July 6, 2001 FRI Straits Times
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUITS
Over 30 families sue Boeing
In writs filed in the US, they claim that Boeing and other manufacturers made defective and unsafe parts
By Karen Wong
SOME of the families who are suing SilkAir over the death of relatives in the 1997 Palembang plane crash are also suing Boeing and other aircraft-part manufacturers in the United States.
In the other lawsuits, happening independently of the High Court SilkAir trial now taking place here, the families are claiming that the manufacturers madedefective and unsafe parts.
Now, SilkAir's lawyers want the plaintiffs to disclose all the documents relating to the US lawsuits, apart from the three suits which they already have documents for because, they argue, the court here should know the details of legal actions by the plaintiffs elsewhere.
But the plaintiffs' lawyer, senior counsel Michael Khoo, said his clients do not have those documents, though he added he would hand over what he has. A writ has been filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, in which more than 30 families, including those of the late John Joseph and Lee Eng Seng, both Singaporeans, have alleged that Kavilico Corporation, ITT Neodyne, Parker-Hannifin Corporation and the Boeing Company, are somewhat responsible for the Indonesia crash.
Kavilico designed, manufactured and inspected parts of the Boeing 737 aircraft, including the dampener pressure sensor.
ITT Neodyne manufactured the pressure-sensing switch in the secondary filter and Parker-Hannifin, the rudder power control unit.
Boeing built the aircraft.
The plaintiffs claim that they have suffered mental anguish and fear of impending death as a result of the MI 185 crash on Dec 19, 1997.
On top of the damages, they want compensation for their pain and suffering, and also funeral expenses.
In another writ filed in Seattle, Washington, the families of Mrs Berenice Braislin Oey and Miss Pang Swee Gan, a Malaysian, with about 20 other families, are suing B.F. Goodrich Aerospace.
They have alleged that Goodrich, which installed the toilet and the galley for the Boeing 737 that crashed into the Musi River, was responsible for the defective and dangerous condition of those parts.
They claim that the toilet and galley were not fit for their intended purposes and were unreasonably dangerous due to defective design, manufacture and installation, among other things.
The plaintiffs in that case are also saying that Goodrich had acted 'intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, grossly, wilfully and wantonly' by installing a toilet or galley in the aircraft which it knew was dangerous.
Mrs Beryl Claire Clarke from Scotland, the widow of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, has also joined about 20 other families in a separate suit against Goodrich.
The suit, filed in Seattle, claims that the galley was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
The Straits Times understands that the position of the families is that the suits in the US would not affect their case before the courts here.
Could the co-pilot have stepped in?
He would have only 15 seconds to react, says expert witness
AN AVIATION expert told the High Court yesterday that if the pilot wanted to bring down the plane, the co-pilot would have only seconds to act before the point of no return.
Captain John Laming, 69, made these remarks when Justice Tan Lee Meng asked what the co-pilot could have done to salvage the situation if the pilot wanted to crash the plane.
An expert witness for the families of six victims of the SilkAir MI 185 crash, Capt Laming said: 'The pilot who is not flying the plane will have extreme problems...apart from having to wrest the control stick back.'
He had testified that it would have needed someone in the cockpit to hold down the controls, set the electrical stabiliser trim control to full forward and engage full engine power to force the aircraft into the steep dive experienced by MI 185.
He said it was that input from the cockpit which had caused the plane to crash into the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997, killing all 104 people on board.
Yesterday, Justice Tan asked: 'Are you saying that if one pilot decides to go frolicking, the other is helpless?'
Capt Laming said: 'He's not helpless. But he would have to overcome the other pilot really quickly.
'It's highly critical in that steep dive. Unless you can get the plane up in 15 seconds, you will lose the aircraft.'
But, SilkAir's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, later said that even if one of the pilots had sent the plane into a nosedive, there was a stabiliser trim cut-out switch, located between the pilots' seats, which could be used in emergencies.
He said that the co-pilot could have easily reached down for this switch, without having to wrestle with the other pilot for control over the plane.
Justice Tan said: 'If that's so, then the other pilot could have mitigated the circumstances.'
Capt Laming replied: 'But he wouldn't have immediately realised what was happening.'
Capt Maurie Baston, the managing director of Aviation Management Services, took the stand yesterday afternoon as the second of three expert witnesses for the families.
A former aerobatic- display pilot and flying instructor in the Royal Australian Air Force, he has had 15 years' experience in aviation management.
Capt Baston's report stated that intentional pilot action probably caused the crash.
'There's more than sufficient available technical evidence to support the view that the aircraft was literally driven into the ground,' he said.
The hearing continues today.