19 July 2001 (The Straits Times)
Capt Tsu broke rules thrice in 8 months
THE lawyer for the families suing SilkAir said yesterday that the airline's flight management could have taken more severe action against Captain Tsu Way Ming when he committed his third flight-safety breach, just four months after he was rapped and demoted for two earlier ones.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo added that instead of disciplining him, the management merely reminded him to be more careful.
Mr Khoo, who is representing families of six people who died in the MI 185 crash, was referring to an incident on Nov 20, 1997 when Capt Tsu did not get enough thrust in one of the plane's engines while taking off from Singapore to Kunming, China. The plane had to return to Singapore.
It landed smoothly but was found to be overloaded. Capt Tsu did not make a report of this overweight landing as required.
His supervisor, Captain Anthony Leong, then sent him a letter the day after the incident, reminding him to be 'more mindful' and follow the requirements in future.
Eight months earlier, in March 1997, Capt Tsu had to make a turn-around when he failed to land his plane in Manado, Indonesia. He later landed safely but did not report the incident as mandated.
Three months later, Capt Tsu had deliberately stopped the cockpit voice recorder by pulling its circuit breaker just before the flight left Singapore because he wanted to download its content. It has a 30-minute taping time and re-records continuously.
In July 1997, he was reprimanded for his 'poor judgment' and removed as line instructor pilot.
When cross-examining Capt Leong, Mr Khoo said that Capt Tsu should have been more severely dealt with after his third breach, given his past record.
Disagreeing, Capt Leong emphasised that the November 1997 incident was an administrative oversight on Capt Tsu's part and not a breach in safety procedure.
'We did not think of it as a serious breach,' he added.
July 19, 2001 (The Business Time)
SILKAIR CRASH
Final submissions in 5 weeks for judgment
Plaintiff drops suit in US against Boeing as mechanical failure ruled out as cause
By
Beth Jinksand Donald Urquhart
LAWYERS yesterday wrapped up witness testimony in the SilkAir flight MI 185 crash case, and will present their final submissions to the High Court after five weeks for a final judgment.
The defence team representing Singapore Airlines' (SIA) regional subsidiary SilkAir rested its case without the court hearing a proposed testimony from a psychologist. The expert had been expected to testify about the likely state of mind of the Boeing 737's pilot, Captain Tsu Way Ming, who has been accused of either acting recklessly or committing suicide.
The families of six of the 104 people killed when the plane crashed into Sumatra's Musi River in December 1997 are suing the airline.
On the final day of witness testimony, plaintiff lawyer Michael Khoo focused his cross examination of SilkAir chief pilot of flight operations Capt Leslie Ganapathy on an 'unofficial' meeting held on Aug 30, 2000, where a confidential accident report commissioned by SIA but not released to the court was discussed.
Capt Ganapathy confirmed that both he and report author Denis Howe were present at the meeting held in a conference room at Changi Airport. According to both men, other people present included SIA managers, engineers, the person in charge of the Indonesian-led investigation, and someone introduced as an official Singapore representative of the investigative team.
Capt Ganapathy said he did not know whether it was an 'official or unofficial' meeting, but said no Boeing or US investigation representatives were present.
Questions over the meeting were first raised during Prof Howe's testimony that he was employed by SIA to prepare an opinion on the 'most likely' cause of the crash. Prof Howe revealed he had been provided with a 'mysterious box' of evidence by SIA Engineering employees to help make his assessment.
A professor at Cranfield University's College of Aeronautics in Britain, Prof Howe also based his report on a study of steering wreckage prepared by the Cranfield Impact Centre in Britain which cast doubt on the key plaintiff claim that the aircraft had been steered as directly as possible into a nosedive.
The case was adjourned on Tuesday after Mr Khoo demanded a copy of the report, claiming again yesterday that 'if Prof Howe has changed his views between what he expressed in that report and what his views were as expressed in the witness box, it goes to his veracity'. However, Justice Tan Lee Meng said the hearing should proceed without its admission.
Capt Ganapathy said he did not know what caused the accident but thought it unlikely Capt Tsu had intentionally crashed the plane. 'It has stumped all of us . . . I've looked at the various possibilities . . . but at the end of the day I'm really not sure. Anything is possible given the circumstances,' he said.
'We do everything to make sure we give (pilots) the thought processes as laid down by the manual and at the end of the day, we hope all these things will help them to do the job expected of them.
'(However), when you deal with the real thing it can be quite dramatic . . . we can't say in the real world how they actually will act.'
In the closing moments of the trial, two of the plaintiffs testified about ongoing court cases against Boeing and other aircraft-part manufacturers in the US. Some 25 families of the victims of the crash in addition to the six plaintiffs in the Singapore trial are pursuing legal action there.
One of the six plaintiffs, Thomas Geoffrey Oey, who lost his mother and brother in the crash, told the court he had instructed his American lawyers to cease all legal action against Boeing and other part manufacturers in the US. Mr Oey said his decision was based on the fact that enough evidence had been presented to rule out a mechanical failure as the cause of the crash.
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
Disregard police report: Counsel
THE police report dismissing pilot suicide as the cause of the SilkAir crash should not be admitted as evidence, said the plaintiffs' lawyer,Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, yesterday..
This is because the police officers who prepared that report did not testify in the civil case, he said.
On Tuesday, the Attorney-General objected to calling the officers as witnesses because their probe was meant to uncover whether a criminal act had been committed.
Citing the Evidence Act, a representative for the A-G said said that police investigations were matters that should be kept confidential.
Yesterday, Mr Khoo said that since he could not question the officers, he would argue in his final submission that the court should disregard the police report.
While the families are saying that the crash was caused by the pilots, Mr Khoo had said that they did not have to show that suicide was the motive.
All the families need to show, he said, is that the crash was caused by an intentional action.