IGh no recorded case of BOTH the CVR AND the FDR being rendered inoperative by a hi rate dive.(Egypt Airs recorders worked till impact)
In this case also they were working just fine till before the event started.(in the examples given by IGh,they were either not working to start with ,or had a similar signature to being intentionally erased.) One would expected that even if there was a catastrophic failure of some kind,the recorders should have continued to work till the upset actually started,and not stop a little before. This would require a scenrio where the catastrophic failure resulted in electrical power loss only to the recorders(the transponder was workng till impact) But allowed the A/c to have a normal trajectory for a few seconds/minutes then strat a dive which can only be simulated with deliberate human intervenion . As in the case of Egypt Air,national concerns seem to have scutled a competent report(and national lobies can be as powerful as manufactuers lobies) What needs to be adressed is, if a psychiatric evaluation a foolproof method of detecting/ preventing such events .
Sorry to all for posting here, since I ain't a flyboy.
But how would a psychological evaluation have made a difference? You could go to 4 different shrinks and they would come out with 4 different reports regarding your state of mind, it isn't an exact science and it all depends on whether the shrink is actually wanting to do his job or collect the bucks for seeing someone.
From what my, I guess uneducated, interpretation of the pdf posted here goes, it was deliberate. I've never driven anything like that bird but even I can see that what happened in that case was nothing remotely like an "accident" or a failure.
They ruled out the improbable, that only leaves one thing. Think of it like someone driving a car while you are a passenger and he/she wants to drive into a bridge, except you cannot grab the steering wheel to pull the car out of it....
UPSET? Conspiracy? Various "parties" accuse the other
From JT just above:
"...We'll let the thread run a bit ... However, if it continues along the conspiracist line ..."
definition= noun, a person who supports a conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theory?
Perhaps an investigative "cover-up"??
During seven decades of mysterious airliner upsets, the pilots and the "investigators" (accident, criminal, arm-chair) regularly perceive the other's hypothesis a mere "conspiracy theory".
Over decades, investigators have mostly discarded rumors & conspiracy theories, with no mention in their final report. In that tradition, NTSC rejected the suicide-rumors: there was no evidence to support the rumor.
So, in many of these historic UPSET cases, one side is accusing Boeing of inventing or encouraging a conspiracy scenario involving the crew.
The loyal-TBC believers accept the recurring "Boeing Scenario" (airline employees believe in the safety of their "workplace"), imagining that the mishap-pilot acted deliberately -- a "conspiracy" that resulted in that INITIAL upset phase.
A circle of counter hypothesises, and 'tis always the other guy who embraces the conspiracy scenario, or perceives an investigative "cover-up".
Each side employs some professional skepticism, with some elements of a scientific method (rejection of unwarranted assumptions):
-- USA- NTSB-stafers disagree with the NTSC's report;
-- the NTSC considered the suicide-rumors, but available evidence couldn't support Boeing's suicide-hypothesis.
Other threads discussing upsets, some mysterious, some explained; or mentioning biased or botched investigations:
To SAVE TIME, here are a few moments of interest in the above video:
Time 21:55 through 23:40 -- Explanation from Prof. Diran (NTSC), then Boeing's counter assertions from NTSB's Greg Feith.
Three minutes, Time 37:55 through 41:00 -- Ken Crowder's comments explaining that Silkair had reconfigured the ship's avionics, removed the modern SSFDR as delivered; then installed an older tape-based DFDR, & he describes unexplained STOPPAGES of that mishap-FDR, during 12 flights prior, totaling 4000 seconds, lasting 4sec to 11minutes, with the FDR randomly stopping then resuming operation.
Re' the SSCVR -- see Appendix F of NTSC's rpt (Allied Signal's comments that there was no evidence that the Circuit Breaker had been opened).
Video 44:54 -- Feith strongly states the USA-NTSB's Boeing-bias regarding cause of initial upset.
=== = = = ===
Found another TV-show, similar title, even more determined to paint the Boeing-bias: below link includes one interview in which one NTSC investigator claims that Professor Diran overruled his NTSC-staff -- see below link, scroll to time 42:45.
Note the video below (at time 32:53) includes claims by NTSB's-Feith that show complete ignorance of prior jet upsets (see slot #4 above) which also had full-A.N.D. HorizStab position.
Then, the below video includes an astounding interview with an HF-expert at USA-NTSB (Evan Byrn), where that NTSB-staffer voices the rumors about the mishap-Captain (very similar to the old rumors about the suicidal FO aboard EAL DC8/ 25Feb64 that impacted Lake-P near New Orleans or rumors about Captain Spong).
If at all anybody comes up with a "concrete conclusion" with the evidence present.... It's would be a gambling stab in the sky and at best based on presumption....since its easier to be emotive than logical .... We continue flogging the dead horse...People of science and logic would dictate that a conclusion is unattainable.. It's time to let MI185 be inconclusive....
"... An accident ... flogged to no end ... let MI185 be inconclusive...."
There is more to this than just the NTSC's MI185 _investigation_: in the mid'1990's the USA's NTSB committed a few major errs (though COS, PIT, and 800 cases were _investigated_ to a proper conclusion).
The USA's NTSB still holds an undeserved reputation as a good investigating authority. I liked that TV-show's (above) interview with Feith -- Feith (former NTSB) clearly expressed Boeing's absolute certainty about the SilkAir INITIAL upset.
So, there are some good reasons why the NTSB's staff should be suspect, some errs (biased-botched investigations) that need correction. USA-law lacks any means for reviewing NTSB-staff errs, NTSB refuse to comply with their own rules for "reconsideration"; & the 9th Circuit Court decision stated the NTSB enjoys "unreviewable discretion": No IG, no Court of Inquiry can review the NTSB-staff errs.
It is wrong to describe MI185 as an 'accident', it wasn't, it was a deliberate act of murder.
I was in Singapore at the time, working for the parent company, followed every word of the Indonesian investigation and know technical wittinesses who were part of that investigation.
NTSB aside, Boeing produced irrefutable evidence, based on their knowledge of the aircraft systems, an aircraft they designed and built, that there was human intervention to take the aircraft from a stable cruise condition into a high speed and fatal dive and that there was no other way this could have happened, this was verified by independent aircraft engineers, from around the world, who were given access to the data. Every piece of the puzzle fitted, yet here we have conspiracy theorists, for that is what they are, trying to tell us that, by some miraculous coincidence, every piece of that multi thousand piece puzzle, actually come together to suggest alternative causes to the incident.
I agree, this subject should be put to bed and the Innocent dead allowed to rest in peace.
Like parabellum I too was in Singapore at the time working for the parent company and as he says it was a deliberate act of suicide and murder by the deeply flawed Captain whose career and personal life were in ruins.
Loss of Face is very important to certain peoples and he was clever enough to know that having pulled both CB's behind his seat that it would be nigh impossible to 100% say it was deliberate despite the full power and stab trim wound fully down.
Not going to bother trying to discuss this with you any further IGh, what are you anyway? Your profile is very light on information. Are you someone who should know what they are talking about, an accident investigator, an aircraft engineer, a pilot, someone who was there at the time? Any of these? Or are you just a conspiracy theorists who delights in ignoring all evidence in order to follow your own highly suspect fantasies?
Los Angeles Superior Court jury says defects in rudder control system caused the crash
(LOS ANGELES) Parker Hannifin Corp, the world's largest maker of hydraulic equipment, was told by a Los Angeles jury to pay US$43.6 million to the families of three people killed in a 1997 crash of a SilkAir Pte plane in Indonesia.
The Los Angeles Superior Court jury on Tuesday determined that defects in a rudder control system caused the Boeing Co 737 to plunge from 35,000 feet, killing all 104 people aboard.
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that there were no mechanical defects and the pilot intentionally caused the crash.
'We are incredulous,' said Lorrie Paul Crum, a spokeswoman for Cleveland-based Parker Hannifin, who said the company will appeal. 'This is the best case for tort reform I've seen yet.'
The jury assigned the entire responsibility for the crash to Parker Hannifin, rejecting the option of apportioning any fault to SilkAir or Boeing, which manufactured the 10-month-old 737. Parker Hannifin was the only defendant.
Boeing had settled earlier and SilkAir had paid about US$100,000 to each family under the Warsaw Convention, which limits airlines' liability in international accidents, said Walter Lack, a lawyer for the families.
The case was the first US trial over the crash of SilkAir Flight 135, Mr Lack said. The trial established Parker Hannifin's liability and relatives of about 30 other people will now go to trial in the same Los Angeles court to determine how much Parker Hannifin owes them in damages, he said.
'This is just the tip of the iceberg,' Mr Lack said. Another 40 cases are pending in federal court in Seattle, he said.
SilkAir is Singapore Airline Ltd's regional unit, serving mainly tourists travelling to Asian destinations. SilkAir Flight 135 was travelling to Singapore from Jakarta when it crashed in December 1997.
The NTSB said in a December 2000 letter to the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee that 'no airplane- related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident' and the evidence indicates the crash was caused by 'intentional pilot action'. The Indonesian safety agency gave no official reason for the crash.
The US agency investigates major international accidents involving US air carriers or US manufactured jets. NTSB reports can't be used as evidence at trial under federal law, Ms Crum said. Mr Lack said factual statements from NTSB reports can be used, while conclusions and recommendations are barred by the law.
Parker Hannifin intends to challenge that statute in its appeal as well as seek a legislative remedy, Ms Crum said. The verdict won't affect Parker Hannifin's earnings because the company is covered by insurance, she added.
The case was brought by the families of Soen Lay Heng, 46, a Singapore resident who specialised in security printing; Merleen Tan Peck Jiang, 26, a Singapore resident who worked as a computer consultant; and Kenneth George Wilson, 44, a Scottish citizen living in Indonesia.
The trial before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias lasted six weeks. The jury deliberated for four days before delivering its unanimous verdict on all questions, Mr Lack said. - Bloomberg
In a separate investigation into whether a criminal offence might have caused the crash, the Singapore Police CID found no evidence that the pilot or anyone else on board may have had suicidal tendencies or a motive to cause the crash.
7 The Singapore accredited representative to the investigation stated expressly that the wreckage of the cockpit and circuit breaker panel had not been recovered.8
By May 2003, an emerging body of new evidence suggested that Flight MI 185ís flight data recorder had not stopped recording until shortly before the crash.
9 The recorder also showed an unusual full rudder deflection. Such a rudder position would have caused the jet to swerve sharply and snap into a roll . In July 2004, a Los Angeles court in the United States ruled that the Flight MI 185 crash had been caused by a defective servo valve in the planeís rudder.10 The rudder manufacturer was ordered to
recorder also showed an unusual full rudder deflection
If that were true it is interesting the fact was not presented in court at a subsequent civil action. And even it was true, Boeing and another agency found that an uncommanded hard over rudder was easily controllable at high altitude especially as in this case the captain was a former qualified aerobatic pilot. He should have had no trouble righting the 737 had the rudder gone hard-over. By the same token he would also have no trouble at all rolling the aircraft into a steep spiral dive from which recovery would quickly be impossible.
Far to many other factors to consider, stabiliser trim full nose down, throttles fully open etc. etc.
Agree. One needed to be an observer at the Singapore court case to hear the quite incredible opinions offered by one of the so called "expert" witnesses for the defence (Silk Air) When questioned why the pilot apparently chose to dive steeply at high power with speed brakes retracted and no mayday call or any other transmission, the "expert" witness stated the pilot was actually trying to pull out of the dive by applying high power since it is well known that if power is applied the nose of the aircraft will raise itself. The same expert postulated the most probable sequence of events were initially caused by the electrical actuation of the CVR circuit breaker followed shortly after by the electrical actuation of the two FDR circuit breakers.
He further postulated that in all probability a crack started across the windscreen caused by a "progressive" electrical failure. Warming up to his own argument the witness suggested whoever was on the flight deck panicked and selected full down stab trim while pushing the 737 into a steep dive and was too busy to make a radio call or select the speed brakes but when he realised his error he pushed open the throttles in order to get the nose to rise.
In addition, so the expert argued, as it was known the captain had in all probability left the cockpit for a short while, judging by the last recorded words on the CVR, the only person left in the cockpit at the time of the nose dive was the first officer. Ergo, the F/O was probably to blame.. His argument was accepted by the judge as one plausable explanation for the accident. Well, to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, he would, wouldn't he?
-Secondary slide took 260lbs of pull to remove from casing which had hit the ground at near supersonic speed...
-trim nose down from cruise position
-VGV/MEC/HPC/Thr Quadrant indicative of high power setting
-near vertical impact
and P-H gets pinged? Don't like the double action servo valve on principle, but theres a point where the simple answer is the most likely answer, certainly it cannot be ruled out in the condition of lack of evidence. There is no evidence that the rudder was hard over to the right, in fact the evidence is contrary, slight left deflection. That the pilot(s) decided that full power and nose down trim was necessary to achieve a recovery from a high speed vertical dive is an indication as to the lack of basic knowledge that pervades at least 12 jurors.