landing isn't a big deal and that fuel-dumping should be reserved for times when conditions (like gear/hydraulic/brake problems or runway conditions) require it.
 
Swiss Air, Valu Jet, Alaska all have taught us to get the airplane on the ground right now. An airplane with smoke/flgiht control problems with paying pax on board is not the time to be troubleshooting.

As far as an overweight landing...If we are talking structual limits it is NOT a big deal. It is a minor inspection and a logbook entry....in any case who cares, no matter how overweight you are you will still be okay...so you trash the main gear strut on landing...whatever.

If we are talking performance limits - remember all the fudge factors (60% - no reverse) in the calculations and the fact that a lot of times the limitations are because of the go-around, not the runway itself.

On an airplane the size of an MD-11 losing 10,000 - 20,000 pounds of landing weight doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference. I would have dumped fuel but only until I needed to turn it off to land.

I was shocked at this accident because they had smoke that was not obvious where it was coming from (i.e. smoldering cigarrete left in lav). Smoke is a no brainer...you land the plane...I don't care how heavy you are, where it's coming from, etc.

I am not sorry I am second guessing these pilots - I second guess every accident - I second guess every decision I make - I think it makes me a better pilot - Heaven forbid I get killed in an accident, I hope that every pilot scrutinizes everything I did so they can learn from it.

Later
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link, Mule.

4. The flight crew were trained to dump fuel without restrictions and to land the aircraft in an overweight condition in an emergency situation, if required.

5. From any point along the Swissair Flight 111 flight path after the initial odour in the cockpit, the time required to complete an approach and landing to the Halifax International Airport would have exceeded the time available before the fire-related conditions in the aircraft cockpit would have precluded a safe landing.

I stand corrected and retract my statements. I didn't remember this.
 
Swiss Air, Valu Jet, Alaska all have taught us to get the airplane on the ground right now. An airplane with smoke/flgiht control problems with paying pax on board is not the time to be troubleshooting.

As far as an overweight landing...If we are talking structual limits it is NOT a big deal. It is a minor inspection and a logbook entry....in any case who cares, no matter how overweight you are you will still be okay...so you trash the main gear strut on landing...whatever.

If we are talking performance limits - remember all the fudge factors (60% - no reverse) in the calculations and the fact that a lot of times the limitations are because of the go-around, not the runway itself.

On an airplane the size of an MD-11 losing 10,000 - 20,000 pounds of landing weight doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference. I would have dumped fuel but only until I needed to turn it off to land.

I was shocked at this accident because they had smoke that was not obvious where it was coming from (i.e. smoldering cigarrete left in lav). Smoke is a no brainer...you land the plane...I don't care how heavy you are, where it's coming from, etc.

I am not sorry I am second guessing these pilots - I second guess every accident - I second guess every decision I make - I think it makes me a better pilot - Heaven forbid I get killed in an accident, I hope that every pilot scrutinizes everything I did so they can learn from it.

Later


I agree with everything you mentioned here. I'd like to add something. If you were flying the N Atlantic and you were overhead Goose Bay with unknown smoke and an RVR 300 ft below mins there, would you excersise your emergency authority and attempt a below min ldg at Goose Bay or take the chance and continue to Gander with MVFR WX?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top