please forgive me, i'm here because i stumbled across this site by accident. I don't want to cause anyone any unpleasant memories. I will explain..fri.july 10th,1998 at 2:18a.m.I awoke several times prior to 2:05a.m.,having dreamed of a plane crash.I dream of a young woman that has something to do with this flight-she would have-or should have been on this flight but isn't and someone she is very close to is critically injured on this flight. Those are the only details I dreamed of, with the exception of dreaming that on the plane that there was a lot of jewelry and money. I of course learned like everyone else of the tragedy of Swissair flight 111 on Sept.2,1998 but it was some time after the crash before there was any mention of the cargo of jewelry and money it was carrrying, but I was not surprised. Horribly, it only confirmed what I had only dreamed...As of yest.(8-30-03)I have tried researching what could have occurred on flight 111 on the night of July 10th or the wee hours of July 11th,1998 and I find that there were burning smells reported and unusual odors and I think as we all probably do that what if something could have been discovered then to prevent such a tragedy? I am as always confused by how I could have dreamed of such a horrible event and wish that I hadn't for I have no power to prevent it or to warn anyone. I don't know of any connection of anyone on the flight to me personally. I wish none of this were true. I would like to know if anyone knows, what was the flight time of the July 11th, 1998 incident? I just want to know. thank you for listening. bethany
Hi Bethany and welcome to the site. I just wanted to point out that I think the odor detected on the plane happened in August- about 3 weeks before the crash. Though the investigators were never able to prove it (and they tried)I will always believe that it was probably the smell of burnt wiring from the poorly installed entertainment system. It's a shame (but not surprising) that swissair put the plane back into service without finding the source of the problem. We might not be having to live this horror 5 yrs. later if they would have taken the chief steward's report more seriously. Here is an excerpt from the article:
The man was the chief steward aboard the same MD- 11 when it flew Aug. 10, 1998 from Zurich to Hong Kong. A strange odour was noticed in the cabin during the flight, prompting the steward to file an official report.
As far as dreams go they can be very bizarre.
BF Thanks for responding and not labeling me a nut case or something. Yes, dreams can be bizarre and mine are no exception. All I can say is I wish I just didn't have any. Anyway, I read the link you provided strange odours. I also read a report called the SR111 Investigation Report reporting smells reported on July 11 and August 18. This paragraph grabs my atteniton: Because the same aircraft was used for both flights and because on each flight, passengers reported a burnt odour within an area spanning a four passenger seat rows (14H and 18J respectively), investigators assessed the possibility of potential links between the July 1998 and the August 1998 flights. However, becasue there are no records or other info indicating the source of the burnt odor on the August 1988 flight and because the passenger from the July 1988 flight only reported the burning smell to the TSB several months after the flight, it was not possible to draw any link between the two events.
"If you need an accident to know there is a problem, then you are<br />part of the problem." (Joe Barton)
I intended to refer to your earlier comment regarding reported events that do not result in corrective action by the airline in my previous post. Unfortuntely I sent it before I intended to - please excuse me.
Often incidents like you have mentioned are referred to as 'no fault found' incidents, and can be the source of serious safety compromises. Generally, it is accepted that some reports just can't be duplicated or the failure can't be duplicated - but I have found that this 'reason' is more prevalent during periods of stress, overwork or financial limitations. I believe we have both seen numerous examples of situations where the aircraft was sent on it's way with no explanation for the reported smoke or odour. Fortunately, none of these incidents led to accidents, but the odds are that sometime it will occur.
I wouldn't want to be the maintenance person signing off on the NFF reason code just before a fatal incident occurred.
"If you need an accident to know there is a problem, then you are<br />part of the problem." (Joe Barton)
quote:Falkinn, You bring up excellent points regarding the reasons that aircraft are returned to service after these smoke/odor events with no explanation given. This seems to be so common lately and it is pretty frightening because one can't help feeling as if it is only a matter of time before the next sr111 preventable tragedy happens because a dangerous condition is overlooked. What a terrible, thought.
Bethany, In light of what you've quoted from the report, that is a very disturbing dream.
Bethany, Do you have any idea on what page of the report that quote can be found? Thanks in advance for your help.
Barbara, I am not the most computer gifted person there is, the name of the report is entitled:SR 11 Unvestigation Report-1.18.10 Reporting of Cabin Anomalies. I wrote down the url and hope this works:
www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/01report/01factual/rep that is of course on continual url. It's the very first page of this report. I went today and looked at numerous reports for this type of aircraft and the reports of minor incidents of fires related to wiring is well, unbelievable if you ask me. And of course the crashes and loss of life involved speaks for itself.
Bethany, thanks. The link doesn't work but I think I'll be able to find it. I really appreciate you bringing that to our attention.
As for dreams...I could tell you about a very odd one that my daughter Tara had prior to the flight but I find it so depressing to even think about it that I'd better not even go there. I hope that you are able to find out the time this incident happened.
Barbara, I will keep looking for a time for the july ll 1998 flight, and I hope that if anyone on the board reads this and has any info that would help it would be greatly appreciated..what I want to know: Does anyone know the time of the flight of the july 11,1998 Swissair flight that a burning odor was reported on? (the route and destination would be appreciated to). I know most there has to be some place to find this sort of thing but I don't know where....thanks.
Bethany & Barbara...
Here is the link that you are looking for:
1.18.10 Reporting of Cabin Anomalies
CD, Thanks so much for finding the link. Again Bethany thanks for pointing this information out.
Bethany you may already be aware of this but if you check the link that CD has provided, the odor on July 11th was not on the aircraft that crashed-sr111. The 'accident' aircraft was HB-IWF and an odor was detected on that particular aircraft 3 weeks before the crash.
The other odors occurred on HB-IWH a different MD-11. From the TSB's report:
quote:It appears as though the investigators did an extremely thorough job of checking out any incidents of odor occurring on the entire swissair MD-11 fleet prior to the tragedy and tried to look for correlations but were unable to find any.
I wasn't certain about the information-I found this: 11 July 1988 "On 11 July 1998, a passenger on board HB-IWH operating as SR 111 detected a "strong, nasty odour of something burning. It was not a kitchen smell, but rather something which should not burn." The smell was detected in flight, after meal service, in the area of Passenger Seat 14H. The passenger did not report the unusual smell to the cabin crew during or immediately following the flight.2 There is no record of anyone else detecting an unusual smell on that flight." Then of course there was a report of unusual smells on board HB-IWH operating as SR 264 on Aug 18,1998....after learning of the SR 111 accident, an F/A from SR 264 contacted Swissair officials in Zurich to report her recent experience on an MD-11 aircraft. BEcause the F/A did not know the registration of the aircraft used for SR 264, she was concerned that it might have been the same aircraft as that of SR111 (HB-IWF). It was not. Given that the same aircraft, HB-IWH, was used for both flights and that on each flight, passengers reported a burnt odor within an area spanning four passenger seat rows (at passenger seats 14H and 18J, respectively), investigators assessed any potential link between SR 111 (July 1998)and SR 264." I'll be honest with you-the way some of this is written is confusing to me-particularly when they say "operating as....such as on board HB-IWH operating as SR 264"....
Hi Bethany. Well what I'm looking at in the final report seems to clearly indicate that the odors are from a different swissair MD-11 particularly the date you are referring to July 11th, 1998. At any rate, the dream is certainly still disturbing.
quote:Bethany the plane that crashed was HB-IWF not H. I think that's where you might be getting confused. Sr111 refers to the route but doesn't mean it would be the same plane. In fact they were different aircraft. They didn't always use the same planes for the same route. That wouldn't work out because it wouldn't always be practical since the plane wouldn't always be available to do the same route. See what I mean? They used different planes for the sr111 route. The one that experienced the odor on July 11th of '98 was not the same plane that crashed though it may have flown the same route.
Barbara, thanks for explaining that to me in English. I had wondered about that report prior to tonights discussion but wasn't sure...that "operating as" mention was what confused me; but what you said made sense out of it all. I hope you are doing well Barbara.
quote:Bethany thanks again for bringing this up. I wouldn't have even noticed the reference to the previous odors if you hadn't pointed it out in the report. I somehow missed that and so did Mark and we were surprised to see it.
I'm afraid that I will never be at peace in regards to this terrible tragedy but for some reason that I don't even understand, discussing the technical part of this though very disturbing, somehow keeps me sane. We are always on a quest for information and you and many others on this site have been a big help. I hope you'll stop in when you can.
The smell-o-solution -From Air Safety Week:
Aircrews normally become aware of in-flight fires through their sense of smell (or via an anxious alert from the cabin staff). Isolating the source of smoke or fumes has been the problem. The conundrum is aggravated by the fact that air conditioning systems can channel fumes escaping through poor oil seals or broken ductwork. To confuse things further, air conditioning smoke may be a harmless mist from condensation, or it could be engine oil smoke (more frequently encountered after maintenance work). Engines and auxiliary power units also can ingest de-icer fluid, which also can introduce an unusual smell or indeterminate smoke into the cockpit/cabin.
Discriminating between a burnt oil smell and the acrid fumes of overheated or arcing wiring is the immediate challenge. Pilots are only hit with the one smell and must decide if it's irritating and annoying oil-residue vapor or the highly dangerous acrid smell of electrical overheating. Moreover, wiring faults will not necessarily trip circuit breakers, and a dangerous flashover can result.
Herewith, a simple two-part approach. Instead of celebrating wiring insulation for its "low smoke output" under overheating conditions, give it a spray-on coating of resin that will not only further physically protect the conductor, but will ensure that any significantly overheated wiring will disclose its position with a thick, billowing cloud of harmless white smoke.
Moreover, the chemistry of the resin overcoat could be such that it emits a very distinctive odor when overheated. These two features might help to greatly resolve the continuing pilots' conundrum in a smoke event: "Is it an electrical fire?" and "Well, if it is, where the dickens is it?" This treatment of the wiring would facilitate what might be dubbed "precognition."
Indeed, what might be dubbed this "precognition concept" might be beneficial when married to new and emerging fire detection technology mentioned in a recent General Accounting Office report on advances being pursued to improve cabin safety.
Add a few $5 domestic smoke alarms in inaccessible spaces and the pilots would have a three-way pointer to the nature and location of an electrically ignited fire (or the intermittent arcing preliminary to fire).
Clearly, there are other factors to consider. First, would the spray-on additive add significant weight. Aircraft wiring developments have been characterized by a relentless campaign to save weight. Second, any residual stickiness of the spray-on coating might foster the collection of dust bunnies - and these accumulations of lint and fine debris can be a significant problem, even for "clean operators" who have aircraft with wiring in inaccessible spaces. The idea would take time and experimentation to refine.
"Multi sensor detectors, or 'electronic noses,' could combine one or more standard smoke detector technologies; a variety of sensors for detecting such gases as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, or hydrocarbon; and a thermal sensor to more accurately detect and locate overheated or burning materials ... These 'smart' sensors would ignore the 'nuisance sources' such as dirt, dust, and condensation that are often responsible for triggering false alarms in existing systems."
Source: GAO, Report GAO-04-33, "Advancements Being Pursued to Improve Airliner Cabin Occupant Safety & Health," Oct., 2003, p. 65. For the full report, see www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrept?GAO-04-33
|Powered by Social Strata|