US Jury Blames Rudder, Not Pilot For 1997 Silkair Crash.

[airsupport]

Business Times - 09 Jul 2004

SilkAir crash: US firm told to pay US$44m


Los Angeles Superior Court jury says defects in rudder control system caused the crash


(LOS ANGELES) Parker Hannifin Corp, the world's largest maker of hydraulic equipment, was told by a Los Angeles jury to pay US$43.6 million to the families of three people killed in a 1997 crash of a SilkAir Pte plane in Indonesia.

The Los Angeles Superior Court jury on Tuesday determined that defects in a rudder control system caused the Boeing Co 737 to plunge from 35,000 feet, killing all 104 people aboard.

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that there were no mechanical defects and the pilot intentionally caused the crash.

'We are incredulous,' said Lorrie Paul Crum, a spokeswoman for Cleveland-based Parker Hannifin, who said the company will appeal. 'This is the best case for tort reform I've seen yet.'

The jury assigned the entire responsibility for the crash to Parker Hannifin, rejecting the option of apportioning any fault to SilkAir or Boeing, which manufactured the 10-month-old 737. Parker Hannifin was the only defendant.

Boeing had settled earlier and SilkAir had paid about US$100,000 to each family under the Warsaw Convention, which limits airlines' liability in international accidents, said Walter Lack, a lawyer for the families.

The case was the first US trial over the crash of SilkAir Flight 135, Mr Lack said. The trial established Parker Hannifin's liability and relatives of about 30 other people will now go to trial in the same Los Angeles court to determine how much Parker Hannifin owes them in damages, he said.

'This is just the tip of the iceberg,' Mr Lack said. Another 40 cases are pending in federal court in Seattle, he said.

SilkAir is Singapore Airline Ltd's regional unit, serving mainly tourists travelling to Asian destinations. SilkAir Flight 135 was travelling to Singapore from Jakarta when it crashed in December 1997.

The NTSB said in a December 2000 letter to the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee that 'no airplane- related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident' and the evidence indicates the crash was caused by 'intentional pilot action'. The Indonesian safety agency gave no official reason for the crash.

The US agency investigates major international accidents involving US air carriers or US manufactured jets. NTSB reports can't be used as evidence at trial under federal law, Ms Crum said. Mr Lack said factual statements from NTSB reports can be used, while conclusions and recommendations are barred by the law.

Parker Hannifin intends to challenge that statute in its appeal as well as seek a legislative remedy, Ms Crum said. The verdict won't affect Parker Hannifin's earnings because the company is covered by insurance, she added.

The case was brought by the families of Soen Lay Heng, 46, a Singapore resident who specialised in security printing; Merleen Tan Peck Jiang, 26, a Singapore resident who worked as a computer consultant; and Kenneth George Wilson, 44, a Scottish citizen living in Indonesia.

The trial before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias lasted six weeks. The jury deliberated for four days before delivering its unanimous verdict on all questions, Mr Lack said. - Bloomberg

[Bird Strike]

Disclaimer - I have no idea about the points of law, so I don't understand what the hell's happened there!


I don't quite understand the reasoning behind the jury's decision, or the process they go through to reach that decision.

I cannot believe that the jury never read the NTSB's findings, even if it could not be used as an evidence. Or were they selected from people who have never read about the case? If they had indeed read the NTSB's findings, was it that the jury were suspicious of NTSB potentially being biased in their findings?

How can the jury, which I presume to be people who are not trained in any way in accident investigations etc determine what caused the accident and indeed who was liable?

Isn't this undermining NTSB?

Or was it a simple case of "which side had better lawyers"?

I am totally confused.

:confused: :confused:

[airsupport]

It just doesn't make sense at all. :confused:

I could understand IF the NTSB had proved the rudder was at fault, and the jury just decide the damages, but this is ridiculous.

The NTSB proved that there was NO fault with the Aircraft, how on Earth can a jury decide there was, especially when they are prevented by law from knowing the facts. (from the NTSB). :uhoh:

CRAZY..................

[ROB-x38]

Mr Lack said factual statements from NTSB reports can be used, while conclusions and recommendations are barred by the law.
I'm definitely no lawyer but basically what it's saying is that facts from the report can be used - eg: the aircraft descended past FL290 at time 1835 (or whatever.....) but that conclusions as to why particular events happened can't be used (eg: the aircraft descended due to pilot inattention).

However I would have thought the NTSB would be the best equipped bunch of people to draw conclusions following accident investigations and the entire report should therefore be admissable in court - conclusions and all.

[Woomera]

Of course it makes sense. The Carrier's liability is limited by the Warsaw Convention (of 1947, as amended?) and the article indicates the carrier has paid our it's liability at $100,000 per family. My guess to challenge that (which is possible if one can prove negligence) the appropriate jurisdiction would be Singapore of Indonesia - and we won't even think about going there.

So, if there's no more honey in that pot, start on the airframe and/or component manufacturers.........

And don't forget the responsible authority in whose jurisdiction the accident occurred, Indonesia, made no findings!

That's how the US justice system works - isn't it? :confused:

[Pinky the pilot]

One could also make the observation Woomera, that the US like Australia, does not have a Justice system.
It does however have a Legal system.:(

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[gaunty]

Folks,

We are talking about the law of torts and the legal "game" played in the US wherein finding a sympathetic jurisdiction within which a components manufacturer, any component, on the aircraft, conducts their business and who is sufficiently large to take a very large bite out of their hide is the real game.
The "facts" and the way they are presented and the NTSB "finding" are only 'interesting", if not indeed irrelevant.

In simple terms Cessna stopped manufacturing piston engine aircraft when it became clear that simply manufacturing an aircraft was automatically creating a $USD20 million liability, for each C172/182/206/210 aircraft manufactured. Why keep building $USD20 million liabilities. :rolleyes:
The final straw was a 20 year old C172 without valid maintenance and dodgy flight instruments in IMC with a VFR pilot out of licence, into the side of a hill.
It took many, many years to get a law though Congress that limited this liability in a reasonable manner.

There has been much research on "jury sensibilitites" in these cases that suggests that they are led to the role of vicariously resolving their own "life" frustrations by "awarding" the so called "victims" a "lotto like" windfall.

Driving your unlicensed car, whilst sh!tfaced on a dark, stormy and moonless night with bald tyres and no lights or brakes, along the edge of a cliff face and going over the edge is more likely to get a $40,000,000 award than not.
Where it is contested and who gets to pay the bill will depend absolutely on which one of the potential targets has the most money or the most to lose. There is then the matter of how much the law firm gets to keep for getting it.

Am I getting a little cynical. :{

[Plas Teek]

Shame to blame the Aircraft when the Skipper had locked the F/O out of the cockpit AND disconnected the FDR!!

Damn Lies!!!

[airsupport]

Don't say that, or next they will be suing the Company that made the door lock. :(

They could probably mount a case, using their logic, that the door lock caused the crash. :(

Would at least make more sense than the rudder causing it. :mad:

[Hudson]

Just proves how dumb juries are when fronted by a first class cunning lawyer. What a crazy verdict.

[Islander Jock]

Hudson,

Having sat on a couple of Juries I'd go further to say that a lot of jurors don't even need the cunning linguistic skills lf a lawyer to create a far fetched let alone reasonable doubt in their collective minds.

[Bird Strike]

This verdict is really offending my sense of justice, if what I have read are indeed true, including what happened in the run-up to the crash.

[ZK-NSN]

It was bound to be a mess from the start, A singapore registered B737 crashing in the back waters of Indonesia, Whats the NTSB got to do with it? Sounds like ass coverage to me, only proves that the justice system is deaf, dumb, blind and fairly retarded.

[Sqwark2000]

A doco recently aired in NZ about this crash as the co-pilot was a NZer.

The NTSB were invited to assist the investigation, I think because of thier experience in investigating the B737 rudder related crashes as this may have been the cause early in the investigation. Boeing was there also as they were the manufacturers. The Indoneasion (?) CAA was the responsible authority as it occured in thier airspace/borders. Of Course Singapore was there as it was their aircraft.

Apparantly members from all teams on the investigation met 1 week prior to the final report being released (Indonesia's report, not NTSB) and ALL members agreed that it was not mechanical and most likely "pilot action" that caused the crash.

1 week later the Chief CAA dude in Indonesia released it's report saying nothing could be determined as to what caused the crash. Members from NTSB, Boeing, even a Australian Sim instructor for Sinagapore Airlines could not believe how the report differed from the conclusions the last meeting came to.

This is purely Singapore Airlines and it's government owner putting pressure on the Indo's to save face.

Far be it for Singapore Airlines to have a humiliated, recently demoted Captain with out of control financial problems in their employ who deliberatly rolled a B737 over on it's back and held it in a 80 degree nose down dive that went supersonic and killed all onboard.

No! nothing like would ever happen at Singapore Airlines. :mad:

What a bunch of ar$e that report is and the court case judgement that started this topic. :mad:

Corporate greed at it's worse. :mad:

[slamer]

This has gotta be a first!!! For once they are NOT all scrambling to blame " Pilot error ".......just blame someone/thing other than where true blame should rest, sounds like biz as usual to me

[TIMMEEEE]

Pinky the Pilot.

I hate to disappoint you about this but yes we do have a justice system and the right to appeal to partial testimony to that.

Our legal system is not perfect, but I believe it is one of the better systems in the world when you compare them.

As a barrister relative of mine maintained, " the law is for everyone, justice is for the rich. "

As with any system those with the deepest pockets normally outmanoeuvre the other financially - but not always as this case would indicate.

My next question is why does it cost the average Australian many thousands of dollars to be heard in the high court after a delay of up to a year at best, but assylum seekers can do it in a period far less than that using our tax dollar to fund their lawyers frenzied attempt of notoriety?
Where's the justice in that??

No system is perfect but it's the only one we have and yes Pinky, there's always room for improvement.

[Di_Vosh]

All we're seeing here is how litigation works in the U.S.

Since many of their states have both verdicts AND compensation awarded by juries, and that sueing is the national sport of the USA, behind many of the jurors minds is the thought that "This persons windfall today, mine tomorrow". So juries often find for the plaintiff, and pay out big!

Many people in the U.S spend considerable amounts of their own time looking for opportunities to sue people. Lawyers there can operate on a "no win - no fee" basis, so it doesn't cost the plaintiff anything.

So (some of) the families of the deceased in the Silk Air crash got their $100,000.00 and thought: "Not enough! Who can we sue?". They then looked at their options. Boeing may have been too big a target (not sure why), but the lawyers thought maybe one of the component manufacturers may not put up a good defence.

And don't worry, if the manufacturers appeal is successful, then they may well take up Airsupports suggestion of sueing the door lock manufacturers.

This is all about greed. If the families were after justice and proper compensation, they should be gunning for Singapore airlines to prevent this from happening again. Instead, they're just after money from the rudder component manufacturer who was cleared of any fault, and is insured for the amount anyway!

(end of rant)

For some light reading...

Similar to the Darwin awards, there is a website called the Stella awards, that highlights some of the more inane verdicts and peoples greed. Called Stella awards in recognition of Stella Liebeck, who sued McDonalds in the USA for 2.9 Million dollars when she spilt hot coffee on herself.


www.stellaawards.com


DIVOSH!

[airsupport]

JULY 11, 2004

3 families got $75m. Now 29 others are going to court

LA court judge will decide how much maker of plane component that malfunctioned owes in damages


First came the $75-million ruling that a Los Angeles Superior Court handed down last week.

Now, lawyers acting for families of 29 other SilkAir crash victims will be back in court tomorrow, when a judge will determine how their cases should be tried.

The judge will also determine how much Parker Hannifin Corp, the world's largest maker of hydraulic equipment, owes them in damages. It was ordered to pay $75 million to the families of three victims, after the court found it responsible for the December 1997 crash in Indonesia.

The company had made a component of the rudder-control system that malfunctioned, sending the plane into a nose dive. Called a servo valve, it is attached to the plane's power-control unit, which controls the rudder's movement.

The court would not apportion blame to SilkAir or Boeing, maker of the 10-month-old 737.

Lawyer Walter Lack of the LA firm Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, who acts for the families, told The Sunday Times by e-mail that he expects the cases to be tried in batches of three or five.

The damages will depend on the age, occupation, earnings history and potential work-life expectancy of each victim.

Earlier, the bereaved families had accepted compensation from SilkAir. This bars them from further legal action against the airline. Boeing is also believed to be reaching out-of-court settlements with the families.

Last December, Boeing dropped its lawsuit against the airline and the estate of pilot Tsu Way Ming, in the wake of new evidence that rudder malfunction caused the crash.

The LA court's ruling contradicts the US National Transportation Safety Board's belief that Mr Tsu purposely crashed the plane.

Parker Hannifin has said it will appeal the decision.

Another 40 cases are pending in the federal court in Seattle. It may accept the ruling of the LA court and then decide how much damages to award. Whatever the ultimate ruling, Mr Lack said, 'that judge will rely heavily upon the result in our case'.

The primary points argued during the trial involved the condition of the servo valve taken from the power-control unit. Found inside it were pieces of sheared metal that could only have resulted from the manufacturing process, said the lawyer.

The specifications for this valve require all edges of its internal structure to be sharp and its metal surfaces to be free of steel burrs.

The metals expert he engaged found 'chip-outs' in the valve and numerous burrs 'that could easily have interfered with the smooth operation of the valve'.

That is why the firm engaged aeronautical engineering expert Frederic Wilken to track it down because 'no one would tell us where the critical servo valve for the power-control unit went after it was inspected in May 1998'.

Mr Wilken found it 'by accident' locked in a safe in Jakarta. A law firm there was engaged to petition Indonesia's Supreme Court to remove the valve. It was taken to a lab in Pensacola, Florida, for tests. All this cost US$150,000 (S$255,000).

The jury rejected Parker Hannifin and Boeing's seven-year bid to blame the pilot. It also rejected Parker Hannifin's claims that Boeing's rudder design or the carelessness of the flight crew contributed to the crash, Mr Lack said.

He said: 'We believe that justice has been well served and that a message has been sent to Parker Hannifin concerning the defective nature of their manufacturing processes.'

[Pinky the pilot]

Er TIMMEEEE; Just remind me; what did your Barrister relative say about the law and justice?
And your comment re how the assylum seekers (read illegal immigrants) can seemingly gain access to the high court in a far shorter period of time etc...
I stand firm on my original view. We do not have a justice system in Australia. It is a legal system!

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[Hudson]

Pity about the mysterious case of the pulled circuit breakers (CVR and 2 FDR) - and the full forward position of the stabiliser jack screw - and the high power on both engines at impact - and no radio call.

Just suppose there really was a dodgy rudder PCU part, it does not prove that a full uncommanded rudder hard-over ever took place. In any case, the manoeuvre is recoverable given average pilot competency.

[Casper]

The rudder PCU was examined in minute detail by actual experts immediately following its recovery. No defect was identified and, believe me, some quarters would have embraced any defect, no matter how trivial.

In any event, Hudson makes the correct claim that any rudder hardover could be controlled by the pilots operating MI 185 on that date. As well as the other unexplained items mentioned by Hudson, no rudder hardover could have caused the rate of descent of MI 185 as plotted by radar.

Only one factor caused this crash - deliberate pilot input.

[Plas Teek]

Yup. Aircraft assisted suicide!

[prospector]

Perhaps some idea of the money involved in these sort of cases can be gained by the publication of the new democrat vice president of the US of A's income in the last 4 years. $29,000,000.

His profession?? personal injury lawer.

And he is just a Southern Country Boy. Wonder how the ambulance followers make out??

Prospector

[NAMPS]

All I can say is that without being at the hearing, and listening to the evidence, it is difficult to meaningfully criticise the result.

One thing is for sure, each party would have had their expert evidence for the jury to consider. There is no "reasonable doubt" in civil cases, the proper test to be applied is "on the balance of probabilities", a much lower threshold. It is up to the families to prove that the fault lies with the equipment rather than any deliberate human input.

As the rep for the defendant said, it is up to the law makers to legislate to overcome deficiencies in the common law.

[Woomera]

The world's worst air disaster (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pan%20Am%20Flight%201736), the collision between a PanAm 747 (flight 1736) and a KLM 747 (flight 4805) at Teneriffe occurred on March 27, 1977 when 583 people were killed. Photos. (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/tenerife/photo.shtml)

I read a few years ago that the collective claim being processed through the US Courts is around $400 million per person and rising (total currently over $230 billion plus costs) and it was estimated it could take in excess of fifty years or more to resolve through US courts. A life time to retirement career for many lawyers!

But is it only the US system? Events in Australia subsequent to 6.42 a.m. on the 5th of March 2002 wrote a whole new chapter in The Australian Liquidator's Guide to Retirement, which many may find distatesful!

There will always be those who capitalise on aviation disasters.

[Uncommon Sense]

Prospector,

Yes, but remember he is only a candidate - one of many who are incredibly wealthy. The US Political system, and administration in general, favours the wealthy, and requires enormous wealth to have a 'democratic say'.

Edwards, has actually been a US Senator since 1997, so his income that you quote would have been fairly 'hands off', a sign of a successful businessman indeed. What would drive him in politics if so successful?

Remember that Edwards will be competing against Dick Cheney - whose personal wealth makes Edwards look like a relative pauper.

Of course, Cheney's companies have benefiited enormously from the recent US Military campaigns, and also from the rise in oil prices.

Nobody for a minute is suggesting that these wealthy businessman become invloved in US Politics for other than the good of the nation however. Not in the mainstream US media at least.

The US legal system is in my view just another US import than Australia can do without, along with its foreign policy.

Maybe if the election winner this year in the US actually gets to the Whitehouse instead of opposition the foreign policy at least may improve - the legal system, and what it is going to do to this company and it's workers, sadly appears beyond repair whoever wins.


The problem with commonsense - it is not that common

[Uncommon Sense]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3573758&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

http://www.sfdonline.org/Link%20Pages/Link%20Folders/Other/silkair.html

[airsupport]

This gets even more odd if that is possible. :rolleyes:

The "expert" has still not actually seen this valve.


JULY 18, 2004

Stroke of luck in locating crucial valve

While most of wreckage had been destroyed, valve was found locked in Indonesian official's safe


THERE'S nothing left of the SilkAir Boeing 737 that went down in Indonesia in 1997, except for one little piece.

All 600kg of the salvaged parts, save the servo valve, were destroyed by Indonesian Customs last August. They had been sitting in a warehouse since 1998.

And it was by a stroke of luck that aeronautical engineering expert Frederic Wilken found the valve, a component in the Boeing 737's power control unit that controls the rudder's movements.

Defects found in the cylindrical shaft - 2cm in diameter and about 30cm long - helped the Los Angeles law firm Lipscomb, Engstrom and Lack convince a Californian jury that the valve maker Parker Hannifin was responsible for the crash.

The law firm engaged Mr Wilken to find the valve because 'no one would tell us where it went after it was inspected in May 1998,' said lawyer Walter Lack.

The four-month search that began last November was the 'most frustrating' he's taken on, said Mr Wilken, 57, who has investigated more than 700 aircraft accidents in the last 30 years.

Before he touched down in Jakarta, he was confident he knew where it was.

From calls he had made, he learnt that the wreckage was in a warehouse for goods that did not get through Customs.

The warehouse was searched, but the crates weren't there.

Mr Wilken was six weeks into the search when he learnt that they had all been destroyed months earlier.

'That was one of my low points,' he told The Sunday Times from Jakarta, where he is investigating two more plane crashes.

His only hope rested in the Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) investigators who handled the probe back in 1998.

Two weeks went by before he received a phone call that saved the day.

'An NTSC investigator who was helping me was yelling and laughing. He said another investigator who was involved in the probe seven years back had actually locked the servo valve in a safe in the NTSC office.

'He felt it was too important to leave it with the rest of the plane's remains!'

Mr Wilken then met twice with the NTSC to persuade its officials to let him take the valve to the US where experts could run tests on it.

They agreed only a day before he was due to leave for home. He scrambled to get air tickets for the two Indonesian officials appointed to carry the valve to the US.

But hours before the plane was to leave for Singapore en route to Boston, one of the two said he couldn't go, because a meeting had come up suddenly.

'By this time, I'd given up. I left the next day and told the investigator that if he gets there, call me,' he recalled.

Three days and many cancelled and delayed flights later, the Indonesian investigator finally arrived in the US, carrying the valve in a sealed cardboard box.

The next day, experts concluded that it did indeed have 'chip-outs' and numerous burrs that could have interfered with the smooth operation of the valve.

Mr Wilken's job was done. He then took a two-week vacation in the Caribbean.

Till today, he hasn't laid eyes on the servo valve.

'Not once! I just hoped it was there and that it was the right piece.

'Thank goodness it was!' --

[VH-Cheer Up]

Errm, sorry Woomera, must have nodded off.

What happened at 6.42 a.m. on the 5th of March 2002?