Families sue SilkAir for MI185 crash
By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT
SINGAPORE -- The families of six people who died in the SilkAir flight MI185 crash will go to court next week to prove their case against the airline.
They are suing the SilkAir for damages for the crash in Palembang, Indonesia on Dec 19 1997.
The trial, scheduled to last 10 days, is expected to begin in the High Court on Monday. It will be heard before Justice Tan Lee Meng.
Relatives of the six -- Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Lee Eng Seng, 51; John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35 -- are represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo and Ms Josephine Low.
The families are hoping to prove that the crash was caused by the plane's crew and international experts will be called to testify that mechanical failure could not have caused the crash which killed all 97 passengers and the seven crew.
If they win their case, the claim limit of US$75,000 of the Warsaw Convention, which SilkAir is governed by, will no longer apply.
SilkAir is represented by lawyer Lok Vi Ming.
On Dec 19 1997, the plane plunged 10,670 m into the Palembang river less than an hour after it left Jakarta.
A 200-page crash investigation report last December could not make a definite conclusion as to what went on in the last few moments of the Singapore-bound plane. (28 June 07:13PM -- Singapore Time)
3 July 2001
SilkAir negligent, six families claim
Relatives say MI185 crash was the result of 'wilful misconduct' by the airline, employees or a crew member
By Karen Wong
THE families of six victims of the MI 185 crash suing SilkAir for negligence are having their day in court - three-and-a-half years after the tragedy.
Yesterday, on the first day of the hearing, High Court No. 19 was packed with over 40 people, comprising relatives of the six victims, lawyers, members of the press and curious members of the public.
The relatives of the victims are alleging that the crash which killed 104 people after the plane plunged into the Musi River, in Palembang, Indonesia, was the result of ''wilful misconduct'' on the airline's part, or on the part of its employees, or that the airline, or a crew member, had been negligent.
SilkAir's case is that there was no evidence that the pilot, co-pilot or any crew member had either suicidal tendencies or a motive to cause the Dec 19, 1997 crash.
It also claims that the crash was not the result of wilful misconduct or default by either the airline or its cockpit crew. Nor was it done recklessly or with intent to cause damage.
The families are trying to prove wilful misconduct, so that they can get unrestricted damages from the Singapore Airlines subsidiary.
Most of the 85 families who lost relatives in the tragedy have already accepted compensation of between US$140,000 (S$252,000) and US$200,000 per victim. This bars them from taking further legal action against the airline.
Those now suing SilkAir are relatives of the late Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51, a Singaporean; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45, a Singaporean; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.
Last December, an Indonesian crash investigation report could not find evidence for any possible cause of the crash. But American aviation experts later said the pilot was to blame.
And it is the US National Transportation Safety Board's comments to the Indonesian probe team, that the plaintiffs are now relying on.
Opening the plaintiffs' case, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo said that the investigations showed that no plane-related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident.
He also said that the plane's flight profile before it crashed, was consistent with the possibility that plane was responding to flight control inputs from either the pilot or co-pilot in the cockpit.
Mr Khoo urged the court to find an inference that the pilot or co-pilot switched off both the voice recorder and flight data recorder and caused the crash.
Mr Khoo also asked the court to find that SilkAir had ''wilfully misconducted itself'', or wilfully turned a blind eye to the fact that Captain Tsu Way Ming had previously breached safety procedures.
He also claimed that by allowing Capt Tsu, a pilot with disciplinary problems, to take control of the MI 185, SilkAir had known that damage would probably result.
The hearing continues today.
Pilot key witness in SilkAir lawsuit
A pilot who has flown with Captain Tsu Way Ming will testify for the families of six people who died in the 1997 MI 185 crash at Palembang, Indonesia
By Karen Wong
THE key witness in the SilkAir lawsuit, Captain Lawrence Dittmer, is due to take the stand today.
Capt Dittmer, a pilot with the airline, has been subpoenaed to testify for the families of six people who died in the 1997 crash at Palembang, Indonesia.
Yesterday was the first day of the hearing which has been scheduled for the next 15 days.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, who is assisted by Ms Josephine Low and Mr Andy Chiok, is the lawyer for relatives of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.
Mr Lok Vi Ming and his assistants, Mr Ng Hwee Chong and Ms Joanna Foong, are acting forSilkAir.
According to court documents, Capt Dittmer was flying with the late Captain Tsu Way Ming on two of the occasions during which the latter breached safety regulations.
The first of those incidents was on March 3, 1997, when Capt Dittmer was Capt Tsu's co-pilot on a flight to Manado, Indonesia.
Capt Tsu had attempted to land while cruising at a speed and altitude which were excessive under the circumstances.
On June 24, 1997, less than a month after the disciplinary inquiry into the Manado incident, Capt Tsu and Capt Dittmer were scheduled to fly together again.
The two men were apparently at loggerheads and had a tense discussion in the cockpit about the Manado incident before the plane was due to depart from Changi Airport.
Capt Tsu then turned off the cockpit voice recorder, and proposed to fly the plane without it so he could retain the contents of the discussion.
But after a short stand-off, he changed his mind, the voice recorder was switched on again, and the flight went ahead.
Experts will be called to testify for both sides of the court case.
Mr MacArthur Job, who has been working as a senior inspector of air safety for the Australian Department of Civil Aviation since 1967, will testify for the relatives of the victims.
He has assessed hundreds of air-accident investigations involving both Australian and overseas-registered aircraft.
He is apparently going to testify that the accident can be explained by intentional pilot action.
The second expert witness for the plaintiffs' case is Captain John Laming, who is an air-crash consultant with about 23,300 hours of flying experience.
He will apparently testify that it was someone on the flight deck who had activated the electrical stabiliser trim control and full engine power, which forced the plane into such a steep dive.
For the airline, Professor Denis Howe, an Emeritus Professor at the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield University in Britain, will testify that the change of the stabiliser trim position alone would not have resulted in the plane's fast descent.
Captain Robert Galan, a test pilot, will say that the simulation tests used by Capt Laming cannot be relied upon as proof.
And, Dr Tan Chue Tin, a psychiatrist, will testify to the pilots' states of mind, and conclude that it was unlikely that Capt Tsu had committed suicide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIAL WITNESSES
THE trial's star witness may be Captain Lawrence Dittmer, a pilot with the airline, who was flying with the late Captain Tsu Way Ming on two occasions when the latter breached safety regulations.
Another witness for the victims' families is Mr MacArthur Job, who has been working as a senior inspector of air safety for the Australian Department of Civil Aviation since 1967.
The second expert witness for the plaintiffs' case is Captain John Laming, who is an air-crash consultant with about 23,300 hours of flying experience.
The airline's expert witnesses are Professor Denis Howe, an Emeritus Professor at the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield University in Britain; Captain Robert Galan, a test pilot; and Dr Tan Chue Tin, a psychiatrist.
