Simulating the Swissair flight 111 in-flight fire using the CFD fire simulation software SMARTFIRE

At 8.18pm on 2 September 1998, Swissair Flight 111 (SR 111), took off from New York’s JFK airport bound for Geneva, Switzerland. Tragically, the MD-11 aircraft never arrived. According to the crash investigation report, published on 27 March 2003, electrical arcing in the ceiling void cabling was the most likely cause of the fire that brought down the aircraft. No one on board was aware of the disaster unfolding in the ceiling of the aircraft and, when a strange odour entered the cockpit, the pilots thought it was a problem with the air-conditioning system. Twenty minutes later, Swissair Flight 111 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean five nautical miles southwest of Peggy’s Cove, Nova Scotia, with the loss of all 229 lives on board. In this paper, the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis of the in-flight fire that brought down SR 111 is described. Reconstruction of the wreckage disclosed that the fire pattern was extensive and complex in nature. The fire damage created significant challenges to identify the origin of the fire and to appropriately explain the heat damage observed. The SMARTFIRE CFD software was used to predict the “possible” behaviour of airflow as well as the spread of fire and smoke within SR 111. The main aims of the CFD analysis were to develop a better understanding of the possible effects, or lack thereof, of numerous variables relating to the in-flight fire. Possible fire and smoke spread scenarios were studied to see what the associated outcomes would be. This assisted investigators at Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada, Fire & Explosion Group in assessing fire dynamics for cause and origin determination.

Temperature measurement in children with cancer: an evaluation

There is little agreement as to the most appropriate thermometer, the anatomical site to carry out temperature measurement in children with cancer, or the type of thermometer preferred by the patients. The authors carried out this study to assess temperature measurement in children with cancer who were admitted for febrile episodes. The body temperatures of children with cancer who were admitted consecutively between January and October 2005 to the paediatric department because of febrile episodes were measured on admission and over the next 24–36 hours using an electronic thermometer sublingually as the standard reference site. These measurements were compared with those obtained with two ear-based thermometers, a forehead thermometer, and from the axilla (representing current practice). The parents were asked about the type of thermometer they used at home and the children were asked about the type of thermometer they preferred. There were 34 admissions during this period, of which 19 (56%) were confirmed as febrile. Altogether, 108 sets of temperature measurements were obtained, producing a total of 540 measurements from these admissions. Measurements with the two ear-based thermometers in febrile children achieved higher sensitivity than that with axillary and the forehead measurements. The ear-based thermometer was the most common type used at home while the forehead thermometer was the one preferred by the children. In conclusion, ear-based temperature measurements in febrile children were more accurate than axillary and forehead temperature measurements. The current practice of axillary temperature measurement needs to be re-considered.