TWICE AS FAR
SWISSAIR 111
CRASH INVESTIGATION
- EXTRACT FROM FILE NOTES -
FOR
- 2000 MAY 08 -
00-05-08
0700 Morning routine.
…..
Forwarded a memo to Andy LATHEM (Vic GORMAN
later advised that he received it from LATHEM –
see below why) that is actually a memo to Vic
GERDEN asking for a meeting – as follows: Mr. V. GERDEN 98-H-2127 OIC RCMP Re:
Exhibit Wire Beads Post
Auger Analysis
On 00 JUN 16, it is expected that the final AES
phase of the wire bead analysis process will be
completed. It will then be time to
consider what type of further analysis should be
undertaken. Several avenues have been
considered by both the TSB and the RCMP, in
co-operation with the partner companies involved
in this matter. They include Sky Scan, FIB
and TEM, and the normal TSB examination by SEM.
It is requested that a meeting of members from
the partner groups including Boeing, Swissair,
Hollingsead, the TSB, and the RCMP be held to
discuss the future analysis of the wire beads.
There is a need to openly discuss this matter to
eliminate the potential for a discord, as one
must remember that one of the avenues is a
totally destructive process that will preclude
the chance of any further analysis. It
would be convenient for the meeting to be held
in Ottawa during the week of the AES
examination, perhaps on Friday, 00 JUN 16 at
CANMET. Dr. BROWN should be asked to
provide his ideas in the matter as we have
relied on his expertise to date for the AES.
It is requested that Gus SIDLA of the TSB also
be present as his expertise in the matter is
necessary. As well, the other partners may
have ideas that we have not yet heard.
At this time, it is unknown if representatives
from Swissair or Hollingsead plan to attend the
AES seawater wire testing during the week of 00
JUN 12/16. Larry FOGG of Boeing, Jim FOOT,
and I do plan to be present. If the
arrangements can soon be made regarding the
meeting, then Swissair and Hollingsead team
members can be advised of the matter to ensure
their attendance. Should they be unable to
attend in person, further arrangements can be
made for a teleconference from CANMET.
Your prompt consideration of this matter is
requested. (T.C. Juby), Sgt. (A. Lathem),
Insp.
RCMP Swissair Task Force
Swissair Flight 111 Task Force
Vic GORMAN later advised that he had received it
and will forward it as being acceptable.
After all, we had discussed it last Friday and
he suggested the wording. Had a
conversation with John GARSTANG about it, and he
suggested – but didn’t know for sure – that
SIDLA won’t be doing the grinding of the beads,
as he won’t have time. It might also seem
that if they let the idea die, they can ask for
the beads in September for shipment to Ottawa,
and then as time permits, SIDLA can do the work
without anyone knowing until it is too late.
This gets it out in the open. I bet that
in light of what is written below, Vic GORMAN
also attends the meeting. ….. Received a memo
this afternoon from the OIC, Swissair
Investigation, Insp. LATHEM. It is in
reference to my memo of 00-04-27, Auger Testing
of AES Seawater Wire Standards. In it he
refers to my two points (b) and (f).
Instead of my comments, he tells me that he
wants only the ‘facts’. He finds that
statement (b) indicates the RCMP’s position as
perceived by others, and (f) has conclusions
that speak for another agency, and he considers
them inflammatory and unwarranted. My two
statements are as follows: b)
We have undertaken the seawater test
preparations virtually on our own after lengthy
discussions of the matter with the TSB. If
we fail to attend at this stage, it will be seen
as a message to the TSB and the partner
companies that we were insincere in our desire
to complete the testing. f)
If we fail to attend at this stage, the TSB will
imply from it that we have lost interest in the
matter. When the AES report from Dr. BROWN
is finally completed, they will have reason to
ignore us and withhold it as they have done with
countless other reports in the past. Our
continued attendance will provide a strong
foundation argument in our favour. I had no
intention of this memo being inflammatory, and
indeed, I do not feel that the comments are.
I am merely stating what I know to be the facts
when it comes to trying to get things done
around the hangar, to attend these tests and get
test reports. FOOT has even cautioned me
during the first AES that we would receive no
copies of BROWN’s report. It appears that
these comments have hit on a very sore spot.
In view of our general meeting last week, and
the manner in which Insp. LATHEM degraded my
discussion points on AES and then Karl’s
comments on the fire load, there might appear to
be a relation between the two. Then he
goes on to advise me that the official reporting
structure is through S/Sgt. GORMAN. This
presents a problem as Vic is only around the
hangar at best half a day per week, and then he
is working on non-Swissair paperwork most of the
time. As for this memo, it did go through
Vic, having sat on his desk for over a week.
His last line reads, “I trust there will be no
further clarification required.”
I feel that this memo is excessively strong for
the circumstances. I thought that in our
meeting of 00-02-17, I was assured that I was
part of the team and had open access to LATHEM.
It seems that everyone else reports to LATHEM
except me. Some team! The
unclassified memo dated 2000-05-08 is as
follows: Your Memorandum
of April 27, 2000 Concerning AES Seawater Wire
Standards/AUGER Testing When you submit a
memorandum to provide rationale for travel or
fiscal commitment I want the “facts” that
pertain to the issue not statements such as
paragraph b) that indicate the RCMP’s position
as perceived by others. Your paragraph f)
has conclusions that speak for another agency
and I consider them inflammatory and
unwarranted. Your expertise
and commitment to this investigation is
recognized, and this type of correspondence only
serves to diminish those qualities. I
categorize it as less than professional and
unacceptable. The reporting
structure for you is through S/Sgt. Vic GORMAN
and then to me. I trust there
will be no further clarification required. A.S. LATHEM,
Insp.
Later, I spoke with Vic GORMAN about the memo.
He said that he had only seen it just shortly
before I received it. I somehow doubt
that, as I think there was a considerable
discussion over how to deal with me. At
the bottom of my original memo is Vic’s
handwriting saying: 1 April 2000
(obviously the month should be May) Insp. LATHEM and
I have discussed this. Approval for Sgt.
T. JUBY to attend has been given by Insp.
LATHEM. Vic Gorman
S/Sgt. I doubt that they
discussed my travel without LATHEM having made
his feelings known to GORMAN. While he may
have only just seen the memo, he certainly knew
that it was coming and what it was all about.
GORMAN feels that I am not a team player and
that I go off on my own - example, the e-mail to
BROWN about pressure from TSB. However, on
checking my notes, I found that I had discussed
it with Insp. LATHEM prior to sending it and
that he had agreed with the idea. “00-02-11
Checked with LATHEM and he is in agreement.
I will liaise with Dr. BROWN via e-mail over the
AES testing and reports. This will keep a
record of exactly what I say to him. Insp.
LATHEM agrees that I will ask him to advise me
if he is pressured to limit what he puts in his
reports. Will do that up next week, and
will also discuss the Focused Ion Beam system
for cutting the beads.” Also, Vic says
that I spend too much money. I told him
that they want the product and therefore it will
cost. One cannot produce in this
environment without it costing money, especially
when we are undertaking new methods and
techniques. He said that even in ‘B’
Hangar I was spending too much money. We
had a discussion over this, and I suggested that
he read my report from ‘B’ Hangar that covers
all of this.
The truth is that Karl and I don’t follow the
accepted line. Because of it, we are being
castigated for our concerns over what might be
the actual cause of this crash. Because we
are not willing to conclude tasks without an
investigation, not willing to accept things in
the face of scientific evidence that questions
the chosen path, we are deemed not to be team
players. It seems that one cannot have a
different opinion than the party line, and the
number of times that I have been told to keep my
mouth shut and my opinions to myself certainly
proves that. Vic says that I am too
independent. Others might consider it to
be persistence in the face of indifference.
This memo from Insp. LATHEM goes a long way to
place a barrier between the ‘team’ and this
‘player’. I would even suggest that it is
not very ‘professional’ on his part at all.
It forms part of my hard notes for this date.
It makes me wonder why I am still putting in
over 60 hr per week on this file, and getting
paid for only 40 hrs. |
* * * * * * * * * * * *
------------ TIME LINE ------------ |