Talk:Swissair Flight 111/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Good article

I've made some minor tweaks but in general I think it's a very good article deserving of the title. Having seen the National Geographic documentary on it, I feel this article provides good and detailed coverage of the accident, without using too much technical terms. BabyNuke 20:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

edit: Note, I've have listed it under "Engineering and technology - Engineering failures and disasters" BabyNuke 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Recommendations

Section should be more extensive. This is the whole reason for doing the investigation.LeadSongDog 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Boeing and impact acceleration

I believe that Boeing had purchased McDonnell Douglas around 1996/1997 so that's why Boeing was involved in this.

I really wonder, though, what was the source for the figure of 350 g's as the impact acceleration? That sounds awfully high. It would imply that objects traveling at the plane's speed (300 kts) came to a stop in about 3 meters. Is there a decimal point missing in that figure? I couldn't find a reference to it in the TSB report. Sean Breheny 209.6.248.221 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who inserted that number in the article, but I just watched the documentation "Air Crash Investigations - Fire on Board" and this figure was mentioned their too. But it also looks kind of strange to me. --80.218.149.71 20:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas says the buyout 1997. The TSB report 1.13.3 says "in the order of at least 350 g's". This number makes sense, water is an incompressible fluid of much greater density than that of the aircraft, so in impact the water has to be moving at the same speed as the front of the impacted a/c. Compare the mass of water displaced by a cylinder the size of the a/c cabin at 1 tonne/cubic metre to the mass of that cabin.
Delta-v = 300 kt * (1 - m_cab/(m_cab + m_water))

LeadSongDog 18:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Importance

I've bumped the importance scale on Wiki Project Switzerland to high in accordance with the guidelines. The worst and last major accident in the history of the flag carrier, necessitating the largest and most expensive crash investigation effort in Swiss or Canadian history, dominating news coverage for week, likely contributing to the demise of the carrier (previously regarded as one of the safest in the world). This has to be at least high if not top importance.LeadSongDog 20:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Future of the article

I'm hoping to get this article FA-status, and as such am in the process of re-writing/adding/updating it. See:Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Wikipedia:Article development, Wikipedia:The perfect article, User:Trevor MacInnis/Article Creation and Improvement Drive. I have the TSB report, but would like to know about any reputable websites/books with other information. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sone things we need:

  1. images that are not Non-commercial licenses.
    1. check [1],

[2], [3], [4]

  1. something about how big the investigation was (for example, I know they invented new ways of investigating, but can't find a reference for that fact,)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor MacInnis (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05T04:09:24
The TSB report goes into the techniques used at some length.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Need a good cleanup. Given the number of refs to the TSB report, I think Harvard style would be best for this article. Objections? Volunteers?LeadSongDog (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Boeing?

The article states that the aircraft was a Macdonald Douglass product, so I am wondering why was Boeing involved in the investigation and compensation of victim's families? AbstractClass 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Boeing bought Mac Doug in the years between the construction and loss of the a/c.LeadSongDog come howl 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Swissair Flight 111 article

Under Para 2 of TSB Findings states: Arcing from wiring of the in-flight entertainment system network did not trip the circuit breakers. While suggestive, the investigation was unable to confirm if it was this arc was the "lead event" that ignited the flammable covering on MPET insulation blankets that quickly spread across other flammable materials. This statement is incorrect: Ethylene tetrafluorethylene (ETFE) wires do not burn hot enough to ignite an insulation blanket. This was the wire insulation type used on the entertainment system wires. The ship's wiring insulation (Kapton) has repeatedly ignited insulation blankets because it arcs at 10,000 degrees, enough to melt titanium.The record shows numerous insulation blanket fires started with Kapton insulation arcing, whereas FAA tests prove that ETFE (entertainment wires) do not burn or arc at temperatures high enough to ignite the insulation blankets.63.167.255.152 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify, did the article misinterpret the TSB report or is there an as-yet-uncited FAA test that contradicts it?LeadSongDog come howl 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No response, IP appears to have moved along.LeadSongDog come howl 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

Nelievsky said: I fail to see how a user created CG image can be more important that the actual plane image, even with an old livery.)

It's not about the "importance" of CGIs or photos, however the reason livery is important simply boils down to accuracy, the CGI shows the plane as it looked at the time of the incident. Using the 1992 photo is likely to give those who don't know better the impression that the plane looked in 1998 as it did in the 1992 photo. (PS You may not know but many photos on this project are user created as well.) Anynobody 06:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The CG graphic beats the real thing in terms of "accuracy"? Are you kidding me? I do know that many of the photos on this project are user created as well. So? What's your point? Nelievsky (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do we have a CG image of the aircraft at NIGHT??? You can't even see any detail in this image, it's just like looking at a black box with a few windows and a tail logo. Might as well not even have a picture on here. Crk112 (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

1992 photo copyright question

I recognize the photo from Airliners.net, which says Photo Copyright © Christian Waser, all rights reserved. Airliners.net is not affiliated with any entity mentioned or pictured herein. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. I feel awkward asking this given the disagreement regarding the infobox image, but can you provide some kind of proof that Christian Waser authorized usage of his photo? (All rights reserved is incompatible with a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license) Anynobody 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you assume that there's a copyright issue with that image??? You should really feel awkward asking this. The image was uploaded with propper permission from Christian Waser. Feel free to contact him if you insist. Nelievsky (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with the above and to be consistent, I have applied "class=GA" to the WP Canada banner. I have not re-assessed the article before doing so. PKT 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

notable victims

Klaus Kinder-Geiger, notable physicist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.142.242 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Why not write a Wikipedia article on him? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits and Compensation

"Swissair and Boeing offered the families of the passengers financial compensation. The offer was rejected in favour of a $19.8 billion suit against Swissair and DuPont ..."

The article states correctly that the punitive lawsuit was dismissed in 2002 but makes no mention that over $13 million was paid to victims' families. Worse, the paragraph wrongly implies wasn't any compensation.--TL36 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So, does the source used for this paragraph say that $13 million had been paid? If not, another source is needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible source

See "Swissair Gets A for Caring; Families Praise Heartfelt Assistance." The Washington Post. September 12, 1998. Financial D15. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities

Says there is a person of Swedish nationality. I feel insulted that it is not represented in the chart... doesn't add up, whoever is responsible for reporting the correct information of the nationality of survivors, please correct this.

Final tally of passenger nationalities
Nationality Passengers Crew Total
 France 41 0 41
 Switzerland 31 13 44
 United States 109 1 110
Others (including 13 passengers
with dual nationality)		 34 0 34
Total 215 14 229

Ugh. That nationalities info box is just horrible.

Can we make do with this version. It conveys the essential information that most of the victims were French, Swiss or US citizens.

82.1.57.194 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There were also 2 victims that were citizens of St. Kitts, only 1 is listed. One of them had dual citizenship.

Why were my parents both removed from the citzenship list? Alma and Robert Milne were both citizens of St. Kitts. This is sickening as their daughter to find them not recognized as victims!

Incorrect location

In the History/Flight and Crash paragraph, the location is incorrect and appears to be onshore and approx 7 nautical miles from the crash site. From the reference, debris field is as follows: Northwest corner - 63 58.6134' W, 44 24.6973' N Northeast corner - 63 58.2366' W, 44 24.6906' N Southwest corner - 63 58.6088' W, 44 24.4173' N Southeast corner - 63 58.2321' W, 44 24.4205' N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.132.217 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

why no mention of US navy assistance

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=286 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for finding that! I will add it on the page WhisperToMe (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Peggys Cove, St. Margarets Bay

The official spellings for these places do not have apostrophes for some reason. See the Geographical Names Board of Canada's database entries for them:

Also see the titles of their Wikipedia articles:

I suggest this article be changed to use these apostrophe-less official spellings. Indefatigable (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The "official" federal names' reflected in telephone and postal directories lack apostrophes, but this is an artifact of Canada's official bilingualism. Nova Scotia is essentially unilingual English (with pockets of Gaelic). Local signage and even national English reporting regularly uses the genitive apostrophe. Compare the results for "St. Margaret's Bay" site:cbc.ca to "St. Margarets Bay" site:cbc.ca LeadSongDog come howl! 04:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article?

This article is well below par, definitely not Good Article quality, which is a shame given the significance of this accident and the wealth of information available about it. 1.44.50.167 (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's bloated and has limited continuity or flow. So make a contribution by editing it...or at least state in detail where you think it can be improved. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
From memory, here's some things to start looking at, although not exhaustive:
  • Big question if the crew could have saved the aircraft by acting differently. The fire checklist would have taken 20mins to complete if started immediately - therefore not enough time to determine the source or change the outcome. Their training and checklists suggested smoke was emanating from the aircon; and it was described as physically impossible to find or fight the fire in the attic. Crew was therefore exonerated.
  • Flammable materials in the cockpit attic was a big factor. Industry failure to recognize this area as a hazard before this incident, aggravated the situation by adding more combustible material and failed to mitigate the risk by adding redundancy in critical power supplies etc.
  • Crew powered down the cabin according to std procedure, but the airflow then critically drew the fire back into the cockpit area.
  • Inflight entertainment system power could not be isolated separately because of poor retrofit.
  • Fire did not penetrate the aircraft skin - instead became unflyable as vital flight controls were lost. The flight path and attempt to fly the aircraft not covered. Again, was shown that the aircraft could not be saved it had diverted immediately when smoke was first detected.
  • Water crash meant that there was no post accident fire - i.e. all fire damage was pre-accident.
  • Accident investigation centered on the cabin attic once the front 10m of the aircraft was pieced together. The location and direction it spread became readily apparent too.
  • There's much more detail to the arcing event; e.g. evidence of arcing was found in 20 of the 3000 wires examined, about half of which were associated with the inflight entertainment system, but most of this acing was caused by the fire burning insulation. Two wires thought to have contributed to the initiation could not be definitively linked to the entertainment system.
  • TSB recommendations and consequences for the airline and the industry were more far reaching than indicated. Did Swissair go bankrupt because of this accident?

1.44.100.142 (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, that seems to cover the major points I recall from this accident. This accident also changed the approach to smoke/fumes in flight at least amongst pilots (see http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions/usa/Pilots-Claim-New-Checklists-Could-Compound-Emergencies_2202.html#.Ux4oxPmSx8E ) , with a stronger emphasis now to divert for the earliest possible landing, in precedence over running time consuming trouble shooting checklists and fuel dumping to max landing weight. Though that approach would have made no difference to the outcome of this particular flight. I also think the search and rescue/recovery section should be trimmed substantially. I don't think the names of every single ship/vessel involved is required. There's more space devoted to search/recovery than there is to the findings and recommendations, completely unbalanced. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In Popular Culture/Media/Etc.

Not entirely sure whether this existed and was struck or if this just hasn't been quite a big enough deal to need one, but I figured I'd throw on the Talk page that Aesop Rock and Kimya Dawson (as The Uncluded) have a song concerning this. I don't know that you'd need a section for one entry like that, but in case more ever crop up.Cool moe dee 345 (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a mention of the song in the "legacy" section. 04:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9E80:B7F:80BC:5D79:A7F7:DB6C (talk)

CVR Transcript

The article states that the CVR transcript is protected under law and has never been released, but one of the external links at the bottom goes to a site (airstrike.com) that purportedly has the CVR transcript. What is this discrepancy about? -- Veggies (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Swissair Flight 111. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Swissair Flight 111. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction in FDR timing?

I'm confused by these statements:

"The flight data recorder stopped recording at 22:25:40 AT (01:25:40 UTC)" and

"Flight data recording shows that engine two was shut down due to an engine fire approximately one minute before impact,[5] implying that the first officer was still alive and continued trying to take back control of the aircraft until the final moments of the flight. At 22:31:18 AT (01:31:18 UTC), the aircraft struck the ocean . . ."

So, if the flight data recorder stopped at 22:25:40 and the aircraft crashed at 22:31:18 (five minutes, 38 seconds later), then how could there be recorded information "approximately one minute before impact" [that is, at approximately 22:30:18, over four minutes after the recorder stopped recording]?

50.34.136.204 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Badly worded the engine information came from the FADEC not the flight recorders. Probably because it was sourced to an entertainment programme rather than the official report! MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Swissair Flight 111. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Victim nationalities

Once again, this question has reared its ugly head with these edits. The references used are not wonderful. The CNN 7 September revised list of names cited has inconsistent ways of describing the victims: many are by residence rather than nationality. It shows 14 as dual nationals in various combinations of nations. The earlier CNN 4 September article showed quite different summaries, but neither of them showed 111 US citizens (as the lates edit would have it). We really need a better source that is not so much news as history. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please quit deleting my parents from the list of victims! They were Kittians. The total passengers stays the same, yet my parents' nationalities are gone, why? They are as dead as the other 227 people. Why not let them have their citizenship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:8000:3C60:CD68:6DA4:F259:4A0D (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Swiss Air Conspiracy

Many people that were at the site and people that have investigated the events, believe that this event was link to the larger attacks on Saudi Arabia and America by the unknown terrorist groups that where building up there attacks which lead to 9/11. "Instead, the TSB was focused on the crash being the result of an accident. Any hint of criminal activity meant it would be forced to drop the probe and turn it over to the RCMP." I believe that this should be added to the page.[1]

What is interesting is that any suggestion of conspiracy around this flight, is quickly removed and any credible sources is discredited with negative statements. Snowy Badger (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/swissair-crash-may-not-have-been-an-accident-ex-rcmp-1.1019738

Why is there an attempt to discredit him?

"Thomas Juby, a retired RCMP sergeant who was not working for the TSB, and with no air accident investigation experience, has gained notoriety and profit from promoting a theory..... " Shouldn't it outline why he was assigned to the case by the national police force? Snowy Badger (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The current wording seems like a violation of WP:NPOV. It criticizes his experience, yet he was an experienced forensic arson investigator, and he found evidence consistent with an incendiary device. Also, the wording suggests that he has motives rooted in profit, yet his $12 paperback with its 3.5 stars on Amazon likely is not earning him much when compared with his 32 years of salary from the RCMP. Dotyoyo (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I have just removed the speculation/conspiracy section, it doesnt add to the article and shouldnt be used as a dumping ground for such theories. MilborneOne (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The speculation section had 8 previous edits in 2018, showing at least some degree of "traction". I suggest that the Investigation section get a new subsection for the findings of Thomas Juby and Dr. Jim Brown, since they were official investigators. Dotyoyo (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree - dissenting opinions are nothing new for eg. TWA800. Its not 'conspiracy' when there is scientific evidence to question the official narrative. 174.0.39.130 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Number of victims with German nationality

The text states the number of victims with German nationality with 3. – The table diplays 1. --MrAurum (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you clarify "not helpful"?

@Toddy1: Re: your undo, could you expand a little bit? In particular, do you mean:

  • The double parentheses in "the debris sank to the ocean floor (a depth of 55 m (180 ft))." is Just Fine and there's no benefit to rewriting to avoid them, or
  • The original was bad, but the way I chose to change it, to "the debris sank to the ocean floor at a depth of 55 m (180 ft)." was just as bad.

For example, I could change it to use |disp=comma: "the debris sank to the ocean floor (a depth of 55 m, 180 ft)." I'm a bit confused because you directly reverted rather than attempting a different fix, but the first alternative seems obviously false. (Due to how confusing double parens are, many sources recommend alternating round and square brackets.) 209.209.238.149 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) You changed
{{convert|55|m|ft|abbr=on}}
to
{{cvt|55|m|ft}}
Making the code cryptic is not helpful. It just makes future errors more likely.
(2) The original made it clear that the ocean floor was at a depth of a depth of 55 m (180 ft). What you wrote actually meant: when the debris reached a depth of 55 m (180 ft) it then sank to the ocean floor.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I have put in square brackets as you suggested above.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Toddy1: Thanks; I was confused. A few comments, though:
  1. I really don't think changing {{convert|55|m|ft|abbr=on}} to {{cvt}} is making things "more cryptic". By omitting the |abbr=on parameter, it makes for shorter and less cluttered wikitext, which is actually easier for someone working on the article text. (Any uncertainty about what it does is easily resolved by looking at the rendered HTML.) Anyone who wants to change the appearance of the template output needs to understand the intricacies of the {{convert}} template anyway, and {{cvt}} is no more obscure than |abbr=on.
  2. I think the intended interpretation of what I wrote (the ocean floor, which the debris sank to, was at a depth of 55 m) is the more likely interpretation, and your alternate reading doesn't come easily to me, but if I squint I can see how it could be taken that way, so I'll take your word it's possibly confusing.
  3. I didn't mean to suggest square brackets. That's just a common disambiguation style if one must nest brackets. My preference remains to reword to eliminate them entirely; I suggested using |disp=comma: "(a depth of 55 m, 180 ft)". Any objections if I make that change?
209.209.238.149 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I strongly object to changing the template to {{cvt|55|m|ft|disp=comma}} for reasons already explained. However, I have no objections to {{convert|55|m|ft|abbr=on|disp=comma}}, and have taken what you said as a request that "|disp=comma" should be added to whatever template is used.
I assume that your knowledge of obscure details of templates means that you have a Wikipedia account, but choose not to use it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Location of the crash was approximately ±300 meters

Is there something missing from this sentence that ends the section Swissair Flight 111 § Flight timeline? "The location of the crash was approximately ±300 meters." This doesn't seem to have any coherent meaning. Indefatigable (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swissair_Flight_111/Archive_1&oldid=1195341137"