The Wolk Law Firm on FacebookArthur Alan Wolk on TwitterThe Wolk Law Firm on YouTubeArthur Alan Wolk on LinkedInRSS Feeds Arthur Alan Wolk Commentaries
 
The Wolk Law FirmAttorneys Aviation Law Philadelphia
 

 

First Domestic Swissair 111 Settlement
Arthur Alan Wolk, internationally-known aviation attorney based in Philadelphia, on Friday, October 22, achieved a landmark... [more]

Cruel Hoax Perpetrated on the Victims
Swissair and McDonnell Douglas/Boeing have perpetrated the most cruel hoax possibly imaginable on the victims of...
[more]

Wolk Identified Cause of Crash
According to Philadelphia aviation attorney, Arthur Alan Wolk, analysis of the cockpit voice recorder of Swissair 111... [more] 

Complaint Filed for Victim of Swissair 111
The lawsuit, which seeks damages of over $500,000,000, including compensatory and punitive damages against Swissair...
[more]

Defective Wiring is High on List
 
The FAA was made aware long before this crash that Kapton was a hazardous wiring for use in aircraft, yet did not...
[more]

Swissair Emergency Procedures
Swissair also claims that the airplane could not have descended from 33,000' in time to land at the airport...
[more]

Crew May Have Delayed Landing
Transcripts just released between the pilots of Swissair Flight 111, and Air Traffic Controllers, reveal a lack of urgency... [more]

Contributing Factor in Swissair 111
If there are four separate areas of the airplane needing examination to avoid electrical fires, the FAA should realize that... [more]

 
 

Commentaries :: Swissair 111

New Evidence Reveals That Aviation Lawyer, Arthur Alan Wolk, Correctly Identified Cause Of Swissair 111 Within 24 Hours Of The Crash

Analyis of voice recorder reveals disagreement regarding procedures to be followed

PHILADELPHIA - (Jan. 22, 1999) - According to Philadelphia aviation attorney, Arthur Alan Wolk, analysis of the cockpit voice recorder of Swissair 111 reveals a disagreement between the captain and first officer on the appropriate procedures to be followed when smoke began filling the cockpit.

The first officer recommended that the aircraft be landed immediately, and the captain declined that recommendation. That decision was fatal to the crew and all the passengers aboard.

Fire in an aircraft cabin is one of the most serious emergencies that can affect an aircraft in-flight. An emergency descent and landing is the only procedure that can save the aircraft. There was nothing to prevent Swissair 111 from making a safe landing within minutes of the first discovery of smoke, and nothing would have presented any danger to the passengers or crew by landing slightly overweight on a runway that was more than ample.

It is sad that so many lost their lives, but hopefully this will remove any doubt from any airline and from any flight crew that smoke in an aircraft is not a time for a majority vote; it's the time for the fastest possible emergency landing at the nearest airport, regardless of the circumstances.

Although immediately following the crash Swissair denied that such a landing was possible, analysis of procedures in the MD-11 flight manual reveal that such a landing at Halifax could have been safely made within seven minutes of the discovery of smoke -- about half the time the aircraft remained airborne after that discovery.

Other parts of the investigation may reveal that electronic engine controls need to be isolated from electrical faults so that loss of engine power does not complicate the emergency landing process. There is much more to be learned from the investigation of this crash, but one thing is certain -- there is neither adequate means nor training currently available to fight a fire in an aircraft in-flight, in spite of the well-worn but true statement "where there's smoke there's fire."


 
THE WOLK LAW FIRM    |    1710-12 LOCUST STREET    |    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103    |    215-545-4220 P    |    215-545-5252 F    |    airlaw@airlaw.com