Here is an old article from the Canadian press that was published in '00 that I found on the old sr111 board.

August 31, 2000 Chronology of Swissair crash
creates more troubling questions than it
answers.

OTTAWA (CP) -- Pieced together from cockpit recordings,
control tower logs, black box data and radio
communications, a timeline released on the eve of its second
anniversary details the last moments of doomed Swissair
Flight 111. The three-page chronology, released by
the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, sheds a
little more light on what happened aboard the MD-11 jet
in the minutes before it plummeted into the ocean
off Peggy's Cove, N.S., killing all 229 people aboard
the night of Sept. 2, 1998. But as Saturday's
anniversary passes, some events detailed in the evolving
timeline and previously released transcripts bring more
questions than answers about those last terrifying moments
aboard the plane. For example, Boston regional air
traffic controllers tried without success to raise Flight
111 for 13 minutes shortly after takeoff. Was
the plane's electrical system acting up already? Were
the pilots on the wrong frequency or did they simply
take 13 minutes to switch frequencies after
controllers had cleared them to do so? If Capt. Urs
Zimmermann and co-pilot Stefan Loew were having electrical
problems, they either weren't aware of them or simply said
nothing about them when they re-established
communications with Boston. Outside of massive structural
failure, electrical problems can be the most serious snag
a pilot encounters. It's unthinkable Zimmermann and
Loew would not have reported such a problem, experts
say. Besides, the black box, which records
aircraft workings, shows no evidence of electrical
problems that early in the flight -- just 18 minutes out
of New York's John F. Kennedy airport. Records
from every other controller in the area indicate the
pair were not communicating with anyone on another
frequency, investigators say. In spite of the blackout,
no one bothered to ask Flight 111 if there was a
problem. The plane's electronic signature was bright and
clear on radar screens, so controllers knew it was
still aloft, approaching 27,000 feet. Why there
was a blackout may never be known. The cockpit
voice recorder ran in a half-hour loop. By the time the
plane went down almost an hour later, there was no
record left of what transpired between Zimmermann and
Loew during that critical period. It wasn't until
10:10 p.m. ADT -- almost an hour into the flight --
that the crew detected an unusual odour in the
cockpit, but they did not report it right away. The
voice recorder indicates they checked with cabin crew
and found no evidence of an odour aft of the cockpit.
They suspected it was a problem with the
air-conditioning system. A minute later, at 10:13 p.m., smoke
was visible in the cockpit. By that time, the flight
crew was communicating with regional air traffic
control in Moncton, N.B. "Swissair 111 heavy is
declaring Pan Pan Pan," they declared at 10:14 p.m. as the
plane passed over West Berlin, N.S.

_______________________________________________
This is why I have asked many times on the old board if anyone (particularly a flight attendant that worked for swissair between '97 and '98) knows when during the flight the entertainment system was generally turned on. Not that I know what I'm talking about, but is it possible that it was powered up around the time this blackout over Boston began?

So once again I put this question out there- when did swissair generally power up the IFEN on their international flights? Was it 15 minutes into the flight? Was it an hour? Was it inconsistent? Can anyone answer this question that follows this board? I've asked many people that I thought could answer privately (that I thought were friends) and been disappointed to find out that they didn't want to get involved. Well 229 people died needlessly, certainly someone can and is willing to answer this simple question that was involved with the airline during that time period. Maybe you were a customer? Think of it this way- if you were any member of the crew that flew on those MD-11s armed with this system, your life too may have been put in jeopardy all in the name of making a profit by those in charge. An answer to this simple question would be very much appreciated. Thanks.

Barbara,

Though I never flew with SR, but my guess is, they only switched it on well clear over international waters, and the pax settled down, having leafed through the onboard magazines and getting bored. 3/4 to 1 hour deems a good guesstimate.

hankster

't wiel draait, maar de hamster is dood!

I just found this from an old press release boasting of all the features provided by the IFEN. It would infer possibly that the system may have been used from early on in the flight.

"The
system also will continue to offer the Airshow
information about the progress of the flight that has proved
so popular with customers; with the added advantage
that the information, too, can now be followed up as
and when desired, Itkis
said."

I'm afraid that I can't offer facts supporting my responses, or suggest that I know the answer that you are looking for, but I believe that the balance of probabilities support the following:

The IFEN was likely operating throughout the entire flight - for the reason that you have noted, the in-progress display is very interesting and would be watched by many passengers. Furthermore, the only way to power the IFEN down totally, I understand, would have been to pull the circuit breaker associated with that circuit - a procedure that the crew would not have wanted to do as a routine on/off operation.

The only reason for having anything 'off' would be to disable the gaming provisions while in US airspace - a feature I suspect would easily be accomplished from the IFEN System Management Terminal (see the sbaReport pdf file), since it was known to the builders and company that gaming would not be permitted in some countries' airspace. While that might be disabled, the company would still want to be able to offer games and movies for sale - so other 'on-demand' features would be wanted.

A much more difficult question would be how much of the IFEN would be disabled - and whether that had a significant effect on the electrical load presented to the aircraft wiring system.

I expect that the seat displays would be turned off to discourage use when taxiing and taking off - operational periods when tables and trays aren't allowed to be out for safety reasons, but turned on shortly thereafter to allow use of the
system for its other features. The gaming features would have been enabled when out of domestic US airspace. I don't know the provisions for gaming when in Canadian airspace. The seat displays would have been a significant percentage of the IFEN electrical load. The nature of the features that are enabled is not likely to significantly affect the electrical load.

As noted in one of the earlier posts, it is unfortunate that early CVR records of the flight were overwritten - since operation of various parts of the IFEN might have been more easily determined, and perhaps useful in the incident reconstruction.

Nevertheless, I would not subscribe to a 'blackout' - ie electrical failure leading to loss of communications for the 13 minutes. It would have had to be unknown to the crew - as it has been noted - an electrical failure of that nature would have been reported by the crew immediately upon re-establishment of communications with Boston.

By far not my area of exptertise by any means, but after I read this thread and got to thinking, I realized that maybe the aircraft with the IFEN installed encorporated it into their safety information at the beginning of the flight. Everyone knows on small craft the flight attendants manually show and verbally express the safety procedures. But on larger planes it's usually automated somehow. I dont see with this type of advanced system on board why they would not have programmed it to play the safety regulations video to alleviate the need for the flight attendents and/or another system to do it. Saying all this, it puts in my mind that the IFEN may have been turned on and being used right from the moment the passengers got on the plane. But of course, I'm just throwing out some more thoughts on the whole thing

That was my thought also, when I wrote the prior post, but I decided not to include it since I feel that the seat displays would still not be used - the safety regulations would not encourage people using table trays or tray like terminals immediately prior to takeoff.

If the displays were in the seatbacks - well perhaps. For popdown / pop up displays on the overhead racks - they are routinely used for pre-takeoff safety instructions, as you have noted - so it all depends on the type of display used. The one in the pictures of the testing at the manufaturer's facility appear to be tray types.

Anyone able to comment on the installed configuration?

I was doing a little surfing in the archives, and came across a beanspiller post that referred to video displays in the seatbacks. The tray displays I saw in the testing picture probably were for seats behind the bulkheads - so I guess the answer I would propose is that the IFEN central equipment would have been operational from the time of taxi - the seatback displays probably active, and some overhead display available for people not able to have their tray displays active during taxi and take-off. So most of the "power hungry monster" would have been operating from the beginning.

The following, from an article written by Canadian journalist Steven Kimber, suggests that there were drop-down screens on the Swissair MD11's. These were probably used for the safety briefing. I think all of the IFEN screens (first class an business class only) were built into the armrests.

I agree with you that the IFEN servers etc. were probably always on, especially given what we've heard about the problems powering them off.

I was writing a book about the crash. There were some interviews I needed to do in Switzerland. It had seemed logical - to me anyway - to take the same flight from New York to Geneva the passengers of Flight 111 had taken.

The flight's first hour was remarkably unremarkable. Wine? This is your captain speaking. First course. Thank you for flying Swissair. Second course. Anything we can do to make your flight more enjoyable? Dessert. After dinner, we could watch an inflight movie - a weepy, Hollywood flick called Stepmom - on small video screens that dropped down from the ceiling. One movie, no choice.

On Sept. 2, 1998, there'd been plenty of choice. Seventeen movies. From Titanic to As Good As it Gets. Business-class passengers could select a movie and watch it on a private screen that popped out of their chair's armrest.

Some say that that's what killed Swissair Flight 111's 229 passengers: a sophisticated in-flight
entertainment system with too many choices and too many wires and ... by the time I board this flight, the system had long since been disconnected.

http://www.iasa-intl.com/imagery/cabinIFE/

This is from IASA's website.

I should explain though that it is not clear if any of these pictures pertain to the IFEN unique to swissair's aircraft. After searching the web I could not find anything that showed pictures of the IFEN. If anyone has any I would appreciate it if they would send them along. Thanks.

Check out this picture from the old Interactive Flight Technology site and hit on the picture above employment opportunities. It looks as though Stephen Kimber's description is accurate:

http://web.archive.org/web/19971017162056/http://www.flyt.com/

See the following report to see the IFEN in detail.

http://www.swissair111.org/sbaReport.pdf