July 11, 2001 (Straits Times)
US experts erred before, says SilkAir
NTSB's report that MI 185 crash was caused by pilot action is based on insufficient evidence, says lawyer
By Tan Ooi Boon
ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR
THE lawyer for SilkAir yesterday attacked the report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on the Palembang crash, saying that the American experts had been known to make 'outrightly wrong' conclusions in the past.
Lawyer Lok Vi Ming said the NTSB's finding that the MI 185 crash was caused by 'intentional pilot action' was flawed as it was based on insufficient evidence.
He noted that after the crash on Dec 19, 1997, the recovery team only managed to find parts totalling 73 per cent of the ill-fated Boeing 737 plane.
The piece of wreckage which could shed light on the probable cause could still be embedded at the bottom of the Musi River, the site of the crash in Indonesia, he said.
The lawyer made these points yesterday when he questioned the expert opinion of air-safety consultant Macarthur Job, who was called by the victims' families to support their case.
Mr Job had shared the NTSB's view that Flight Captain Tsu Way Ming could have brought the plane down. But Mr Lok said the NTSB's findings were not always correct.
For example, in its probe into an accident involving a United Airlines Boeing 747 jumbo jet in Honolulu in 1991, the NTSB had concluded that the incident was caused by the sudden opening of an improperly-latched cargo door. p> But when the US Navy later dredged the seabed and retrieved the cargo door, it was found to be properly latched.
Similarly, Mr Lok said the NTSB had dismissed rudder malfunction as the possible cause of two Boeing 737 crashes in the US, in 1991 and 1994. But tests by Boeing later showed that faulty rudders could have caused those accidents.
Given such mistakes, Mr Lok then asked Mr Job how he could be so certain NTSB was correct in suggesting that Capt Tsu had brought the plane down.
He asked the witness: 'You have come to court to cast aspersions on him... What would you say to the family of the man?'
But the plaintiffs' lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, objected: 'Mr Job cannot answer that. He is an expert on investigations, not an expert on emotions.'
Earlier, Mr Khoo asked the presiding judge, Justice Tan Lee Meng, whether he would want to visit a cockpit of a Boeing 737 as part of the hearing.
As SilkAir and Singapore Airlines no longer used such planes, he said he could ask Malaysia Airlines for permission for such a visit.
Justice Tan replied that there was no need to do so as the court hearings here would be sufficient. The case continues today.
Pilot suicide? 'Captain had no reason'
PARTIES in the SilkAir case yesterday treaded into the 'realm of the unknown' as both sides argued about the possible events that could have taken place in the final minutes of Flight MI 185.
SilkAir lawyer Lok Vi Ming took the families' expert, Mr Macarthur Job, to task for implying that Captain Tsu Way Ming had deliberately crashed the plane on Dec 19, 1997.
Such a contention, he said, would fly in the face of an extensive probe by the Singapore police which found that neither Capt Tsu nor his co-pilot Duncan Ward had any reason to commit suicide.
The police probe, released in December, found that Capt Tsu did not show any unusual behaviour prior to the Palembang crash.
Instead, the police said he had made plans for when he returned, such as helping his son with his studies and holding a birthday party for his father.
Mr Job maintained that there was manual input from the cockpit which caused the plane to crash, but refused to comment on the police findings.
'All I can say is that the plane was driven to the ground but I don't know by who,' he said.
This prompted Justice Tan Lee Meng to say: 'The pilot could not be doing all these daredevil exercises in the sky. You are saying that he knew that by driving the plane down, he would be committing suicide.
'Not only that, he was a mass-murderer.'
Mr Job said: 'If this is the inference, yes.'
Yesterday, the court also heard that after the plane plunged from 35,000 feet to 19,500 feet, it disappeared from airport radar screens.
No one can conclusively say what happened after that. Mr Job suggested that the plane could have broken up then as it was nose- diving at a great speed.
He later agreed with Justice Tan that this was just a possibility, noting that neither the Indonesian nor American investigators discussed this in their reports.
July 11, 2001 (Business Time)
SILKAIR CRASH
'Someone' caused plane to crash: witness
Aviation expert agrees that person at controls wanted to commit suicide
By
Beth Jinks
(SINGAPORE) An expert witness testifying in the High Court on behalf of plaintiffs in the SilkAir crash case conceded yesterday that he believed 'someone' aboard the ill-fated aircraft deliberately caused it to crash.
Scolded by Justice Tan Lee Meng for skirting around the issue, Australian aviation expert Macarthur Job reluctantly revealed that in his opinion, the only explanation for the incident involved someone knowingly steering the plane into the ground, killing himself and all 103 others on board. Flight MI 185 crashed on Dec 19, 1997 while returning to Singapore from Jakarta.
Mr Job would not speculate whether that person was one of the crew, and could not be drawn on the motives for the act, insisting it was beyond his expertise. He confidently repeated his earlier testimony that all evidence showed the plane's engines were working, its recorders had been manually switched off and it was manually steered towards the ground at high - possibly accelerating - speed.
Mr Job's latest testimony came after Justice Tan seized the cross-examination from defence counsel acting for Singapore Airlines' subsidiary SilkAir.
Justice Tan urged Mr Job to voice his conclusions.
'You want to avoid saying that the pilot killed himself - you want to stay away from this conclusion, but when you say the plane was literally driven into the ground ... that descent was quick and steep - you have suggested the remaining part of the dive down was even faster ... you cannot avoid concluding that the man was trying to kill himself or trying daredevil exercises in the sky,' Justice Tan said.
Mr Job answered: 'The aeroplane was driven into the ground - by whom we don't know.'
During a lengthy exchange, Justice Tan said: 'You experts would be more convincing if you were prepared to bite the bullet.' Ultimately Mr Job agreed that, in the judge's words, 'in your opinion the person manipulating the controls wanted to commit suicide and instantly in the process became a mass murderer ... who must have known he would die'.
Justice Tan also questioned whether Mr Job's testimony - that all evidence showed someone manually turned off the aircraft's recorders before the crash - meant he had concluded this was done to 'hide' what subsequently happened in the cockpit. Mr Job refused to be drawn on this conclusion, again arguing it was beyond his expertise.
He also admitted to defence counsel Lok Vi Ming he had not read a report on the Singapore police investigation into allegations of pilot suicide.
The report, read out in court by Mr Lok, included details of comprehensive police investigations into the financial, personal and psychological positions of all crew, concluding suicide was unlikely.
Mr Job said while the report was 'relevant for me to consider' it 'would have to be considered in conjunction with all the other evidence of the aircraft crash investigation', which he maintained pointed to a series of deliberate acts.
During re-examination, Mr Job said changes to investigation conclusions after new evidence was uncovered in two accident cases involving similar aircraft had not significantly altered the cause findings.
Defence lawyers focused on the cases earlier in the proceedings.
Justice Tan also dismissed as unnecessary an earlier suggestion by plaintiff lawyer Michael Khoo that he travel in the cockpit of a 737 to better understand the technical evidence.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs will resume redirection of Mr Job this morning.
10 July 2001 (TODAY-Mediacorp Press)
2301 hrs (SST)
SilkAir crash defined as suicide attempt under law
by Dominique Loh
Justice Tan Lee Meng gave his view on the legal definition of suicide on day 7 of the SilkAir lawsuit.
Questions were also raised on the finality of the US National Transportation Safety Board's report on the crash.
The plaintiffs, led by Michael Khoo, had begun their lawsuit by saying it was not their intention to prove the crash was an attempt by the pilot to commit suicide.
But on day 7 of the hearing, attention was again focused on probable deliberate action in downing the plane.
Expert witness John Laming testified last week that the pilot would know he's killing himself by delibrately nose diving the plane.
Macarthur Job also testified before the court on the same fact.
Justice Tan Lee Meng said that if the pilot knew his action would kill himself by the definition of the law, if the act was successful, it was a suicide attempt.
Part of the defence's cross examination of Macarthur Job focused on the validity of the US NTSB's findings.
Defence lawyer Lok Vi Ming questioned the witness about NTSB's other investigations in the US.
He cited three instances where the NTSB changed its findings after further evidence showed their initial conclusions were somewhat flawed.
Lawyer Lok referred to accidents that took place at Honolulu, Colorado Springs and Pittsburg.
He asked since the NTSB amended its findings in those cases, would it then be possible the same could happen in MI 185's case.
Job answered there may be a possibility but said his findings are based on current evidence before him.
The trial continues on Wednesday when the defendants are expected to start their opening statement.
[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: Loner ]