Friday, 21 December 2012

24 years later, remembering Pan Am flight 103

[This is the headline over an article published today in Huffington Post by former Pan Am station manager, Claudia Helena Oxee:]

December 21, 1988...

The day began as usual with a 2:30 pm general briefing, which consisted of Pan Am's daily flight movements along with a roster of both operational and passenger information that required special attention. My usual assignment was working a gate that operated three simultaneous flights. After the briefing, my colleagues and I went to gate 24/25/26, which was already deluged with queues of anxious holiday travelers.

At approximately 4:00 pm, while in the midst of the hectic workload, two Pan Am VIPs approached the gate and asked me to bring my belongings and follow them. En route to one of their private offices, not a word was spoken until we were all behind closed doors. I was advised that Pan Am's flight 103 had just crashed shortly after takeoff from London's Heathrow airport.

Accurate details had not yet been determined other than that the 747 jumbo jet had touched down at Heathrow at noon (GMT) from Los Angeles and San Francisco. The aircraft was routinely cleaned, catered, fueled and bags were off/unloaded during the standard two hour turnaround time while it was parked on the tarmac. The 747 was guarded by Pan Am's own security company by the name of Alert Security.

Upon arrival at Heathrow, the Frankfurt passengers transited to the awaiting jumbo jet and boarded the aircraft along with the additional passengers who were heading home for the holidays to New York's JFK airport. I was advised that a possible mechanical brought Pan Am's "Clipper Maid of the Seas" down over the small town of Lockerbie, Scotland, setting the entire village ablaze. Since I was a mature agent with life experience who was born in Germany and spoke the mother tongue fluently, my assignment, along with many colleagues, was to work on the cataclysmic Flight 103.

The airline is responsible to notify next of kin, provide lodging, transportation, meals, clergy, medical doctors, emotional and logistic support at the crash site and at points of departure and arrival -- in my case, JFK airport. The State Department is responsible for coordinating interaction with the foreign embassies when disasters occur outside of the US. Sequentially, official airline "disaster mode" tasks were relegated to Pan Am execs and staff and the course of action began.

Everyone who was assigned Flight 103 assembled in the lounge and was relegated a specific assignment. Myself and other colleagues were designated contact people. As area C & D agents escorted families into the lounge one at a time, I immediately had to verify the victim's identity via the flight manifest that we each had on a clipboard which listed the names of the 270 passengers and crew onboard Flight 103. When I asked the family to disclose the name of the passenger they were meeting, I was required to secure vital information such as their relationship to the victim and contact numbers. Maintaining a modem of decorum was a priority. Not having been professionally or psychologically trained in working disasters of such magnitude, inner strength and numbness enabled me to carry out my duties without falling apart emotionally as I stoically confirmed their worst nightmare.

At approximately 5:30, the relentless and despicable pursuit for media sensationalism already began at the terminal. Hundreds of reporters swarmed in like vultures ready to attack innocent prey. They tried to force their way beyond the sealed-off ropes to gain access into the first class lounge. They pushed through barricades that protected the families being escorted during their terrifying walk from "Area C and D" towards the lounge where catastrophic realities awaited them.

Meanwhile, the local Pan Am VIP's started converging in the lounge in an attempt to disseminate details to us from Lockerbie. We were advised that at 8:00 pm, the CEO would come in and hold a private conference to update the families, which would be followed by a national press conference outside of the doors. When Tom P[laskett] entered the lounge and stood on a make shift podium, you could sense the collective sounds of everyone's heartbeat. All terrified eyes in that room faced him, and all arms were tightly interlocked with one another as they braced themselves for the unimaginable.

And then, emotionally, he made the official announcement: there were no survivors. For the second time that night, emotional paralysis befell the families and their unbearable pain could be heard around the world. We all held on to them, for had we let go, they would have fallen to the ground. The slightest glimmer of hope for survival had been shattered and our tasks were re-assigned from rescue mode to recovery mode.

While working the "room" that night, myself and several of my colleagues had been informed by upper management that Flight 103 was presumably brought down by a bomb. It was also established that night that Pan Am officials and Washington DC were aware of this time-framed bomb threat, since American embassies were put on alert several weeks prior to Dec 21st.

As the investigative events unfolded from month to month and year to year, even to this day, the truth remains elusive.

Dec 21, 1988 was the day the lounge was transformed from an opulent inner sanctum for the privileged first class passenger, to an urbane chamber of horrors for the next of kin.

13 comments:

  1. The early reports are often the accurate reports until the official line is agreed and I found the comment, ‘I was advised that a possible mechanical had brought down the plane’, very telling.

    I remember reading the Independent at the time and being informed about metal fatigue problems in old planes and thinking this caused the cock-pit to detach from the frame because of the plane’s location in the sky during bad weather.

    And the absence of a distress signal from the Captain told you the break-up was instantaneous. Only later did the open cargo door explanation make sense of it all.

    The later comment that, ‘the plane was probably brought down by a bomb’ was the beginning of the official line needed to pass the buck from the airline and which could be easily sold to the public because of the on-going conflict in the Middle-East.

    The problem has been ‘lies begat lies’ and the cover-up has become worse than the crime!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh for goodness sake, Dave. You're like a stuck record on this. The earliest reports are seldom if ever the most accurate, consisting as they do of guesswork laced with wishful thinking.

    Of course they started off with the "mechanical failure" line, because that's always the likelier explanation, and they'd far rather it was that than a terrorist attack. But guesswork and hope have to take a back seat when evidence starts to come in.

    You never said. Which cargo door do you think was the one that failed? Remember, the entire plane was retrieved from the fields and put back together again. There are photographs.

    Surely you have some detail to flesh out your pet fantasy by now?

    ReplyDelete
  3. As I have said before I am not an expert on this matter, but can recognise a rational explanation when I hear one, which hopefully one day will be tested at a public enquiry.

    Also I am surprised you are asking me when you said have fully researched this explanation by John Barry Smith!

    However to assist readers I suggest internet site: Boeing 747 Pan Am 103 not brought down by bomb explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I admit I googled for "Boeing 747 Pan Am 103 not brought down by bomb explanation" and found
    http://www.montereypeninsulaairport.com/mountain.html

    It is unfortunately too poor to be a good example of how to misrepresent a case, but some of the elements are there.

    One of the most popular is "selective reading". You scan documents for fractions that could somehow be interpreted to support your case. "See? The AAIB report said 'IED'. Had it been a bomb they would have said 'a bomb'"
    Never mind the actual conclusion of the report. Never mind that IED is the common term and a more precise description.

    A statement like
    "7. No pieces of a bomb were found" really takes the cake.

    The document contains endless postulates with no reference given. In comparison to this, the Zeist trial verdict is a masterpiece of well-founded conclusions.

    Dave, you write:
    "[I].. can recognise a rational explanation when I hear one, which hopefully one day will be tested at a public enquiry."

    As said earlier, there are endlessly many rational explanations. You ignore the evidence showing explosions ("faked") and you provide none for your own theory.

    Rolfe has asked you "which cargo door?"

    Somehow I just assumed that there would be a cargo door at, or near the hole. To my amazement that does not seem to be the case! All cargo doors are on the starboard side of a Boing 747. The reconstruction of the fuselage, as well as the position of the only totally damage luggage container was on the aft side.

    I have scanned the AAIB document. Not a word about cargo door damage.

    - - -

    I will leave the arena in this matter to Dave and Rolfe.

    While off-topic discussions (bearing no relation to the initial posting by RB) can occur from time to time in any thread, seeing the same discussion repeated time after time is most unfortunate, and in stark contrast to the serious work done by JfM. I apologize for having been a participant.

    Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year!

    ReplyDelete
  6. To my amazement that does not seem to be the case! All cargo doors are on the starboard side of a Boing 747. The reconstruction of the fuselage, as well as the position of the only totally damage luggage container was on the aft side.

    Exactly.

    John Barry Smith seems to have a bee in his bonnet about failing cargo doors on 747s. I believe it is something which has happened in at least one other case. He has tried to shoe-horn PA103 into that mould - and failed miserably.

    The hole, as you say, is on the opposite side of the fuselage from the cargo doors.

    ReplyDelete
  7. SM, your admission that you were reluctant to look at a website offering an alternative explanation is honest, but not something you would expect from a research investigator.

    Also you say there are many rational explanations that can explain the crash! Perhaps, but the ones you listed are not among them, because they cannot explain why the cock-pit detached from the frame in 3 seconds.

    A more insightful response would have been to ask:

    •Why the condition of the forward cargo door was not mentioned in the AAIB report, rather than conclude that the absence of this information was because there was nothing to report?

    •Why engine 3 was filled with in-flight damage and debris from the cargo hold?

    •Why the only remains of a ‘bomb’ presented at Zeist, was a fabricated bit of timer?

    I could go on, but as you want to get away, may I wish you a Merry Christmas and Insightful New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  8. SM, your admission that you were reluctant to look at a website offering an alternative explanation is honest, but not something you would expect from a research investigator.

    Also you say there are many rational explanations that can explain the crash!

    Perhaps, but the ones you listed are not among them, because they cannot explain why the cock-pit detached from the frame in 3 seconds.

    A more insightful response would have been to ask:

    •Why the condition of the forward cargo door was not mentioned in the AAIB report, rather than conclude that the absence of this information was because there was nothing to report?

    •Why engine 3 was filled with in-flight damage and debris from the cargo hold?

    •Why if other remains existed, was the only remains of a ‘bomb’ presented at Zeist a fabricated bit of timer?

    I could go on, but as you want to get away, may I wish you a Merry Christmas and Insightful New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  9. SM, I had thought that perhaps Dave might try to justify his blind faith in Mr. Smith's fantasy by explaining his "theory" to us, but I see it has been left to you.

    As you say, it's a poor effort. There is no cargo door anywhere near the petalled blast hole. There is no evidence at all of a cargo door showing suspicious damage. It's all cherry-picked misrepresentations to bolster a pet theory of the author's.

    A particular lunacy of Smith's is his explanation for the blast-damaged clothing and suitcase. It's grade-1 fruitbat material, and I was hoping Dave might mention it so I could have the pleasure of shredding it. But no such luck. He really doesn't seem to have got beyond the "oh, shiny!" stage.

    Dave is actually the first Smith supporter I have encountered. I think everyone else who has read that document has come away shaking their head in either sorrow or despair at the sheer idiocy of it all. Still, there's always one, as they say....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Please do not publish earlier post. Sending new one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. SM, does your admission that you were reluctant to look at a website offering an alternative explanation mean you have never considered this explanation before?

    You said you didn’t like the website! Please try another called, ‘Boeing explosive decompression accidents’.

    You say there are many rational explanations that can explain the crash!

    Not really and not the ones you have listed, because it is necessary to explain why the cock-pit detached from the frame in 3 seconds.

    Also your parting comments are contradictory. For example:

    You are incredulous at the claim ‘no pieces of bomb were found’! And yet the only ‘remains’ presented at Zeist was a fabricated bit of timer?

    You say you scanned the AAIB report and there was no mention of damage to the cargo doors! Yes but this is because the condition of the forward cargo door was not mentioned in the report. Are you saying there was no damage to the forward cargo door?

    You say the blast damage was on the aft side, but the cargo door was on the starboard side! Yes and if it opened it would explain why the cock-pit detached to the starboard side (and not the aft side) and why engine 3 was filled with in-flight damage and debris from the cargo hold?

    And you drop these smoke bombs and then say you are sorry to have taken part in the debate! Oh you are good?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dave, all comments are posted by me in the order in which I receive the e-mails informing me of them. You can delete any of your comments that you'd rather not have appearing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dave, you are asserting that a huge amount of positive evidence of a simple air accident was deliberately covered up, by a very large number of people whose integrity is a vital part of their professional life - I mean the Air Accident investigators.

    You are also asserting that a huge amount of physical evidence pointing to an explosion was fabricated and ready to introduce into the search as early as three days after the crash. This evidence just fortuitously matched eye-witness evidence that hadn't yet been acquired (Bedford's and Gauci's), did it?

    This would have been a plot involving an enormous number of people, none of whom has ever squealed. This has never happened since Bletchley Park, and that was wartime.

    Nobody goes to these lengths to cover up a simple air accident that would have embarrassed Boeing for about six months, full stop.

    ReplyDelete