Today it was brought to my attention that a group called the Flight Safety Foundation, ostensibly an advocacy group for aviation safety, is promoting new internatinal laws that would prohibit the use of information gathered in accident investigations in criminal prosecution. I believe that, in light of tragedies like swissair 111, this would be a terrible mistake. FSF's proposal invokes the same old argument that employees who may normally speak up and be open about indiscretions or errors that were made that may have lead to an ˜accident' will be less likely to do so if they fear that they could be prosecuted for being open with the investigators. Of course, you would also have to apply this ridiculous argument to any crime. If one questions a murder suspect I'll bet you would find they would be far more forthcoming and possibly even offer a confession of their crime if you promised them immunity. The major problem with this outrageous ideology is that it will do nothing to deter the criminal from committing more crimes in the future.

The event that initiated the fire on sr111 according to TSB investigators in their final report issued in March of '03, is believed to be a spark from the entertainment system wiring. This spark caused the very flammable mylar insulation to ignite, leading to the horrific loss of 229 human beings.

The entertainment system was developed by the Itkis family, Michail (now Mike Snow), Boris, and Yuri Itkis (who ran a Las Vegas company called Fortunet that supplied video gambling systems). The Itkis family started a small company in Phoenix, Arizona called Interactive Flight Technology, who developed the Interactive Flight Entertainment Network (IFEN), a video gambling and entertainment systems for aircraft (despite the fact that they had no experience in the industry whatsoever). Most airlines were not interested in purchasing this system when they realized that it would draw too much power from the aircraft. At one point it looked like Qantis might install these systems on their aircraft but they later decided against it.

The one customer that was particularly excited by the prospect of making money on the gambling feature offered with the IFEN was swissair. The airline industry in Switzerland, which had followed the U.S. Regan era lead in deregulation, was desperately searching for ways to make a profit. Despite the concerns of other airlines, Swissair plunged ahead with plans to purchase these entertainment systems. The deal struck called for IFT, Swissair and the Swiss government to share inflight gambling profits. Alexander Haig was placed on the board of directors and was hired to use his influence to convince foreign airlines to purchase these systems. When a USA Today reporter questioned Haig about his involvement in the deal, he denied having anything to do with it. Three weeks before the swissair deal with IFT was signed, Haig was hired by IFT as a consultant and board member. He admits to being very friendly with a man named Thomas Schmidheiny, who was on the board of directors of swissair and who had a part in the decision to purchase the IFEN, but claims he didn't speak to Schmidheiny until after the system was purchased.

DH Blair, an investment group run by an influential man named Morton Davis underwrote the IPO for Interactive Flight Technologies. Many of their brokers were later indicted and charged with criminal activity for their ˜pump and dump' schemes. IFT was one of the companies that was named by the N.Y. prosecutors who brought criminal charges against several individuals at D.H. Blair.

In his USA Today feature article, Gary Stoller reported that Edward Mlynarczyk, a private engineering representative designated to act on the FAA's behalf, claimed that D.H. Blair tried to bribe him to short-cut certification of the system. Mlynarczyk claims he expressed grave reservations about the safety of the entertainment system and felt it was unsuitable for aircraft use. He also claims that, when he refused, two (possibly armed) New Yorkers showed up unannounced at his home, paid his outstanding fees in cash, cut the prototype into 3 pieces and loaded it into their limosine.

After Gary Stoller published 4 articles about the swissair crash and the entertainment system, government officials promised to look into these allegations of wrongdoing. One article published in USA Today said that workers at IFT tried to warn management of the obvious danger the system would cause such as overheating and were told by Michail Itkis to ignore their concerns. The employees claim to have been told not to express their reservations to the investigators following the crash.

Over a year later there has been no evidence of any activity from the Inspector General's office whatsoever. Mark and I both called and spoke with an assistant inspector general and were assured that they were interested in further pursuing this case but it became obvious that it was very low on their priority list after subsequent follow-up. They have commented that the statue of limitations was up on this case thus impeding the bringing of any charges against individuals but we know this is untrue. First of all they are counting from the time the crime was committed which is wrong. My understanding from speaking with a former FBI agent is that they should count the years from when the tragedy occurred. The statue of limitations varies according to the crime that a person is charged with. For example murder has no time limit. It's become obvious that any conversations we had were bogus- we were given a runaround. I was told to be patient, but now realize it was just the DOT's way of telling me to go away.

The Flight Safety Foundation claims that they are professionals that are concerned about the safety of airliners and yet they are pushing for legislation that would protect individuals who repetedly cut corners, set up shop over and over again running the same seedy schemes, and put the public at risk. To deny that there are people in the industry that need to be sanctioned or somehow stopped from committing crimes and are somehow entitled to protection is absolutely absurd. Furthermore, why would the industry not want these bottom feeders removed from positions where they can only do more harm to the industry as a whole?

I believe they should rethink their position and the best way to do that is careful scrutiny of the swissair 111 crash. I think there is plenty of reason to believe that charges should have been brought against those that knowingly installed a dangerous entertainment system and ignored the concerns of their employees, not to mention attemping to obstruct the investigation by discouraging them from cooperating with investigators. What about those individuals (with no knowledge of the industry and driven merely by greed) who attempted to bribe people that represented the government during the certification process? Swissair 111 is the very reason why I believe that the Flight Safety Foundation should think twice about pushing their current agenda. I don't think it serves them well to take this stance if they are truly concerned with running a safe industry, and it certainly will not keep passengers safe if those with callous disregard for human life continue to work in this business. Mark and I have heard from people that work in the industry that are very concerned that some of the individuals involved in the installation and certification of the IFEN are still out there continuing to do the shoddy kind of work that led to the swissair tragedy. That alone should be a wake-up call, that the airline business should NOT be exempt from criminal prosecutions.

http://www.flightsafety.org/news/nr04-15.pdf

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BF,