Hello everyone.I have talked with my source again regarding the cause, and I have a few things to tell you. First of all, early in the investigation, they had suspicions that the IFEN was involved in the crash. They did some prliminary work in that area, and just when they were getting somewhere with their work, they were "directed" to look for other "probable" causes for a crash. After looking at all other probable causes, they kept coming back to the IFEN.

I said in my original post that it was the wiring from the IFEN that caused the crash, and not the kapton wiring. I was asked by an individual how they determined it was the IFEN wiring, and not the kapton. Well, I am told by my source, that they were able to determine it was the IFEN wiring by the wiring itself. Apparently when a wire shorts out, it burns from the inside out, meaning that the wiring itself changes (I don't know how). He told me that they have a few samples of wire that show this characteristic. Oddly enough, none of them are kapton......hhhmmmm.... The kapton wiring that was burned, was burned from the outside in. I'm not sure how they do this, but hey, I'm no expert. Just thought I'd pass this info on to you all.

Beanspiller

Thanks for the info!

We were told some time ago that lengths of wiring had been found that had burned insulation and also showed signs of electrical arcing. We were told that some of the burned wire was Tefzel insulated IFEN wiring and some was other Kapton insulated wiring - and also that the tests you describe were being conducted. Inquiries as to the results were as always met with obfuscation.

To us, it's not really a surprise simply because the IFEN is the one component that we know was poorly designed, never tested under realistic conditions and installed hastily. Furthermore, the certification process was a sham. Even though there are legitimate concerns about Kapton insulation, it is likely that the engineering and workmanship involved in the factory installed wiring was far better than that associated with the IFEN.

Although we have long suspected that the IFEN was either the root cause or a major contributing factor in the crash, we are ultimately interested in the truth. Being right or wrong in our theories is of no consequence. There will undoubtedly be those who wish to discredit your disclosures because they are inconsistant with their own pet theories. Please don't be disheartened by this. Those of us who simply wish to know the truth appreciate your efforts more than we can express.

Thanks again for all your help,

Mark

Regarding your comment:

quote:

---

...early in the investigation, they had suspicions that the IFEN was involved in the crash. They did some prliminary work in that area, and just when they were getting somewhere with their work, they were "directed" to look for other "probable" causes for a crash.

---

I believe this is explained by the fact that the TSB sees the crash of Swissair 111 as an opportunity. Historically, most of the crashes that were suspected to have been the result in-flight fires were on land. When aircraft crash into the ground, they keep on burning, spilled fuel ignites and the evidence is lost in the resulting fire. In the case of SR111, the fire was extinguished by the water and a great deal of material was recovered.

The TSB investigators wanted to learn everything they possibly could. If they had determined, early in the investigation, that the IFEN was the source of ignition and reported it, the investigation would have essentially been over. Even if they found other significant contributing factors later, they would have been ignored by the aircraft manufactures and regulatory bodies. Any excuse will do for the FAA. Their regulatory staff doesn't want to mess up their opprotunities for high-paid employment in the air transport industry after they retire at age 45 with their civil service pensions fully vested.

The IFEN systems were disconnected in the remaining Swissair fleet soon after the crash and its certification was revoked - so there was no longer any immediate danger. This freed the TSB to concentrate on other factors - and they did influence the FAA to issue a signficant number of directives with respect to insulation, wiring practices, fire suppression and procedures for responing to smoke of unknown origin.

We don't fault the TSB for any of this, given the political realities of the situation. But at this juncture, we believe that the TSB should disclose all - not just findings or recommendations - but the raw data. All the details. The aviation business insiders have had more than enough opportunities to influence the investigation. Victims' families, on the other hand, have been shut out of the process for four years. It would be ridiculous to presume that the many of the people who have been involved in the investigation do not have vested interests. They have had the opportunity to see all the data and put their spin on it. We have not.

Releasing every last detail to the public will only serve the purpose of improved safety. The TSBs position that those who might be judged legally to have been negligent or even criminal should be protected for fear that otherwise they might not be forthcoming is ludicrous and morally bankrupt. Withholding pertinant information on the grounds that such individuals might be held accountable for their actions is unconscionable.

We want to see the draft report because we want to know what changes are made and at whose suggestion.

Interesting, I recall that there was a lot of interest in the IFEN shortly after the crash. Not only did the TSB acknowledge investigating it, but the FAA conducted an investigation of the IFEN certification (by Santa Barbara Aerospace) and also conducted a survey of air carriers about the installation (particularly wiring) of their entertainment systems. Then suddenly it was no longer mentioned. They never made any statement that they had eliminated it as a possible cause, but literally just wouldn't talk about it anymore - which definitely led some people to believe that it was off the hook. Of course recently it's back on the radar. This is remarkably consistent with your characterization!