MediaCorp News (TODAY)
11 July 2001 1203 hrs (GMT) 2003 hrs (SST)SilkAir lawyers start defence in lawsuit by Dominique Loh
After eight days of hearings, the lawyers for SilkAir have given their opening statement.Defence lawyer Lok Vi Ming presented their case by saying the findings of Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee must be upheld.Mr Lok said there was no evidence to prove there was an attempted suicide by the flight crew.He also said there was a lack of motive by any of the cabin crew to commit suicide.The defence again asserted that the "thoroughness of the National Transportation Safety Board in this case is suspect."It cited previous investigations in which the American agency had amended its conclusions of aviation accidents in the US, after further evidence surfaced.Before the defence began its case, expert witness Maurie Baston was again called to the stand.Mr Baston testified it would be very difficult for a flight crew member to wrestle the controls from the pilot once the plane goes into a nose dive that is unrecoverable.This is because the physical forces acting on the control column would be too great.The first defence witness will testify on Thursday.
12 JULY 2001, THUR (Straits Times)
Could the co-pilot have averted tragedy?
PILOTS are known to fall asleep on long flights made in clear weather, said aviation expert Maurie Baston.
He was asked yesterday whether a co-pilot could do anything if the pilot decided to do something 'wrong', such as sending the plane into a nose dive.
From his own experience as a pilot, he said, most co-pilots would feel 'relaxed' when they were flying with competent pilots.
'They would not be sitting on the edge of their seats, waiting for things to happen.'
But he noted that if the pilot had wanted to crash-dive a plane intentionally, the co-pilot might not have time to do anything.
'It would be a game of wrestling for control,' he said, adding that even this would not help if the plane went out of control at great speed.
Yesterday, SilkAir lawyer Lok Vi Ming asked Captain Baston what he would do if he were flying alongside MI 185 pilot Tsu Way Ming.
He replied that if he had known about reports that the pilot had performed dangerous moves in earlier flights, he 'would be keeping an eye on Capt Tsu'.
Malicious to suggest suicide, says SilkAir
Airline's lawyer says it is malicious and irresponsible to say without proof that pilot took down plane deliberately
By Tan Ooi Boon
ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR
IT WAS 'malicious and highly irresponsible' to suggest that SilkAir MI 185 went down as a result of pilot suicide because a painstaking probe lasting three years had yielded no evidence to support this charge.
SilkAir's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, told the High Court yesterday that the actual cause of the air crash in Palembang in 1997 is still unknown as 27 per cent of the plane wreckage remains unrecovered.
So far, the Indonesian crash investigators have found nothing - either mechanical or human - that can help them to pinpoint the probable cause of the tragic incident.
A separate and independent probe by the Singapore police ruled out suicide as a possible motive for both Captain Tsu Way Ming and co-pilot Duncan Ward, Mr Lok said when he opened SilkAir's case yesterday.
Despite this, the lawyer said expert witnesses called by the five families of victims who are suing SilkAir, did not hesitate to say that the crash was caused by 'intentional pilot action'.
'They are actually saying that the plane was crashed deliberately, and that the pilot committed suicide and murder,' he added.
He said that such a position would not go well with the fact that the five families had filed separate suits in the United States against the manufacturers of the Boeing 737 and other parts of the aircraft.
This, he added, can be taken as an admission of their belief that the crash could have been caused by mechanical or other non-human reasons.
For example, he noted that the plaintiffs' experts said the pilot had allegedly stopped the plane's voice and flight-data recorders manually by pulling their circuit-breakers, one after the other. But stoppages, he said, could also be explained by the possibility that a 'progressive power failure' affected the plane.
He added his experts would support this theory when they give evidence today, because power supply to the plane's radar transponder was also cut off.
It had stopped sending out radar signals after the plane plunged to below 19,500 feet, from its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.
'The trial is a sad reminder of the dark and tragic day when MI 185 went down with 104 lives... but we should not forget that this number included the pilot,' he said.
He also said that in the search for answers, it might be too easy and convenient to subscribe to the theory that a troubled pilot took matters into his own hands by sending himself and others on board to their deaths.
'Such a theory is dangerous, is without any merit and should be rejected by this court,' he said.
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
Reckless pilot action to counter emergency?
Plaintiffs' lawyer paints scenario in which the jet crash could have been caused unintentionally after judge asks him to clarify his case
By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT
THE pilot of MI 185 could have pulled an unapproved and dangerous manoeuvre to counter an emergency during the flight, said Senior Counsel Michael Khoo.
As a result of his recklessness, the plane nose-dived, went out of control and crashed.
The lawyer, who is representing five crash-victim families who are suing SilkAir, painted this scenario to emphasise that the plaintiffs are not out to show that the pilot, Captain Tsu Way Ming, committed suicide.
He did so after presiding judge, Justice Tan Lee Meng, asked him to clarify his case.
The judge had earlier pointed out to him that his expert witnesses had been saying that the pilot had intentionally brought the plane down. Despite this, the witnesses had been 'shrinking away from the inevitable conclusion' and refused to commit themselves to say that the pilot had committed suicide.
For example, when the judge asked air-safety consultant Macarthur Job, the plaintiffs' expert witness, if he would consider it a reckless act if a person drove his car into a bus stop filled with 100 people, knowing that the act would kill himself and the people, Mr Job answered that he would.
The judge then asked if the expert witness was saying that the plane had been taken on an aerobatic dive and was being brought down deliberately.
Mr Job replied that according to the US National Transportation Safety Board, this was so.
Mr Khoo then intervened saying that there were two possibilities as to what happened on MI 185 when it crashed in Palembang in December 1997 - one was that the pilot had been reckless and could not recover from his act, and the other was that his action was intentional.
For instance, the pilot's recklessness could have happened when he put the plane on full throttle, causing it to nose-dive when the pressure in the cabin dropped instead of stabilising it.
But Mr Khoo reiterated that it was not the plaintiffs' case to show the motive behind such an act: 'We are not here to say why a man acted in such a way.'
Justice Tan replied: ''But we are here to find out whether a man had acted in such a way. Your side wants to avoid saying that the pilot wants to kill himself.'
To which Mr Khoo replied: 'No one can ever say what was in the mind of the doer... All we want to show is the plane was driven to the ground intentionally.'
He added that he was not saying that the crash was not caused by pilot suicide.
'All I am saying is that it is not necessary for the court to make a finding of suicide,' he said, noting that a finding that someone had caused the plane to dive would be enough for the families to succeed in their claim.
