Gander : The Untold Story - Union of Canadian Transport Employees Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evidence pointing to a cover-up^*

Lax security in Cairo and Cologne

Islamic Jihad claims responsibility

High level communications between Gander and Washington

Early official dismissals of sabotage, and explosion or a fire on board

Eyewitness accounts

U.S. military calls for investigation of ground personnel in Cologne

Major General John S. Crosby of the U.S. Army calls for the bulldozing of sites the day after the crash

Arrow Air denied access

Contradiction between the CASB spokesman and the CASB's chief investigator on the "Contents" of the black box tapes

Weapons, ammunition, flares, practice grenades on board?

FBI's Criminal Division involved in the investigation

Autopsy reports

The ice build-up theory: statements by ground crew at Gander / FBI report

Cockpit microphone turned off

Why did the pilot activate a fire extinguisher before impact?

The master fire warning light was turned on.

The Pinkel report

What caused sudden loss of speed?

The board of directors of the CASB divided.

The Sopinka report.

Statement by CASB member Les Filotas.

Benoit Bouchard's letter to CASB board members.

Other points of interest.

List of Exhibits

^*(added to the Table of Contents by the author for clarity purposes)

Union of Canadian Transport Employees Report

The board of directors of the CASB

The CASB's board issued a preliminary report on the Gander crash on December 12, 1987. Only five members of the board signed the report, endorsing its contents. The other five members dissented with one member going as far as resigning. The five members who oppose the conclusions of the report all have solid aeronautical backgrounds:

R. Stephenson - retired Air Canada pilot and former president of the Air Pilots' Association

N. Bobbitt - aeronautical engineer

D. Mussallem - aeronautical engineer and former Wardair pilot

L. Filotas - PHD in aeronautics

R. Lacroix - retired Airforce Brigadier-General and longtime pilot

Comparison of these credentials with those who support the findings of the report reveals far superior aeronautical knowledge for those against. Why then have the opinions of the chairman (former chairman) and four less knowlegeable members of the board managed to come out on top? Why were the opinions of five experts brushed aside?