Latest News - Singapore
06 July 06:36PM -- Singapore Time
SilkAir crash no accident, says expert witness SINGAPORE -- A SilkAir jet which crashed in 1997 killing 104 people 'was literally driven into the ground,' an expert witness told a court hearing on Friday, arguing the fatal plunge was deliberate. 'To achieve this kind of descent ... you can only conclude that there could have been deliberate action of some sort. It was not an accident,' said Maurie Baston, a former aerobatic-display pilot and flying instructor with the Royal Australian Air Force. Mr Baston was testifying on the fifth day of a lawsuit taken by the families of six victims who were killed when the plane plunged into an Indonesian river on December 19, 1997, while on a flight from Jakarta to Singapore. In an affidavit to the court, Mr Baston said there was 'more than sufficient available technical evidence to support the view that the aircraft was literally driven into the ground.' He said that he agreed with the findings of simulator tests that the 'probable cause of the crash was intentional pilot action.' But, defence counsel Lok Vi Ming questioned the accuracy of the simulator tests, saying that there was a doubt as to the exact point when the plane actually began its steep dive. Citing testimony given in a US court, in a suit by relatives of victims of flight MI185 against the plane's maker Boeing, Mr Lok said that there appeared to be two sets of radar data -- 'raw data' and 'refined data' -- on the aircraft's final moments. He said two of the simulator tests were carried out months before any data on the point of rapid descent was released. Two other tests were based on 'refined data', which was different from the unreleased raw data, he added. But he did not elaborate on why there were two sets of data. -- AFP
7 July 2001
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
'Flawed' decision on earlier occasion
An expert says Captain Tsu was wrong to take off in an overweight plane, in an earlier incident in November 1997
By Karen Wong
By taking off when one of the plane's engines did not have sufficient thrust, Captain Tsu had made a "wrong" decision. He should have reported the incident, said Captain Baston (above), an expert witness for the families of six people killed in the SilkAir crash. -- WANG HUI FEN
CAPTAIN Tsu Way Ming's decision to take off on an occasion when there was insufficient power in one of the engines was 'operationally flawed', an aviation management expert told the High Court yesterday.
Captain Maurie Baston said that on Nov 20, 1997, just a month before SilkAir MI 185 crashed in Palembang, Indonesia, Capt Tsu was piloting a flight from Singapore to Kunming, China.
But he turned the plane around shortly after taking off, to land back in Singapore. The aircraft was overweight.
Capt Baston said Capt Tsu should not have made the decision to take off that day, when one of the engines did not have sufficient thrust.
Capt Tsu failed to either record the overweight landing in the technical log or to report the incident.
The reason he gave to the company for not doing so was that the landing had been smooth.
He was later sent a letter to 'be more mindful' of not making a report.
Capt Baston, an expert witness for the families of six people killed in the crash, said the pilot's failure to report the incident was wrong. The plane could have been 'unairworthy', he added.
The reason for the insufficient thrust was later found to be a leak in the second engine's fuel pump.
'It's a significant unserviceability,' said Capt Baston.
However, he also said that regarding the subsequent overweight landing, Capt Tsu was placed 'in an awkward position', as there was no fuel-dump facility in the Boeing 737 model.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, acting for the families who are suing SilkAir for damages, then pointed out that SilkAir had lodged a report about the take-off incident to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore only about four months later.p> When SilkAir's lawyer Lok Vi Ming cross-examined Capt Baston, he raised the issue that there were two sets of radar data: A set of raw data, and another set of 'refined' data.
Both were used by the Indonesian National Transport Safety Committee (NTSC) in its report on the crash which killed all 104 people on board.
Capt Baston had relied on the refined radar data in the NTSC's report, when he said the dive angle was steep and that angle had been achieved when the aircraft was deliberately held into the dive by pilot action.
Mr Lok pointed out that the fact that there were two different sets of radar points raised questions.
However, Mr Khoo argued that there had been no earlier dispute about the two sets of radar information in the NTSC's
report.
Later, Justice Tan Lee Meng asked Capt Baston whether pilots were trained to take control of the aircraft if the other pilot wanted to crash the plane. The captain replied that they were
not.
The judge asked the lawyers on both sides to submit a list on what actions a co-pilot could take to overcome the pilot.
He then wanted a physical comparison between Capt Tsu and his co-pilot, First Officer Duncan Ward, to find out who could have won if they had to wrestle for control over the diving plane.
The hearing continues on Monday.
Latest News - Singapore
07 July 09:16PM -- Singapore Time
SilkAir insurers sue for US$55m By Karen Wong SINGAPORE -- SILKAIR'S insurers are suing Boeing and other aircraft-part manufacturers in the United States for supplying a 'defective' and 'dangerous' aircraft which crashed in 1997, killing all 104 people on board. The insurance company, Singapore Aviation and General Insurance Company (Sagi) -- a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines -- is suing the defendants for negligence and breach of warranties. And it wants Boeing and the other companies to pay it US$35 million (S$64 million) for the loss of the aircraft hull alone. In a separate suit against the same defendants, filed in Los Angeles, California, Sagi is claiming the compensation money paid to the relatives of crash victims. Taken together, the claims in the two lawsuits total to almost US$55 million (S$100 million).
I wonder if my neighbour sue me for my pet dog had bitten them, can I also sue the petshop for selling me a dog that bites???
