Silk Air MI 185 - Court commences in Singapore [Archive]

Loner

3rd Jul 2001, 11:19

Families sue SilkAir for MI185 crash
By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT

SINGAPORE -- The families of six people who died in the SilkAir flight MI185 crash will go to court next week to prove their case against the airline.

They are suing the SilkAir for damages for the crash in Palembang, Indonesia on Dec 19 1997.

The trial, scheduled to last 10 days, is expected to begin in the High Court on Monday. It will be heard before Justice Tan Lee Meng.

Relatives of the six -- Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Lee Eng Seng, 51; John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35 -- are represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo and Ms Josephine Low.

The families are hoping to prove that the crash was caused by the plane's crew and international experts will be called to testify that mechanical failure could not have caused the crash which killed all 97 passengers and the seven crew.

If they win their case, the claim limit of US$75,000 of the Warsaw Convention, which SilkAir is governed by, will no longer apply.

SilkAir is represented by lawyer Lok Vi Ming.

On Dec 19 1997, the plane plunged 10,670 m into the Palembang river less than an hour after it left Jakarta.

A 200-page crash investigation report last December could not make a definite conclusion as to what went on in the last few moments of the Singapore-bound plane. (28 June 07:13PM -- Singapore Time)

3 July 2001

SilkAir negligent, six families claim
Relatives say MI185 crash was the result of 'wilful misconduct' by the airline, employees or a crew member

By Karen Wong

THE families of six victims of the MI 185 crash suing SilkAir for negligence are having their day in court - three-and-a-half years after the tragedy.

Yesterday, on the first day of the hearing, High Court No. 19 was packed with over 40 people, comprising relatives of the six victims, lawyers, members of the press and curious members of the public.

The relatives of the victims are alleging that the crash which killed 104 people after the plane plunged into the Musi River, in Palembang, Indonesia, was the result of ''wilful misconduct'' on the airline's part, or on the part of its employees, or that the airline, or a crew member, had been negligent.

SilkAir's case is that there was no evidence that the pilot, co-pilot or any crew member had either suicidal tendencies or a motive to cause the Dec 19, 1997 crash.

It also claims that the crash was not the result of wilful misconduct or default by either the airline or its cockpit crew. Nor was it done recklessly or with intent to cause damage.

The families are trying to prove wilful misconduct, so that they can get unrestricted damages from the Singapore Airlines subsidiary.

Most of the 85 families who lost relatives in the tragedy have already accepted compensation of between US$140,000 (S$252,000) and US$200,000 per victim. This bars them from taking further legal action against the airline.

Those now suing SilkAir are relatives of the late Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51, a Singaporean; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45, a Singaporean; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.

Last December, an Indonesian crash investigation report could not find evidence for any possible cause of the crash. But American aviation experts later said the pilot was to blame.

And it is the US National Transportation Safety Board's comments to the Indonesian probe team, that the plaintiffs are now relying on.

Opening the plaintiffs' case, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo said that the investigations showed that no plane-related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident.

He also said that the plane's flight profile before it crashed, was consistent with the possibility that plane was responding to flight control inputs from either the pilot or co-pilot in the cockpit.

Mr Khoo urged the court to find an inference that the pilot or co-pilot switched off both the voice recorder and flight data recorder and caused the crash.

Mr Khoo also asked the court to find that SilkAir had ''wilfully misconducted itself'', or wilfully turned a blind eye to the fact that Captain Tsu Way Ming had previously breached safety procedures.

He also claimed that by allowing Capt Tsu, a pilot with disciplinary problems, to take control of the MI 185, SilkAir had known that damage would probably result.

The hearing continues today.

Pilot key witness in SilkAir lawsuit
A pilot who has flown with Captain Tsu Way Ming will testify for the families of six people who died in the 1997 MI 185 crash at Palembang, Indonesia

By Karen Wong

THE key witness in the SilkAir lawsuit, Captain Lawrence Dittmer, is due to take the stand today.

Capt Dittmer, a pilot with the airline, has been subpoenaed to testify for the families of six people who died in the 1997 crash at Palembang, Indonesia.

Yesterday was the first day of the hearing which has been scheduled for the next 15 days.

Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, who is assisted by Ms Josephine Low and Mr Andy Chiok, is the lawyer for relatives of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.

Mr Lok Vi Ming and his assistants, Mr Ng Hwee Chong and Ms Joanna Foong, are acting forSilkAir.

According to court documents, Capt Dittmer was flying with the late Captain Tsu Way Ming on two of the occasions during which the latter breached safety regulations.

The first of those incidents was on March 3, 1997, when Capt Dittmer was Capt Tsu's co-pilot on a flight to Manado, Indonesia.

Capt Tsu had attempted to land while cruising at a speed and altitude which were excessive under the circumstances.

On June 24, 1997, less than a month after the disciplinary inquiry into the Manado incident, Capt Tsu and Capt Dittmer were scheduled to fly together again.

The two men were apparently at loggerheads and had a tense discussion in the cockpit about the Manado incident before the plane was due to depart from Changi Airport.

Capt Tsu then turned off the cockpit voice recorder, and proposed to fly the plane without it so he could retain the contents of the discussion.

But after a short stand-off, he changed his mind, the voice recorder was switched on again, and the flight went ahead.

Experts will be called to testify for both sides of the court case.

Mr MacArthur Job, who has been working as a senior inspector of air safety for the Australian Department of Civil Aviation since 1967, will testify for the relatives of the victims.

He has assessed hundreds of air-accident investigations involving both Australian and overseas-registered aircraft.

He is apparently going to testify that the accident can be explained by intentional pilot action.

The second expert witness for the plaintiffs' case is Captain John Laming, who is an air-crash consultant with about 23,300 hours of flying experience.

He will apparently testify that it was someone on the flight deck who had activated the electrical stabiliser trim control and full engine power, which forced the plane into such a steep dive.

For the airline, Professor Denis Howe, an Emeritus Professor at the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield University in Britain, will testify that the change of the stabiliser trim position alone would not have resulted in the plane's fast descent.

Captain Robert Galan, a test pilot, will say that the simulation tests used by Capt Laming cannot be relied upon as proof.

And, Dr Tan Chue Tin, a psychiatrist, will testify to the pilots' states of mind, and conclude that it was unlikely that Capt Tsu had committed suicide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRIAL WITNESSES

THE trial's star witness may be Captain Lawrence Dittmer, a pilot with the airline, who was flying with the late Captain Tsu Way Ming on two occasions when the latter breached safety regulations.

Another witness for the victims' families is Mr MacArthur Job, who has been working as a senior inspector of air safety for the Australian Department of Civil Aviation since 1967.

The second expert witness for the plaintiffs' case is Captain John Laming, who is an air-crash consultant with about 23,300 hours of flying experience.

The airline's expert witnesses are Professor Denis Howe, an Emeritus Professor at the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield University in Britain; Captain Robert Galan, a test pilot; and Dr Tan Chue Tin, a psychiatrist. :rolleyes:

Crockett

4th Jul 2001, 00:36

My guess is that the outcome or ruling will be...The Plaintiff has not been able to prove without reasonable doubt that the Pilot Did It..

Given Capt Tsu's history, I question why he was flying MI 185 or any other aircraft for that matter, but all evidence available does not actually prove 100% he did it.. That is the problem. Unless there is other evidence not yet made public..

Anyway, it brings the accident to the attention of the public eye again and reminds them that this case is not yet over. One day, the truth will prevail and aviation safety enhanced... I hope..

Slasher

4th Jul 2001, 09:08

Good luck anyway Crocks. And yeh if something can be learnt from this tragedy that saves lives in the future, then those who died wouldnt have been in vain. But I doubt any court in Singapore has the ability to realise that. Its all money, politics, and face-saving to them.

Loner

4th Jul 2001, 10:07

"The families of six SilkAir crash victims suing the airline are not out to prove that pilot-suicide caused the plane to crash near Palembang, Indonesia, on Dec 19, 1997.

They want to show instead that the tragedy was probably caused by the cockpit crew - either Captain Tsu Way Ming or co- pilot Duncan Ward. :)

Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, representing 15 family members of the victims suing SilkAir, told Justice Tan Lee Meng yesterday: 'It was never part of our case that Captain Tsu Way Ming had committed suicide and Your Honour is not required to make a finding of fact on suicide.'

The plaintiffs hoped that if the court found that the crash was probably caused by some 'input' from the cockpit, it would serve to warn all airlines of the need to monitor pilot performance more closely, monitor breach of safety procedures by pilots more carefully and take remedial action against them more seriously, in the interest of the safety of air travellers."

Hence, Michael Khoo is avoiding the topic on suicide. :)

Loner

4th Jul 2001, 10:18

Latest News - Singapore
03 July 03:31PM -- Singapore Time

SilkAir pilot not fit to fly, says lawyer

SINGAPORE -- The pilot of a SilkAir plane that crashed in a sudden nose dive in 1997, killing 104 people, should not have been allowed to fly the aircraft, given his past disciplinary problems, lawyers said in court on Tuesday.

Mr Khoo charged that SilkAir 'wilfully turned a blind eye' to the fact that Capt Tsu Way Ming, the pilot of the plane, had a history of flouting safety procedures.
On the second morning of the trial to hear a lawsuit against the airline, lawyer Michael Khoo said that SilkAir captain Tsu Way Ming caused the crash deliberately by 'willful misconduct' or 'default'.

Mr Khoo charged that SilkAir 'willfully turned a blind eye to the fact that Capt Tsu had committed prior breaches of the proper safety procedures and/or regulations' of SilkAir.

He was 'not a fit and proper person to take control of SilkAir flight MI 185,' asserted Mr Khoo.

SilkAir flight MI185, a Boeing 737-300 en route from Jakarta to Singapore, nose dived 10,670 m into a river on the Indonesian island of Sumatra on Dec 19, 1997, killing everyone aboard.

It was the first and only crash for SilkAir, the regional arm of national carrier Singapore Airlines.

In its final report released last year, the Indonesian-led investigation team said there was not enough evidence to determine the cause of the crash. But the investigators said the plane's controls were in a nose-down setting. They also said that the 'black box' cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were switched off moments before the plane went into a dive.

A separate report from the US National Transportation Safety Board argued that the plane could not have acted as it did without deliberate action from the pilot.

On Tuesday, Mr Khoo cited two prior breaches of regulations by Capt Tsu: On March 3, 1997, he was flying a SilkAir flight into Manado, Indonesia, when he tried to land while the plane was going too fast and was still too high.

His co-pilot on that flight, New Zealander Lawrence Dittmer, intervened and persuaded Capt Tsu to make another approach to land the plane.

First Officer Dittmer, who is the star witness for the plaintiffs, was due to take the witness stand later on Tuesday.

In a second incident on June 24, 1997, Capt Tsu and First Officer Dittmer were again flying together. The two men were still at 'loggerheads' over the Manado incident and had 'a tense discussion' about it in the cockpit before leaving Singapore's Changi airport, said Mr Khoo.

Capt Tsu turned off the cockpit voice recorder, or blackbox, because he wanted to keep secret the conversation he had with First Officer Dittmer about the Manado incident. The New Zealander refused to fly with the recorder deactivated because it is against the rules, so Capt Tsu turned it back on again. Capt Tsu was demoted to a lower rank for turning off the blackbox recorder, Mr Khoo said.

The lawyer added that the pilot 'received no psychological assessment following any of these incidents'.

SilkAir has not presented its defence in court. However, a copy of the defence submission to be made to the court, obtained from its lawyer, shows that SilkAir's lawyers will deny that the crash was caused or contributed to by any negligence or breach of duty on its part or of its employees.

'Both pilots were properly trained, licensed and qualified to conduct the flight,' SilkAir said in the court document.

'There was no evidence found to indicate that the performance of either pilot was adversely affected by any medical or physiological condition.'

The other pilot on board the ill-fated flight was Mr Duncan Ward.

The plaintiffs are six families from Singapore, Malaysia, the United States and Britain, and include parents, children and spouses of those killed in the crash.

Other relatives have opted not to sue the airline, accepting its offer of about US$200,000 in compensation for each crash victim, Singapore Airlines spokesman S. Supramaniam said. -- AP

On the Net:

Links to news reports on the crash of SilkAir MI 185

Internet memorial to the victims of MI 185

(July 4, 2001 Wed)
Pilot 'flouted air safety rules'
Families not trying to prove SilkAir pilot committed suicide, but star witness describes scary experiences

By Karen Wong

THE families of six SilkAir crash victims suing the airline are not out to prove that pilot-suicide caused the plane to crash near Palembang, Indonesia, on Dec 19, 1997.

'The plane was going left and right, left and right. It was very disturbing... I was scared.'
-- Co-pilot Lawrence Dittmer, describing an unusual landing manoeuvre by Capt Tsu in Manado, Indonesia (Picture by Enrique Soriano)
They want to show instead that the tragedy was probably caused by the cockpit crew - either Captain Tsu Way Ming or co- pilot Duncan Ward.

Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, representing 15 family members of the victims suing SilkAir, told Justice Tan Lee Meng yesterday: 'It was never part of our case that Captain Tsu Way Ming had committed suicide and Your Honour is not required to make a finding of fact on suicide.'

The plaintiffs hoped that if the court found that the crash was probably caused by some 'input' from the cockpit, it would serve to warn all airlines of the need to monitor pilot performance more closely, monitor breach of safety procedures by pilots more carefully and take remedial action against them more seriously, in the interest of the safety of air travellers.

After Mr Khoo summed up his case, all the action in the packed courtroom focused on the plaintiffs' key witness, First Officer Lawrence Dittmer, a pilot with SilkAir.

Mr Dittmer, who has about seven years of flying experience, said he was First Officer Ward's best friend.

He told the court that just months before the tragedy, he flew with Captain Tsu twice and the captain had breached safety procedures.

The first incident happened in Manado, Indonesia, in March 1997, when their aircraft was too high to make a landing.

Capt Tsu chose to perform an unusual manoeuvre, which put the aircraft through a 'violent roll'.

'If the passengers were anything like me, they would have been scared. I was scared,' said Mr Dittmer.

Three months later, when he flew with Capt Tsu again, the latter was agitated over rumours that he had almost crashed the plane in Manado.

Mr Dittmer said he was shocked when the captain pulled out the circuit breaker of the cockpit voice recorder.

'I was surprised, then angry. I had never seen it in my life before,' he said.

'I really had no hesitation voicing out what I thought. I said I wasn't happy with the procedure and that he had to do something about it.'

The plaintiffs claim that the airline knew, or should have known, that Captain Tsu's history of non-compliance with safety procedures, made him unfit to be in charge of the fateful flight.

Mr Khoo, assisted by Ms Josephine Low and Mr Andy Chiok, is representing the family members of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.

Yesterday was the second day of the hearing in which the five families are suing the airline in the High Court for 'wilful misconduct' or negligence.

They are seeking unrestricted damages from the airline, on the basis that the MI 185 crash was the result of 'wilful misconduct', or a default, by the airline, or its crew members who were in control of the aircraft at the time of the tragedy.

SilkAir, represented by Mr Lok Vi Ming, Mr Ng Hwee Chong and Ms Joanna Foong, claims that the crash was not the result of wilful misconduct or default by either the airline or its cockpit crew.

The hearing continues today.

SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
I was angry

CO-PILOT Lawrence Dittmer was first 'surprised', and then 'angry', when Captain Tsu Way Ming wanted to carry on with a flight, even though he had switched off the cockpit voice recorder.

This incident took place on June 24, 1997, when the pair were piloting a flight from Singapore to Jakarta.

Mr Dittmer said that while the two of them were walking to the plane in Singapore, Capt Tsu voiced his frustration about rumours he had been hearing about his professional ability.

'He was upset when he got onto the aircraft,' he said.

After they made some preparations for the flight, Capt Tsu brought up the Manado incident, which happened about three months earlier.

He said that the captain asked him: 'Have you heard rumours that I nearly crashed the plane?'

Mr Dittmer replied: 'There were rumours.

'I really didn't know where they had come from, but they seemed to be incorrect.'

He then told the court that Capt Tsu relaxed a bit after he had assuredhim that he did not spread those rumours.

But, said Mr Dittmer, just before the plane taxied out to the runway, Capt Tsu reached behind for a manual and, subsequently, pulled the circuit breaker for the cockpit voice recorder.

Mr Dittmer said: 'I was surprised, then angry. I had never seen it in my life before.

'I really had no hesitation voicing what I thought. I said I wasn't happy with the procedure and that he had to do something about it.'

Capt Tsu had apparently wanted to retain their exchange and give it to the management.

He was also going to continue the flight without the recorder operating. But his co-pilot refused to do that.

The recorder tape is only 30 minutes long and continuously re-records.

Capt Tsu then suggested that they head back to the gate so that theycould download the tape, before departing.

Clearance to return to the gate was obtained, and Mr Dittmer said they were returning for a 'technical reason'.

But Capt Tsu later changed his mind.

He reset the circuit breaker and the flight carried on.

He later told Mr Dittmer that he was just 'testing' him.

As a result of this incident, Capt Tsu was demoted from his position as a line instructor pilot.

SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
I was scared

First Officer Lawrence Dittmer, a pilot with SilkAir, told a packed courtroom during the SilkAir lawsuit yesterday about the two occasions he had flown with Captain Tsu Way Ming, when safety rules were breached

DESPITE being a trained pilot, First Officer Lawrence Dittmer said he was scared when the plane made what felt like a violent roll as Captain Tsu Way Ming, who was the pilot on the ill-fated SilkAir aircraft on Dec 19, 1997, tried to manoeuvre the aircraft for a landing.

This was on March 3, 1997, when Capt Tsu and Mr Dittmer were piloting a flight to Manado, he recounted.

As the plane was descending, he said, they decided not to land on the proposed runway, but on another one, due to the weather conditions.

But the aircraft was 'too high, still too fast and it wasn't stabilised' for a safe landing, he said.

Then, Capt Tsu opted to perform an 'S-bend manoeuvre', to lose some altitude, which surprised Mr Dittmer. 'It was the first and last time I had encountered it.'

Using a model aircraft to demonstrate the plane's movements, he said:

'It felt like a violent roll. All I remember was that the plane was going left and right, left and right. It was very disturbing.

'If the passengers were anything like me, they would have been scared. I was scared.'

The manoeuvre did not get the plane into position and the aircraft still had to 'go around'. And to do that, the plane needed to climb and it needed more power. But not enough power was applied initially, and Mr Dittmer said he had to call 'Speed, speed, speed', and he helped push the thrust levers forward.

While this was happening, no announcements were made to the cabin crew or to the passengers. Later, some of the cabin crew said they felt 'sick', and that some of the passengers had asked about what happened in the approach.

'On our arrival back in Singapore, I mentioned that a 'go-around' is reportable, and Capt Tsu said that he would deal with it and see management about it.

'He said to me: 'Not to worry, I will deal with it.' It's the captain who signs the report, and it wasn't our responsibility. Based on that, I had no reason to distrust him.'

Later, Capt Tsu did not report the case, and it was another captain who did.

What SilkAir inquiry found

IN A letter dated July 3, 1997, that was sent to Capt Tsu (right), SilkAir said that in the first incident at Manado Airport, it was concerned with his ''failure to take appropriate measures early enough to prevent the aircraft from ending up in a position...that resulted in a go-around''.

SilkAir told him it took ''a serious view of his subsequent non-disclosure of the go-around which should have, in the company's interests, been reported noting the circumstances leading up to it''.

It added that it was ''cautioning'' him on his failure to act appropriately in that situation.

Regarding the second incident, SilkAir said that it found his conduct ''unbecoming of a commander'', when he caused equipment essential for the flight to be made ''unserviceable'', and that could have compromised the company's position.

''Having taken all other factors into account, the company has decided in this case to remove you from the position of line instructor pilot with immediate effect. ''The company also reprimands you for your actions which reflect poor judgment on your part.''

Slasher

4th Jul 2001, 12:42

I draw attention to the line in Loners post above:

''failure to take appropriate measures early enough to prevent the aircraft from ending up in a position...that resulted in a go-around''.

Think about the safety implication of that.

SIA punishes pilots who do the safest thing and perform a go around when it is a pilot-induced error that caused the go-around in the first place. I should know because I was there for just over 2 years. Tsu was most likely a victim of this unsafe intimidatory policy.

If the pilot is one the Co likes and does not cause pilot-error induced go-arounds often, he only gets "councelled".

SKYDRIFTER

4th Jul 2001, 18:19

Unless there is a last minute settlement, ALL known facts should come out in the trial.

Crockett

5th Jul 2001, 01:58

Sky Drifter...

You are probably correct... Unfortunately, all the facts that have come out so far came out years ago..there has been no new facts as far as I can see..presented by the plaintiffs..

I am sure the airline when they start their defence will have sufficent experts with opinions themselves to argue their case, sufficent to satisfy the Singapore Courts..most probably..

Who knows...??? anyway, it is good to have it out in the public eye...whatever the result...

Best wishes to the families involved...

Loner

5th Jul 2001, 05:25

July 5, 2001 THUR (Straits Times)

Co-pilot queried for not reporting captain
By Karen Wong

THE key witness in the SilkAir lawsuit was yesterday asked why he failed to tell the airline's management about Captain Tsu Way Ming's erratic behaviour.

First Officer Lawrence Dittmer was also cross-examined about why he had waited until the court proceedings, four years later, to talk about certain incidents.

Mr Dittmer is employed by SilkAir but was subpoenaed to testify for the families of six people who died in the Dec 19, 1997 crash, and who are now suing the airline for damages.

He was asked why he failed to tell SilkAir that Capt Tsu assured him he would inform management of an incident in which he missed the first landing approach at Manado airport in Indonesia, then did not.

Mr Dittmer said this was implied in his report, which was filed after management learned about the Manado incident. In it, he said he accepted responsibility for not checking whether Capt Tsu had informed management about the matter.

He also said that he later spoke to management about Capt Tsu's assurance.

Lawyer Lok Vi Ming said: 'You had not told anyone until yesterday, that Captain Tsu had told you he would take care of it.'

Mr Dittmer said: 'That's not true. I had informed management that Captain Tsu had told me in the cockpit that he would inform management.'

Mr Lok: 'Do you have any documents to show this?'

Mr Dittmer: 'No.'

The first officer was co-piloting the plane with Capt Tsu on two of the occasions when the latter breached safety procedures, in the months before the MI 185 crash which killed all 104 people on board.

SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
Evidence 'showed probable cause'

Expert witness says investigators had enough evidence to support theory that 1997 crash was not accidental

By Karen Wong

THE Indonesian-led investigation team had enough evidence to conclude that someone in the cockpit probably caused SilkAir Flight MI 185 to crash into the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997, an Australian aviation expert told the High Court yesterday.

Captain John Laming, an expert witness for the families of six people killed in the tragedy, was testifying about the report, which gave an 'inconclusive' finding as to the cause of the Boeing 737 crash in Palembang, Indonesia.

The report, by the Indonesian National Transport Safety Committee, was released last December after a three-year investigation into the crash, which killed all 104 people on board.

Capt Laming, 67, debunked the 'inconclusive' part of the report, saying: 'I have my doubts about that. I think there was enough evidence to come up with the most probable cause.'

In his three-page report to the court, he said it would have needed someone in the cockpit to hold down the controls, set the electrical stabiliser trim control to full forward and engage full engine power to force the aircraft into the steep dive experienced by MI 185.

He said: 'With these actions held for a number of seconds, and no attempt taken to recover, the aircraft would eventually reach the point of no return and break up.'

Capt Laming is one of the three aviation experts testifying for the families who are suing SilkAir for 'wilful misconduct or default'. He has served in the Royal Australian Air Force as a pilot, aircraft accident investigator and a flight safety officer.

Now a Grade One flying instructor and air-crash consultant, he also said the extensive break-up of the aircraft at impact indicated the angle of its dive before the crash was 'very steep'.

He said: 'Someone had held down the stabiliser trim control for seven to eight seconds...It's an awfully long time to be holding the switch.'

He said that this was how long it would have taken for someone to get the trim control from 4.5 units to 2.5 units - the position in which it was in after the crash.

When Justice Tan Lee Meng asked him if a Boeing 737 pilot would know that if he pressed the switch down for seven to eight seconds, without doing anything else, he would die.

'Yes,' replied Capt Laming.
:rolleyes:

Loner

6th Jul 2001, 06:04

Latest News - Singapore
05 July 05:31PM -- Singapore Time

'SilkAir pilot could have stabilised aircraft'

SINGAPORE -- The pilot of a SilkAir plane that crashed in 1997, killing all 104 people aboard, could have stabilised the plane quickly from its steep fall, the Singapore High Court was told on Thursday.

Mr John Laming, an Australian pilot and flight simulator instructor, said commercial pilots were trained to know how to handle a sudden loss of cabin pressure which puts an airplane into steep descent.

'I was talking here of 20 seconds of work,' he said, explaining the procedure to stabilise a plunging aircraft.

'It is not difficult. In the simulator, we train until you are very competent at this,' said Mr Laming, who said he had trained international airline pilots.

But he agreed under cross-examination that the physical changes in a real-life sudden loss of cabin pressure as well as the psychological pressure on the pilot would be different from a simulated nosedive.

He was giving evidence on the fourth day of a negligence suit lodged by relatives of six victims against SilkAir, the regional arm of Singapore Airlines.

The families claim there was evidence that the crash was deliberately caused by the cockpit crew.

Flight MI 185, a Boeing 737, crashed into an Indonesian river on Dec 19, 1997, killing all 104 passengers and crew aboard, including the pilot, Captain Tsu Way Ming and First Officer Duncan Ward. -- AFP

Loner

6th Jul 2001, 11:50

July 6, 2001 FRI Straits Times

SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUITS
Over 30 families sue Boeing
In writs filed in the US, they claim that Boeing and other manufacturers made defective and unsafe parts

By Karen Wong

SOME of the families who are suing SilkAir over the death of relatives in the 1997 Palembang plane crash are also suing Boeing and other aircraft-part manufacturers in the United States.

In the other lawsuits, happening independently of the High Court SilkAir trial now taking place here, the families are claiming that the manufacturers madedefective and unsafe parts.

Now, SilkAir's lawyers want the plaintiffs to disclose all the documents relating to the US lawsuits, apart from the three suits which they already have documents for because, they argue, the court here should know the details of legal actions by the plaintiffs elsewhere.

But the plaintiffs' lawyer, senior counsel Michael Khoo, said his clients do not have those documents, though he added he would hand over what he has. A writ has been filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, in which more than 30 families, including those of the late John Joseph and Lee Eng Seng, both Singaporeans, have alleged that Kavilico Corporation, ITT Neodyne, Parker-Hannifin Corporation and the Boeing Company, are somewhat responsible for the Indonesia crash.

Kavilico designed, manufactured and inspected parts of the Boeing 737 aircraft, including the dampener pressure sensor.

ITT Neodyne manufactured the pressure-sensing switch in the secondary filter and Parker-Hannifin, the rudder power control unit.

Boeing built the aircraft.

The plaintiffs claim that they have suffered mental anguish and fear of impending death as a result of the MI 185 crash on Dec 19, 1997.

On top of the damages, they want compensation for their pain and suffering, and also funeral expenses.

In another writ filed in Seattle, Washington, the families of Mrs Berenice Braislin Oey and Miss Pang Swee Gan, a Malaysian, with about 20 other families, are suing B.F. Goodrich Aerospace.

They have alleged that Goodrich, which installed the toilet and the galley for the Boeing 737 that crashed into the Musi River, was responsible for the defective and dangerous condition of those parts.

They claim that the toilet and galley were not fit for their intended purposes and were unreasonably dangerous due to defective design, manufacture and installation, among other things.

The plaintiffs in that case are also saying that Goodrich had acted 'intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, grossly, wilfully and wantonly' by installing a toilet or galley in the aircraft which it knew was dangerous.

Mrs Beryl Claire Clarke from Scotland, the widow of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, has also joined about 20 other families in a separate suit against Goodrich.

The suit, filed in Seattle, claims that the galley was defective and unreasonably dangerous.

The Straits Times understands that the position of the families is that the suits in the US would not affect their case before the courts here.

Could the co-pilot have stepped in?

He would have only 15 seconds to react, says expert witness

AN AVIATION expert told the High Court yesterday that if the pilot wanted to bring down the plane, the co-pilot would have only seconds to act before the point of no return.

Captain John Laming, 69, made these remarks when Justice Tan Lee Meng asked what the co-pilot could have done to salvage the situation if the pilot wanted to crash the plane.

An expert witness for the families of six victims of the SilkAir MI 185 crash, Capt Laming said: 'The pilot who is not flying the plane will have extreme problems...apart from having to wrest the control stick back.'

He had testified that it would have needed someone in the cockpit to hold down the controls, set the electrical stabiliser trim control to full forward and engage full engine power to force the aircraft into the steep dive experienced by MI 185.

He said it was that input from the cockpit which had caused the plane to crash into the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997, killing all 104 people on board.

Yesterday, Justice Tan asked: 'Are you saying that if one pilot decides to go frolicking, the other is helpless?'

Capt Laming said: 'He's not helpless. But he would have to overcome the other pilot really quickly.

'It's highly critical in that steep dive. Unless you can get the plane up in 15 seconds, you will lose the aircraft.'

But, SilkAir's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, later said that even if one of the pilots had sent the plane into a nosedive, there was a stabiliser trim cut-out switch, located between the pilots' seats, which could be used in emergencies.

He said that the co-pilot could have easily reached down for this switch, without having to wrestle with the other pilot for control over the plane.

Justice Tan said: 'If that's so, then the other pilot could have mitigated the circumstances.'

Capt Laming replied: 'But he wouldn't have immediately realised what was happening.'

Capt Maurie Baston, the managing director of Aviation Management Services, took the stand yesterday afternoon as the second of three expert witnesses for the families.

A former aerobatic- display pilot and flying instructor in the Royal Australian Air Force, he has had 15 years' experience in aviation management.

Capt Baston's report stated that intentional pilot action probably caused the crash.

'There's more than sufficient available technical evidence to support the view that the aircraft was literally driven into the ground,' he said.

The hearing continues today.

thegypsy

7th Jul 2001, 07:37

How could the expert doctor witness say that the Captain was definitely not suicidal? Was he a patient of his at the time??

justapplhere

7th Jul 2001, 10:57

Is this the same CAPTAIN Maurie Baston who was once employed by Civil Aviation Auhority in Australia ??

Loner

8th Jul 2001, 22:42

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).

:confused:

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??? :rolleyes:

WSSS

9th Jul 2001, 20:59

He (the Judge)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.

How can the Judge assume that both pilots were in the cockpit at top of descent? :rolleyes:

Casper

10th Jul 2001, 01:11

The judge will try anything to suggest that both pilots were in the cockpit during the descent. IF (BIG IF)they were, then why no distress call? Is this trial just another extension of Diran's work of fiction?null

Loner

10th Jul 2001, 05:31

10 July 2001, TUE
Expert says pilot cut voice recorders
Australian expert in SilkAir trial says flight recorders were not faulty and pilot could have pulled out of dive

By Tan Ooi Boon
ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR

AN AVIATION expert yesterday said that both the voice and flight-data recorders of the ill-fated SilkAir MI 185 were not faulty, but had been switched off by the pilot.

Mr Job is critical of the Indonesian report. He is pictured with senior counsel Michael Khoo (right). -- WANG HUIFEN
Mr Macarthur Job, an Australian flight safety consultant, said it was not possible for both recorders to simply stop working within six minutes of each other.

Because both devices were powered by the same electrical components, he ruled out power failure, because this would have resulted in both machines stopping simultaneously.

While the Indonesian crash investigators suggested the stoppages could be due to 'broken wires', he said the probability of this affecting only the two recorders was 'so highly improbable that it could not be considered a realistic possibility'.

Instead, he said, the stoppages could be explained by someone pulling the circuit breakers for both recorders manually.

The opinion of the expert - the third to be called by the five crash-victim families who are suing SilkAir - echoed the finding of the United States' National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

It concluded that MI 185 crashed in Palembang on Dec 19, 1997, as a result of 'intentional pilot action'.

Mr Job, who has reviewed about 3,000 air crashes around the world, noted that the NTSB had been very critical of the report by the Indonesian investigators from the National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC).

'It is as though the NTSC determined, despite the outcome of an impartial, expert technical investigation, to produce a report that refused to draw an obvious conclusion,' he said in his written statement to the court.

He noted that the final minutes of the voice recording showed sounds of seat movement and the removal of a seat belt.

Agreeing with the US experts, he said the sequence was consistent with MI 185 plane captain Tsu Way Ming preparing to leave the cockpit.

Noting that a panel directly behind the captain's seat contained the circuit breakers for both recorders, he said that it was evident that Capt Tsu would have been in the best position to stop the recorders manually.

Mr Job said there was other evidence in the NTSB report which pointed to a deliberate crash.

He noted that Capt Tsu, a former aerobatic pilot in the Singapore air force's Black Knights, did not make any attempt to recover from the steep dive the plane took from 35,000 feet that ended in the crash, even though it was possible and he had ample time to do so.

The Indonesians had implied that the crash could have been caused by the flight crew's failure to recover from an 'unexpected unusual flight upset'.

But Mr Job agreed with the NTSB that such a conclusion was not supported by evidence. The trial continues.

Call to view cockpit

ONE of the lawyers in the SilkAir hearing in the High Court yesterday suggested that the presiding judge get into a Boeing 737 cockpit.

Senior Counsel Michael Khoo made that proposal so that Justice Tan Lee Meng could find out, first hand, what might have happened in the cockpit as the plane was spiralling down.

'A picture speaks a thousand words,' he said.

Mr Khoo, who is representing the families of six people who died in the 1997 crash, then asked if SilkAir could arrange for this.

The airline's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, said that his client would like to help, but could not, as SilkAir no longer had any Boeing 737 aircraft in its fleet.

It also did not have any access to a Boeing 737 flight simulator in Singapore, he said.

He added that perhaps Mr Khoo could arrange for the group to use the cockpit of a Boeing 737 belonging to another carrier.

After the exchange, Justice Tan said only that he would continue to hear the evidence.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Judge raps probe teams for 'alarming gaps'

By Karen Wong

THE High Court judge hearing the SilkAir crash testimony yesterday criticised both the Indonesian-led crash probe team and the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for crucial gaps in their reports.

Justice Tan Lee Meng noted that both teams had failed to explain why the falling SilkAir plane lost radar contact after descending below 19,500 feet above sea level.

'Notwithstanding three years of investigations, nobody came up with an answer. Is this not alarming?' he asked.

Mr Macarthur Job, the plaintiffs' third expert witness, agreed that it was.

'The report did not even cover what I thought was relevant about the pilot,' the judge continued, referring to Captain Tsu Way Ming. 'Now we find out that important matters such as the missing radar sweep had not been covered. What else has not been covered?' he asked.

Last week, Justice Tan asked two of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs, Captains John Laming and Maurie Baston, what a co-pilot could do if the pilot wanted to crash the plane.

The experts replied that it depended on who won the fight for control of the plane.

He then asked for a physical comparison of the two pilots. He was told yesterday that Captain Tsu was 1.75 m and weighed 79 kg, while First Officer Duncan Ward was 1.77 m and 73 kg.

Regarding the missing radar signals, the court heard how the airport's radar device makes a sweep every eight seconds.

In the case of SilkAir MI 185, it detected a signal at 35,000 feet and then a final signal 32 seconds later when the plane was at 19,500 feet, shortly before it plunged into the Musi River, near Palembang, Indonesia.

The fact that the radar failed when the plane dropped below 19,500 feet could have indicated that the plane's two transponders had stopped working.

The plaintiffs say the plane had either broken up or that the wires had been made faulty due to the rapid descent.

But the airline contends that there may have been a progressive electrical failure, which could also explain why the cockpit voice and flight data recorders stopped working six minutes apart from each other. Justice Tan then asked Mr Job why the issue of the missing radar signals had not been raised by the two previous expert witnesses, as well as the Indonesian National Transport Safety Committee (NTSC) and the NTSB.

'We've spent so much time on the issue of the radar sweep that escaped the attention of the NTSC and NTSB,' said the judge, expressing his concern. 'And here we are finding out new facts.'
:p

Crockett

10th Jul 2001, 07:00

It is all beginning to make perfect sense !!!! or is it ???!!!

Let the truth be known...

Crockett

10th Jul 2001, 07:20

Whether you question the integrity and final outcome of this trial in Singapore.. I would just like to note that the Judge has said at least one thing correct.. namely his comments about investigative bodies involved " leaving alarming gaps "....

The families have been saying this from day one after the crash... and we have been referring to all investigative agencies, associations,governments and companies involved..

Unfortunately, no one has been listening to us and seriously listening.. I personally think there is more to this entire incident than meets the eye..

I suspect a cover up of the greatest magnitude....and I am not referring to something as obvious as "The Pilot did it"...

Casper

10th Jul 2001, 08:29

Can someone PLEASE advise the judge that the ONLY reason radar plots were lost below 19,500' was that the aircraft went below Singapore radar's range. That is a basic scientific fact which he should understand.

Thomas Doubting

10th Jul 2001, 10:32

Regarding the hypothetical scenario the judge raised about two pilots fighting over the controls and who would win. Although I think there are few of us who have been following the MI185 saga here for the last three and half years, who for one moment would consider that this could have happened. I am surprised that the expert witnesses didn’t refer to the Egypt Air report. It’s quite well documented that it is more than a trial of strength, and it would be impossible for one pilot to restore the aircraft to normal flight if the other didn’t want him to.

Also, does this court consists of just one judge and no jury?

delta4

10th Jul 2001, 13:10

:confused:
Its reported in the papers that Silk air is sueing Boeing for that crash?????
Interesting!!!!

In the slot

10th Jul 2001, 20:04

Delta4.... that would not surprise me as SilkAir desparately attempt to shift the blame or attention in whatever way they can. The fact that no REAL decisive conclusions have been made in spite of all the overwhelming evidence in favour of some kind of intervention, is no surprise. It seems that Capt Tsu is undoubtedly benefitting from being "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt..." It's a shame that MI and SQ management don't maintain this moral stance as strongly for the rest of us who survive far less significant incidents in the course of work!!!! Looks like you have to REALLY embarrass SIA before they stand up for you. :(

[ 10 July 2001: Message edited by: In the slot ]

Low_and_Slow

10th Jul 2001, 20:38

My guess is that the outcome or ruling will be...The Plaintiff has not been able to prove without reasonable doubt that the Pilot Did It..

Is that the standard that will be used? Here in the states reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases, but civil cases are only preponderance of evidence. Anyone here an expert on Singaporean law?

Crockett

11th Jul 2001, 04:16

Not sure what is required with regards "beyond reasonable doubt" or burden of proof in Singapore..

Whatever the law or requirements to prove the case,based on reports I have read and been briefed on, the plaintiffs have struggled to adequately prove that the Pilot Did it or whom was in the cockpit at the time.. This has been further confused by the differing Radar Plots issue...

Lets wait to see what the Airlines expert witnesses have to say...That should be interesting and will obviously differ from the expert witnesses statements so far who spoke on behalf of the plaintiffs...

At least the media are reporting on the case in Singapore...and elsewhere...Lets keep the subject alive...

Let the truth be known..

Gladiator

11th Jul 2001, 05:40

Yes you are correct. One Judge (Outcome of a trial is usually decided by the old man, Lee Con You, himself), no jury.

The former Attorney General of Singapore disagreed with the old man's system. He is now a fugitive in the United States.

Loner

11th Jul 2001, 06:31

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 ]

Loner

12th Jul 2001, 05:26

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.

:p

WSSS

12th Jul 2001, 05:54

Defence lawyer Lok Vi Ming presented their case by saying the findings of Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee must be upheld

Yeah right .... then why is Silk Air insurers suing Boeing? It appears that Silk Air (and associated companies) have little confidence in the NTSC findings too! What a farce! :rolleyes:

Crockett

12th Jul 2001, 09:25

WSSS.... it may seem like a farce...you are probably correct...but what is going on in Singapore Courts right now is at least keeping the topic alive...

As you may know, I lost my wife and child on SilkAir 185, I know each and every other family who also lost someone dear to them on that flight..

What is going on right now is at least creating awareness that there are still so many unknowns about what really happened on 19th December 1997.. What the families involved would like is at least to get closer to knowing what happened..

The trial in Singapore is all about what probably may have happened or not...depending on whether you believe the plaintiffs lawyer or SilkAir lawyer..and their respective "experts"...

The families biggest cause of complaint or concern is...Why was the investigation finished or stopped without all the answers being known or at least more questions answered..

I guess if the remaining 30% +/- of the wreckage had been recovered, we might be closer to knowing...

It all comes down to probabilities...

Unfortunately, I am not sure the plaintiffs are going to get everything they want out of this trial..and so then on to USA legal system...maybe that will reveal more...

Sad...very sad indeed that it come down to this whole exercise going on in the courts.. All the families want is some respect and something nearer to the truth of what actually happened..

Loner

12th Jul 2001, 09:48

July 12, 2001 (The Business Times)
Not easy to overpower pilot intent on suicide

Expert witness details factors involved in regaining control of aircraft

By Donald Urquhart

CONFUSION, negative gravity, flying debris, and a cacophony of audio and visual alarms would make overpowering a suicidal pilot difficult, an expert witness testified yesterday on the seventh day of the SilkAir High Court trial.

The first thought running through a co-pilot's head would be that there was something wrong with the aircraft, said Australian aviation expert Maurice Baston, testifying for the plaintiffs in the case against SilkAir.

Capt Baston had previously been asked by Justice Tan Lee Meng to detail the factors involved in regaining control of an aircraft following a deliberate flight path deviation by one of two pilots.

Central to testimony given by the plaintiffs' expert witnesses has been the argument that the doomed Boeing 737 of flight MI 185 had been deliberately held into a nosedive by one of the pilots.

Key evidence, they said, pointed to the plane's stabiliser trim, which was pushed into the full forward position, rapidly causing the aircraft to nosedive from its cruising altitude of 35,000 to 19,500 feet - the last position recorded by radar - in 8 seconds.

'The non-handling pilot, not the wrong-doer, would be extremely surprised as to the immediate cause of the exceedance,' said Capt Baston.

'The non-handling pilot would become extremely confused and the cockpit would have dust, dirt, flight plans, drink cups, large bulky manuals displaced in the air.'

He said the non-handling pilot would not expect the manoeuvre to have been intentionally conducted, which would rob him of several vital seconds in which to respond.

During cross-examination, defence council Lok Vi Ming asked Capt Baston if, as a pilot with many people's lives in his hands, he would not be always thinking of possible emergency situations. In response, Capt Baston said this was not the case: 'My experience is that the norm is a passive flight deck.'

'The non-handling pilot, after several precious seconds would be faced with an impossible situation, finally realising the wrong-doer was intent on pushing the aircraft into a steep dive,' he said.

In such a situation the instinctive move would be for the non-handling pilot to attempt to use his own control wheel to stop the dive, and while partial control might be regained, Capt Baston said the powerful stabiliser trim could not be so easily regained.

Compounding the problems would be the very rapid rate of descent once the dive was initiated, he added. By approximately 32,000 feet the aircraft would have exceeded its normal flight envelope - or operating conditions - he said. And within another 8 to 10 seconds the flight test envelope - or maximum conditions under which the plane's control has been tested - would be exceeded.

At this point, no one knew how the aircraft would react, and eventually it would reach a 'certain point where no regaining of control is possible, no matter what is done'.

July 12, 2001 (The Business Times)
Must show pilot's suicidal intent and act: Silkair

SILKAIR began its defence yesterday in the negligence lawsuit brought by families of six victims of the MI 185 crash by saying the plaintiffs have to show that the pilot wanted to, and did in fact, commit suicide - and murder.

Only then will the plaintiffs succeed in meeting their burden of proof, said Lok Vi Ming, the counsel for Singapore Airlines' regional airline.

Mr Lok said there were too many unknowns, too little evidence and too many assumptions made by the US National Transportation Safety Board to conclude that the pilot purposely crashed the plane killing all 104 people aboard.

At the High Court hearing, he said the findings of Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee were correct in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to identify the probable cause of the accident.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, Michael Khoo, had highlighted that it was not necessary to establish the suicide issue because the plaintiffs' contention is that whatever actions were taken in the cockpit were reckless actions, be they related to a suicide bid or an attempt to recover from some form of emergency.

Picard

12th Jul 2001, 20:08

I think Crockett is right. If the truth was left in those 27% wreckage in Musi River, it's time to dig them out......

Casper

13th Jul 2001, 01:05

The remaining 27% will yield nothing of value. Those who claim it will are allowing themselves to be affected by smokescreens. This crash was caused by deliberate action. Pilots fighting over control of the aircraft is not a consideration because the most likely scenario was for one pilot to be absent from the cockpit. It's just a shame that Singapore will not publicly acknowledge what the rest of the real world already has determined. Remember "most likely cause?" The NTSB remain a far more trustworthy authority than, it would appear, even a country's legal system.

Loner

13th Jul 2001, 06:13

An emergency descent gone wrong, says expert

Cockpit crew could have been acting to deal with a sudden loss of cabin pressure on board the fatefulflight, says SilkAir expert witness

By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT

A SUDDEN loss of cabin pressure could have been the reason Flight MI 185 lost height, an aeronautical expert for SilkAir said yesterday.

The expert, Captain Robert Galan, said the pattern of rapid descent taken by the plane was consistent with what pilots would do in such an emergency, which is to bank away from the original cruising height of 35,000 feet and make an emergency descent to 10,000 feet.

But if the plane dived too steeply as a result of the emergency, it would have been impossible to regain control of the plane, he said.

Capt Galan, 64, a former French test pilot who has investigated more than 20 major aircraft accidents since 1994, is the first expert witness called by SilkAir to defend legal suits from families of six victims who perished in the MI 185 crash in Palembang, Indonesia, in December 1997.

The families claim that the plane was downed by 'intentional pilot action'.

Yesterday, Capt Galan said while he agreed that someone in the cockpit could have manually caused the plane to dive, this was done as a counter-measure to an emergency.

'It started as an emergency descent and the descent was right.

'The plane inadvertently went out of control and could not come back.

'For me, it was not deliberate,' he said.

The families' lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, in his cross-examination, pointed out to Capt Galan that according to Boeing's flight manual, the emergency descent could have been carried out safely in a 'simple' three-step procedure.

Disagreeing, Capt Galan explained: 'It may be very easy in the book.

'We have to remember the actual conditions and we can't assume it is easy to do.'

He then cited an occasion when he and his co-pilot were flying in a simulator and were subjected to a sudden drop in cabin pressure.

'You are so afraid. There is no time to think and you try to descend,' he said.

Referring to MI 185 which fell from 35,000 to 19,500 feet in just 32 seconds, Mr Khoo said: 'It does not look like an emergency descent because it was three times the rate of a safe emergency descent.'

Replied Capt Galan: 'In the beginning it was and then...it lost control.'

He disagreed with Mr Khoo's suggestion that what the pilot did was 'reckless' or that the action which he carried out was done wrongly.

'There is no possibility of recklessness,' he said.

Suicide? It doesn't make sense

IF MI 185 pilot Tsu Way Ming had wanted to commit suicide, he would have done so on his first flight and not on the return leg, said French aeronautical expert Robert Galan.

Debunking the intentional-crash theory that was expounded by the experts of the crash victims' families, he said that if Capt Tsu, 41, had wanted to die, he would have crashed the plane when it left Singapore on Dec 19, 1997, and not waited until he departed from Jakarta later that day.

On the allegation that the captain had crashed the Boeing-737 into the Musi River in Palembang to hide evidence of the suicide, Capt Galan said that the man could not have plunged the plane deliberately into the river as it was then flying at 35,000 feet.

'In fact, if the alleged aim was to hinder effective recovery of the wreckage, crashing the aircraft at sea, which was along MI 185's flight path, would have made more sense,' he said.

While suicide was clearly ruled out in Capt Tsu's case, he cited three other air crashes to show how investigations had found that suicide was a possibility:

Last year, a pilot who had work problems crashed his plane and killed himself in Botswana. There were no passengers on board.

In 1994, a Royal Air Moroccan pilot burdened by family problems crashed his plane into the Atlas Mountains in Morocco, killing all 44 people on board.

In 1982, a pilot with mental troubles crashed his DC-8 plane into the sea near Japan. He survived, but 24 of his passengers died.

First Officer may have been alone

FIRST Officer Duncan Ward could have been the only pilot in the cockpit when SilkAir Flight MI 185 went into a dive during an emergency, Captain Robert Galan suggested yesterday.

The expert raised this possibility because the last voice recording in the cockpit indicated that Capt Tsu Way Ming had intended to leave the cock- pit.

The cockpit recorder next captured the sound of a seat belt being unbuckled. After that, the recording stopped.

While the official probe team did not establish if Capt Tsu actually left the cockpit, it found that it was First Officer Ward who had made the last radio transmission to Jakarta air-traffic control two minutes before the plane started to descend.

Based on the scenario that there was only one pilot in the cockpit then, Capt Galan said this pilot would have had great difficulty in handling the sudden drop in cabin pressure.

The 'workload' for him to make a recovery would be 'quite substantial', he said.

The situation could have been made even worse by the subsequent electrical failure in the plane's systems, he said.

Another expert, Professor Denis Howe, is expected to give his opinion on the cause of the power failure today.

12 July 2001 1246 hrs (GMT) 2046 hrs (SST) MediaCorp News

Cabin depressurisation caused SilkAir crash: defence witness
by Dominique Loh

A suicide attempt was a "highly unlikely cause" of the crash of MI 185, said a French aeronautical expert and former French Air Force fighter pilot in the SilkAir lawsuit.

Captain Robert Galan, who has more than 40 years' experience in aviation, was the first expert witness called by SilkAir's defence lawyer in the lawsuit being heard in the High Court.

Captain Galan said the most likely cause of the crash was cabin depressurisation, but he could not offer evidence from the final report to prove his point.

Captain Galan testified the initial dive profile looked normal when the plane started its descent.

But moments later, for whatever reason, the remaining dive profile looked like a badly executed emergency descent, he said.

Captain Galan also said an emergency descent is not an easy manoeuvre to perform.

He said there is no evidence why the flight crew executed an emergency descent and why the plane went into an unrecoverable nose dive.

He added that a former fighter pilot like himself would not "induce a dive by pushing the trim forward".

Instead, he would flip the aircraft upside-down and make a half-loop to dive quickly.

During cross- examination, the plaintiff's lawyer Michael Khoo asked Captain Galan how he would describe Captain Tsu Way Ming as a pilot, taking into consideration Captain Tsu's past incidents like the S-turns and the Manado incidents.

Captain Galan said that he considered Captain Tsu as a dangerous pilot and could not say that his flying was safe.

But during questioning by SilkAir's lawyer Lok Vi Ming, Captain Galan said looking at the CID report, there was no indication that Captain Tsu had any suicidal tendencies in the days leading up to the crash.

The defence will call their second witness to testify on Friday.

July 13, 2001 The Business Times

SILKAIR CRASH
Court hears debate on possible pilot bungle

By
Beth Jinks

THE court hearing on the lawsuit against SilkAir turned its focus from possible pilot suicide to a debate on tragic pilot bungle.

French aeronautical expert Capt Robert Galan, testifying for the airline, put forward the theory that SilkAir flight MI 185 co-pilot Duncan Ward had attempted to execute a rapid descent after either suffering a loss of cabin pressure, or detecting a false sign of lost cabin pressure, and had lost control of the aircraft.

Yesterday was the first day of defence witness testimony on the SilkAir crash case.

Capt Galan said he believed from transcripts of the voice recorders that it was likely First Officer Ward was alone in the cockpit during the incident, a point he conceded could not be proved.

'If there was only one pilot in the cockpit, he would have to complete alone an emergency descent, and the fact that he was alone could explain why no emergency message was sent to ATC (air traffic control) as well as why the aircraft was flown inadvertently out of the normal flight envelope,' he said in his affidavit.

The witness is a test pilot with more than 40 years of flight experience involved in European certification of aircraft. He consults on pilot selection for airlines, working with psychologists on the 'human factors' in flying. Describing himself as a 'freelance' expert, Capt Galan has testified or given opinions on about 20 crash cases.

Referring to a diagram he created from radar data of the ill-fated flight's descent, Capt Galan insisted the first part of the dive was consistent with an attempt to drop to 10,000 feet, a textbook response when depressurisation is detected.

However, after lengthy cross examination where it was highlighted no bottled oxygen appeared to have been used - which would not have been the case in normal depressurisation scenarios - Capt Galan acknowledged there was 'no direct evidence' to back up his theory and at one point exclaimed in frustration 'there is no evidence' to prove any theory.

Plaintiff counsel also got the witness to admit that of the three standard steps necessary to successfully execute a safe rapid descent - reduce throttle, apply the speed break and aim down - the only one that the person controlling the plane managed to carry out was aim the nose down.

Arguing that the stressful situation could have confused the pilot, Capt Galan said the cockpit experience was very different from the instruction book, and added that about 20 per cent of simulated rapid descents were bungled by pilots he tested.

Building a case for recklessness, plaintiff counsel asked the collective experts to calculate the speed of descent from available data, and forced Capt Galan to admit the plane had been flown downwards at least double the safe, recommended speed almost from the first second of descent.

Capt Galan refused to concede either pilot had been suicidal, instead suggesting 'something went terribly wrong' when his proposed rapid descent was attempted.

The civil case was brought to court by the families of six of the 104 people killed when the 10-month-old Boeing 737 crashed en route to Singapore from Jakarta in December 1997. They are suing Singapore Airlines' regional subsidiary on the grounds that either reckless pilot behaviour or suicide caused the tragedy.

The case continues today.

Crockett

13th Jul 2001, 15:32

And today...Expert Witness says that the Original Radar Data was altered by the US investigators..

If I knew how to attach the report/article to this posting, I would. Unfortunately, my computor skills are a little limited..

I assume it will be posted here by someone else..

The plot thickens..

MasterGreen

13th Jul 2001, 15:57

All this "emergency descent" stuff is a smokescreen surely. It is a basic piece of handling, either on AutoPilot or Manual. Shut the Throttles, Lower the nose , deploy the speedbrakes. If you have the time and the mental agility - turn off track to avoid traffic.

Anything below 15 degrees nose down is a no brainer and even the most retarded of pilots can do this simple thing. But the throttles get SHUT and the speedbrakes get DEPLOYED - always. There are lots of other things that pilots forget to do - but these two are quite instinctive. All other variations of configuration are offside.

Sorry - but all this "aerobatic trained pilots would roll and pull" crap doesn't wash a hanky. It takes very little to initiate a descent (in the pitch sense) and we all know that.

If this is the best the defense can field then it is a done deal for the good guys....

[ 13 July 2001: Message edited by: MasterGreen ]

JohnBarrySmith

13th Jul 2001, 20:10

Does anybody know the email addresses of Mr Lok Vi Ming, Mr Ng Hwee Chong and Ms Joanna Foong, of SilkAir defense team or how I can contact them otherwise?

Cheers,
John Barry Smith
(831) 659-3552 phone
551 Country Club Drive,
Carmel Valley, CA 93924 www.corazon.com (http://www.corazon.com)
[email protected]

Picard

13th Jul 2001, 20:34

Latest News - Singapore
13 July 06:06PM -- Singapore Time

SilkAir radar data was altered, says expert

SINGAPORE -- A US investigation into the crash of a SilkAir jet altered crucial data before concluding the pilot deliberately put the plane into a death plunge, an expert witness told a Singapore Court on Friday.

Professor Denis Howe of the College of Aeronautics at Britain's Cranefield University, also disputed findings that the aircraft's stabiliser trim was in the maximum position for a nosedive.

Prof Howe, a veteran with 50-years experience in aeronautical engineering, was giving evidence for SilkAir which is being sued over a 1997 crash in which a Boeing 737 dived from 35,000 ft into an Indonesian river, killing all 104 people aboard.

The relatives of six victims claim the plunge was the deliberate action of a troubled pilot who should not have been at the controls.

The expert witness told the court that the failure of the plane's cockpit voice recorder, flight data recorder and radar transponder during the final moments was due to 'progressive' power supply failure rather than an intentional act by the pilot.

He said the original radar data he obtained from SilkAir, a Singapore Airlines subsidiary, showed the jet initially fell at a speed consistent with an emergency descent before apparently spinning out of control.

That data differed significantly from the information used by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which assisted an Indonesian-led inquiry into the crash, and the plane manufacturer Boeing, which plotted a steep plunge.

'There appears to be significant discrepancy between the initial data of radar transponder responses that I had received when first briefed, and that reflected in the final report,' he said.

He said the NTSB had made 'corrections to the original data' but he did not know why.

The amended data 'reflects a steep descent almost immediately from 35,000 feet to 19,000 feet in about 32 seconds.'

This 'incidentally would be more consistent with the NTSB's hypothesis that the descent was due to intentional pilot action,' he said.

But based on calculations from the data he received, Prof Howe said the plane fell at a rate consistent with an emergency descent in the first few seconds when it departed from its cruising altitude.

'This is consistent with the aircraft being in controlled flight during this period,' he said.

His testimony bolstered a theory by another defence witness, French aeronautical expert Robert Galan, that the pilot most likely executed an emergency descent due to a sudden loss of cabin pressure or wrong signals of depressurisation.

The manoeuvre, however, went out of control, sending the plane hurtling down, according to Mr Galan's theory. -- AFP

Crockett

14th Jul 2001, 01:56

John Barry Smith

I can supply the information you require on Monday when I get to my office...

Will e.mail you rather than post the information on this site..Perhaps Picard can do it sooner ?? Over to you Picard if you can supply sooner..

Loner

14th Jul 2001, 04:53

SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT (Straits Times)
Power failure may have caused dive
Airline's expert witness says the malfunction could have affected the cabin pressure in the plane, and cockpit voice and flight data recorders

By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT

POWER failure and a sudden drop in cabin pressure could have caused SilkAir flight MI 185 to plunge while cruising over Palembang in December 1997, a British aviation consultant said yesterday.

In explaining to the High Court how the incident could have occurred, Professor Denis Howe, who is SilkAir's second expert witness, said the power failure could have affected the plane's cabin-pressure system, prompting the pilots to make an 'instinctive' recovery dive.

The situation could have been made more critical by signs of a possible pressure drop, such as cracks appearing on the plane's outer windscreen panel.

Prof Howe noted that this 'progressive' power-failure theory could also explain why the plane's black boxes - the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder - had stopped working one after the other.

The power failure also cut off the plane's radar transponder, which stopped sending out radar signals after the plane plunged to below 19,500 feet, from its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.

The British professor, whose career spans more than 50 years in aeronautical engineering, was called by SilkAir to refute claims made by experts of the plaintiffs that MI 185 Captain Tsu Way Ming had stopped the two recorders manually by pulling their circuit breakers.

Prof Howe also disputed that MI 185 had plunged as fast and as steep as the plaintiffs have maintained.

It is the plaintiffs' case that the plane fell from 35,000 feet to 19,500 feet in just 32 seconds.

But Prof Howe said that based on his calculations, there was no way a Boeing 737 could fly so fast.

Questioning the accuracy of the final radar points obtained after the crash, Prof Howe said if the data were correct, it meant that the plane was travelling at more than 1.2 times the speed of sound, or more than 1,000 feet a second.

He noted that even the plane's manufacturer, Boeing, said 737s could not travel beyond the speed of sound.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, suggested to Prof Howe that evidence from the plane's wreckage suggested that the pilot had put the plane in a full- powered steep dive and this was not a recommended recovery procedure.

Prof Howe said: 'The pilot could have initiated an emergency descent and, in his enthusiasm, he overdoes the descent and wishes to reverse it.'

Then, Mr Khoo said that both the MI 185 pilot and co-pilot were trained not to act on instincts and should not have acted instinctively by doing a steep dive.

He said: 'If they do something contrary to what they are trained, it would be recklessness.'

Disagreeing, Prof Howe replied: 'Recklessness would be when they know something they are doing is wrong and put the passengers and plane in danger.

'They thought they were doing something right even when they were wrong in doing it.'

The trial continues on Monday.

Were pilots reckless?

SENIOR Counsel Michael Khoo, the lawyer representing the families of six crash victims of MI 185 who are suing SilkAir, and SilkAir's expert witness, Professor Denis Howe, were locked in an exchange yesterday on whether the pilots were reckless when they made an emergency descent.

It all started when Mr Khoo accused the pilots of being reckless in pushing the plane on a steep dive to make the attempted recovery.

This is how it went: Prof Howe: 'When something suddenly happens, your actions are instinctive.'

Mr Khoo: 'But they were reckless.'

Prof How: 'They were not. They were reacting to an emergency...and their instinct was to get down quickly.'

Mr Khoo: 1 'But pilots are trained not to act on instincts.'

Prof Howe: 'Unfortunately, we do act on instincts. We, human beings, react differently from what we have been trained.'

13 July 2001 1312 hrs (GMT) 2112 hrs (SST)
(MediaCorp News)
Depressurisation may have caused SilkAir crash: defence witness
by Dominique Loh

In the lawsuit against SilkAir at the High Court Friday, the second defence witness, Professor Denis Howe, testified that flight MI 185 could have crashed because of cabin depressurisation or some other mechanical failure.

Professor Howe has more than 50 years of experience as an aeronautical engineer.

His work includes the design and testing of aircraft.

Professor Howe testified that one possible reason the plane started to descend from cruise flight was due to cabin depressurisation.

Another possible reason could be a fault in the system, leading it to indicate there was a fall in cabin pressure and prompting the pilots to take reactive action to a problem that did not exist.

He said prior to the crash, the plane in question had a fuselage dent in April 1997 which was repaired; but Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee had ruled this out as a factor for the crash.

Professor Howe also said there could have been a progressive electrical failure that resulted in the failure of the black boxes minutes before the plane fell from 35,000 feet.

The witness also doubted the accuracy of the revised radar points, saying these were inconsistent.

He said the report's data implied the plane was diving over the speed of sound, something the Boeing 737 was never designed to do.

Professor Howe was also critical of the US National Transportation Safety Board's findings.

He said the American agency had been erroneous in stating intentional pilot action as the cause of the crash when its conclusion was based on the absence of substantial evidence.

On Monday, the final expert witness will testify for the defence.

July 14, 2001 (The Business Times)
SILKAIR CRASH
Defence witness reiterates bungled descent argument

Steering part could have instead moved just before impact

By Beth Jinks

THE SilkAir defence team challenged the plaintiffs' key evidence of pilot suicide and recklessness in Singapore's High Court yesterday.

Expert aircraft designer Denis Howe argued that the part of recovered wreckage which appeared to prove the plane had been steered as directly down as possible could have moved on impact, or slightly before.

All 104 people on board SilkAir flight MI 185 were killed when it crashed en route from Jakarta to Singapore in December 1997. The families of several victims are suing the Singapore Airlines (SIA) regional subsidiary, claiming pilot recklessness or suicide caused the crash, as suggested by US investigators.

Testifying that the plane would have shuddered violently within 5,000 feet of the ground, Prof Howe said an analysis of a jackscrew actuator - requested by SIA - cast doubt on the fact that the plane had been steered into a nose dive, suggesting that the angle of descent input by the pilot could have been much less than the maximum dive claimed by the plaintiffs and indicated by the recovered steering material.

Prof Howe maintained he believed the most likely theory was the same as had been put up by the defence team's first witness, Robert Galan - that the pilot had lost control of the aircraft during a deliberate rapid descent, which he executed because of either a real or false sign of cabin depressurisation.

Under cross-examination, Prof Howe said he believed 'the pilot initiated an emergency descent, for whatever reason, and in his enthusiasm or his anxiousness', had not been able to control the plane or carry out other basic steps needed to safely execute the manoeuvre.

Prof Howe agreed no evidence existed to support the loss-of-cabin-pressure-sign theory and said it was unlikely there was any real pressure problem. But he refused to accept the plaintiff counsel's assertion that the emergency descent had been carried out 'recklessly'.

'He (the pilot) would have been instantly reacting to a perceived emergency which would not have been reckless . . . he was doing a natural, instinctive thing,' he said.

Recently retired as dean of engineering at Britain's Cranfield Institute of Technology, Prof Howe is not a pilot but an aircraft design expert.

The source of his theory was also scrutinised by the plaintiff's lawyer, who discovered Prof Howe had prepared a report after receiving a 'mysterious' box full of evidence from SIA Engineering, which the witness said had 'apparently' been collected during the initial crash investigation. The plaintiffs have requested a copy of the report from SIA. The case continues on Monday.

Picard

14th Jul 2001, 19:28

The New Paper
14th July 2001

SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
Mysterious meeting...and 'diagram from a box"

BY BRIAN MILLER
Jul 14, 2001

AN English professor had a meeting in Singapore with the head of the Indonesian team investigating the crash of MI 185.

That, in itself, shouldn't have raised eyebrows.

Only, the Englishman happened to be Prof Denis Howe, an expert witness for SilkAir, the defendant in the suit now being heard in the High Court.

The Indonesians were interested in the report on the crash drawn up by the professor for Singapore Airlines (SIA), which owns SilkAir.

And so, Prof Howe was invited to Singapore in August last year where he attended a meeting at "an office in Changi Airport".

Prof Oetarjo Diran, head of the Indonesian investigators, was present. So, too, was "someone" from SilkAir or Singapore Airlines and a "few others", the court heard yesterday.

WHO WERE THE OTHERS?

Prof Howe could shed no light on who the others were as "no-one recorded the minutes of the meeting".

The professor is a distinguished-looking 73-year-old with a long list of credentials related to the aviation industry.

Sworn in as a defence witness, he said that sometime early last year, someone from SIA approached him in London.

It seemed SIA was interested in what Prof Howe had to say about the setting of the plane's stabiliser trim.

"I believe SIA had done their own calculations from photographs taken at the wreckage of MI 185 and they wanted confirmation from a third party," said Prof Howe.

He was that "third party" and they wanted him to come up with a report on that crucial bit of wreckage.

The setting on the stabiliser trim could determine how steep the high dive taken by MI 185 was on that fatal descent into the murky depths of the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997.

Until yesterday, no-one knew of the existence of that mysterious document.

And the revelation that there was such a report commissioned by SIA and compiled by a witness for SilkAir brought out the hackles in senior counsel Michael Khoo.

Mr Khoo, who is acting for the five families suing SilkAir, demanded a copy.

But Prof Howe stood his ground and said that he was not obliged and would not hand it over.

He said: "It is a confidential document compiled by me for a client."

Mr Lok Vi Ming, SilkAir's lawyer, was also quickly up from his seat. He said that the plaintiffs had no claim on the report.

It was then left to Justice Tan Lee Meng to say that the matter could be taken up in chambers.

MYSTERY DEEPENS

The mystery deepened when no-one could guess how the confidential report had landed in the laps of the Indonesians.

Mr Khoo had, in the morning, provided the court with a light-hearted interlude when he addressed the witness as "Prof Diran".

This reference drew laughter as Prof Diran is the person who compiled the Indonesian report.

In fact, Prof Howe has challenged some of the findings of that report.

Mr Khoo asked Prof Howe: "Did you tell Prof Diran that SIA had commissioned you to do a report?"

Prof Howe shook his head. "I didn't," he replied.

Then, he added: "At the meeting, which lasted about an hour, it was made known to Prof Diran that I believed the stabiliser trim was set at 3.05 units."

When the Indonesians tabled their final report, there was no mention of Prof Howe's conclusions.

And it had the setting at 2.5 units.

If that was correct, the nose of the plane would have been fully down and MI 185 would have plunged into the river at an angle close to 90 degrees.

Prof Howe had told the court that he reckoned the more likely setting was 3.05 units, which would have made the descent more gradual - but still deadly.

Mr Khoo asked what else was discussed at that mysterious meeting where no minutes were taken.

Prof Howe replied: "Many things. What? I cannot remember."

Earlier, Mr Lok had tabled as an exhibit a diagram of radar data - complete with altitude points and curvatures. It was given to him by Prof Howe and it turned out to be another "mysterious" document.

When asked by Mr Khoo how he got it, Prof Howe said that someone from SilkAir had given it to him. "It was found lying in a box," he said. "Where it came from is a mystery."

Asked Mr Khoo: "The diagram you gave us and which is a court exhibit was retrieved from a box in someone's office?"

"Yes," said the professor, who must have wished that good ol' Sherlock Holmes was around to help tidy up some of the mysteries.

[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: Picard ]

[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: Picard ]

Picard

14th Jul 2001, 19:59

John Barry Smith

SilkAir defence lawyer is Rodyk & Davidson. You'll find all the contacts on this webpage:

http://www.rodyk.com.sg/

JohnBarrySmith

14th Jul 2001, 21:55

Thank you very much Crockett and Picard for info on defense team for SilkAir. I am following up on it.

John Barry Smith
(831) 659-3552 phone
551 Country Club Drive,
Carmel Valley, CA 93924 www.corazon.com (http://www.corazon.com)
[email protected]

Crockett

16th Jul 2001, 09:08

Can anyone tell me if it is true or not whether a Boeing 737 can exceed 1.2 times the speed of sound...

Whether put into a vertical dive deliberately or not...

Thank you

Loner

16th Jul 2001, 13:58

Crockett,

It can be done, as operating condition is always lower than design condition. i.e. an equipment may be design to higher capacity as safety factor reasons, but (operating condition)seldom stretch the usage to the max. limit as this will shorten the life span of the equipment. Also, not forgetting that with the aid of gravity force here.

;)

training wheels

16th Jul 2001, 14:14

What's the Vne\Mmo of the 737? Surely it must be less than M 1.2?

And when Vne\Mmo is exceeded, doesn't the plane start to bend? :eek:

[ 16 July 2001: Message edited by: training wheels ]

stickyb

16th Jul 2001, 14:47

Crockett, I would have thought that a 737 can easily exceed 1.2 times the speed of sound.

In level flight you would need a lot of power to do it, but point the thing nose down and you get help from gravity.

If the height is sufficient, any object falling through the atmosphere will eventually obtain what I think is called "terminal velocity" This is where the downards pull of gravity is balance by the resistance of airflow. For a skydiver in freefall, with arms outstretched, this is, if my memory serves correctly, about 120mph. I have no idea what it would be for a 737, but with all planes the areodynamic profile is surely designed to be as "slippery" as possible along the nose/tail axis, so, as I said, point it nose down and it will start accelerating very fast. Whether the airframe will stand the eventual stresses is another matter - try pulling out of a steep dive and you get strong g forces.

Crockett

16th Jul 2001, 15:01

What is Vne/Vme etc... please explain...

Many thanks

Picard

16th Jul 2001, 19:04

Latest News - Singapore
16 July 04:16PM -- Singapore Time

Tsu was a good pilot, says SilkAir

SINGAPORE -- The pilot of SilkAir flight MI185 that crashed in 1997, killing all 104 people on board, had made mistakes in the past but never compromised the safety of passengers and was a good pilot, an investigator from the airline said on Monday.

Capt Anthony Leong told a court in an affidavit that he had helped investigate Singapore pilot Tsu Way Ming after three unusual flying incidents scared his co-pilots.

The incidents include turning off the voice data recorder during a flight, making 'S-turns' one pilot described as severe, and failing to report making an overweight landing in Singapore.

SilkAir demoted Capt Tsu for the incidents.

Capt Leong said the demotion was fair punishment and that Capt Tsu was a good pilot. He was a talented man who rose through the ranks of SilkAir quickly, airline officials said.

Capt Leong's affidavit included numerous letters of promotion and pay rises from the airline.

The SilkAir jet plunged from 35,000 ft into an Indonesian river on Dec 19, 1997.

Lawyers for six families suing the airline have argued that Capt Tsu should not have been allowed to fly because of a history of disciplinary problems. -- AP

Loner

17th Jul 2001, 05:03

SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
17 JULY 2001 TUES (THE STRAITS TIMES)
Pilot had not told airline about S-turn
When SilkAir promoted Capt Tsu in May 1997, it was unaware that he had failed to land on first try during a flight to Indonesia two months earlier

By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT

THE SilkAir flight management did not know that MI 185 pilot Tsu Way Ming had failed to report an 'unusual occurrence' during one of his flights when they promoted him in May 1997, the High Court heard yesterday.

The management found out Captain Tsu had failed to land the plane on the first try during a flight to Manado, Indonesia, two months earlier only when another pilot queried why he was still being promoted.

The airline's then Boeing-737 fleet manager, Captain Anthony Leong, told the High Court yesterday that he was 'very surprised' when he heard that Capt Tsu had done an 'S-bend' manoeuvre in Manado in March 1997.

The pilot had taken an S-like flight path, which was not a common procedure, as the plane was travelling too fast and too high then.

Despite that, he still failed to land and had to make a turn-around. The plane later landed safely and Capt Tsu did not report the incident although he should have done so.

Yesterday, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, the lawyer representing the families of six people who died when flight MI 185 crashed in Palembang, Indonesia, in December 1997, asked Capt Leong why Capt Tsu had made the 'glaring' omission of not mentioning the S-turn in his written report. The families are suing SilkAir.

Capt Leong, 49, now SilkAir's deputy chief pilot and fleet manager of the Airbus-320, said: 'He could have forgotten. The incident was in March. The report was in June.'

When Mr Khoo asked him whether he would have tried doing an S-turn if he were the pilot, the witness, who is also a trainer, said: 'I don't do S-turns.'

He added that these moves, although uncommon, were made to lengthen the final approach.

When Mr Khoo said that Capt Tsu had been wrong in making such manoeuvres, Capt Leong said: 'One would have to be in the cockpit to see what was going on.'

He added that one would also need to consider what the airport conditions were like and the visibility at that time.

But Mr Khoo noted that the flight's first officer, Mr Lawrence Dittmer, had said he and some passengers were scared by the moves then.

But the witness disagreed, noting that passengers would have been 'screaming' if the turns were violent.

He added that if Capt Tsu had indeed put the plane to violent turns, passenger complaints would usually come 'quick and fast'.

'We would then be reading about it in the newspapers,' he added.

The hearing continues.

Capt Tsu 'capable of reckless stunts'
SENIOR Counsel Michael Khoo yesterday said that MI 185 pilot Tsu Way Ming was someone who was capable of pulling 'reckless' stunts to protect his own interests.

He said this after referring to an incident in June 1997, six months before the crash.

Captain Tsu had then deliberately stopped the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) just before the flight left Changi Airport because he wanted to download its content.

He and then co-pilot, Mr Lawrence Dittmer, were discussing the landing in Manado in March 1997.

Capt Tsu wanted to preserve this conversation in case there was an inquiry about the alleged S-turn that he had made then.

The conversation happened just before take-off but Capt Tsu asked the Changi air control for permission to return to the bay so that he could download the CVR tape.

But he later changed his mind. He reconnected the CVR after Mr Dittmer protested and piloted the plane out of Singapore.

Yesterday, Mr Khoo said Capt Tsu did not consider the convenience of his passengers and of the airport when he asked to return to the bay - this would have delayed the flight for about an hour.

During the cross-examination of Capt Tsu's supervisor, Captain Anthony Leong, Mr Khoo said the pilot's conduct was 'unbecoming of a commander'.

Capt Leong agreed and said that was why SilkAir later suspended and demoted Capt Tsu.

But he disagreed with the lawyer that the pilot was reckless, noting that the flight still left on time then.

On why Capt Tsu wanted to download the CVR tape, he said: 'He is unhappy with all the rumours about him that were flying around. Maybe he wants to seek the truth.'

Monday July 16, 10:22 PM (Channel NewsAsia)
MI 185 pilots were competent: SilkAir's fleet manager

SilkAir's defence on Monday called its last witness, Captain Anthony Leong, to the stand.

Captain Leong is SilkAir's Fleet Manager, in-charge of all matters relating to Boeing-737s, as well as 737-cabin crew.

During cross-examination, Captain Leong testified that both Captain Tsu Way Ming and First Officer Duncan Ward were competent and professional pilots.

As the hearing comes to a close , the focus again shifted to the early days before the crash.

In a last-ditch attempt, the plaintiffs tried to discredit pilot Captain Tsu.

In the case of the Manado incident when Captain Tsu was reported to have executed a series of S-turns while landing, Captain Leong felt that not reporting the incident was not a breach of safety procedure.

The witness, however, agreed that Captain Tsu had acted inappropriately by pulling a cockpit voice recorder circuit breaker before a flight.

Captain Leong concluded that by all accounts, these incidents were "no big deal".

Before the court was adjourned, Justice Tan Lee Meng reminded the lawyers that the lawsuit should not be an inquiry of Captain Tsu's employment record.

Although it is relevant, it must be linked to the crash of MI 185.

The defence team is expected to wrap up its examination of Captain Leong on Tuesday.

:confused:

[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: Loner ]

Loner

17th Jul 2001, 13:41

Latest News - Singapore
17 July 05:11PM -- Singapore Time

SilkAir aware of concerns over pilot, says ex-captain
By Alethea Lim and Tan Ooi Boon
ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR

A FORMER SilkAir captain had apparently voiced concerns over the unsafe behaviour of MI 185 pilot Tsu Way Ming just days before the crash and wanted its management to hold a meeting to discuss this.

And on Dec 18, 1997, the High Court heard that the management wanted to hold the meeting with some of its pilots.

But that meeting never went on because on the next day, flight MI 185 went down in Palembang, along with Capt Tsu and 103 other people.

On Tuesday Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, the lawyer for victims' families who are suing SilkAir, told the court that the pilot who made the initial complaint was Captain Mohan Raganathan.

He said that in December 1997, Capt Raganathan had decided that he would not want to renew his contract with SilkAir because he could 'handle any emergency but would not tolerate any abuse of aircraft by Capt Tsu'.

In particular, Mr Khoo said Capt Raganathan was disturbed by the fact that Capt Tsu had proceeded to take off to Kunming on Nov 20, 1997 although one of plane's twin engines did not have sufficient power.

By insisting on the take off, Capt Raganathan felt that Capt Tsu was 'firewalling' the engines by pushing them to the limit.

The lawyer noted that the former later complained this to SilkAir's flight operations manager, Captain Leslie Ganapathy.

But on Tuesday, Capt Ganapathy said that he did not recall receiving such a complaint from Capt Raganathan.

Replying to questions from Mr Khoo, he said while he agreed that the management had agreed to meet some of the pilots, the meeting meant was to discuss routine operational matters.

He disagreed with Mr Khoo that Capt Tsu was one of issues that would be raised in the meeting.

The trial continues.

:mad: :( :confused: :rolleyes: :p :eek:

Hudson

17th Jul 2001, 14:14

There was a lot more evidence that came out in the court than the media could possibly report due space. For instance the UK Professor (on Silk Air's side) stated that the reason why the engines were at high thrust when the aircraft crashed was that it was a known fact that when you apply power in a jet the nose rises. Therefore, said the esteemed Prof, the pilot went to full power in the steep dive (to counter a cocked up emergency descent)in order to pull the nose up. He conveniently avoided saying that full power in a steep dive will only accelerate the aircraft downwards until the whole game is over. Nice one, Prof -
The other expert witness for Silkair a French test pilot (a mouth for hire?) told the court that there was no problem with firewalling a sick donk on brakes release as long as it met min N1. He later told someone else that he knew that was crap, but as he was witness for the defence he had to say it!! Pretty sick. eh?

Picard

17th Jul 2001, 18:55

The New Paper

SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
Pilots turn up to show support

BY BRIAN MILLER
Jul 17, 2001

YESTERDAY I counted seven. Last week there were three.

And when it all began some 15 days ago, there was just one - maybe two.

Yes, slowly - but surely - they have been making their presence felt and filling up the seats in Court 19 where the suit against SilkAir is being heard.

I'm not talking about the relatives of the victims seeking damages from SilkAir over bthe crash of MI 185.

Rightfully so, they have been there since Day One - huddled in groups and listening intently as lawyers for both parties argue the merits of their respective cases.

The new faces in the gallery comprise pilots of both the national carrier and SilkAir.

For the last week, they've been making their way to the courtroom on the fourth floor of the City Hall building to take in, first-hand, all that has been happening.

In between proceedings, I asked one of them why he was there.

He looked at me quizzically. Then he replied: "It's a pilot they're talking about. And it's SilkAir that is being sued. And even though I fly for Singapore Airlines, it concerns me."

Turning to his friends - all pilots - who were seated on the court's hard, wooden benches, he added: "It's a solidarity thing.

"Sure. The crash was a sad, sad thing. No-one wanted to see it happen.

"But it happened. And we sympathise with the families who lost their loved ones.

"As for us, we're here to lend gentle support to a colleague.

"Captain Tsu (Way Ming) was one of us and we've got to stand behind our own."

I asked if they knew Capt Tsu, the pilot of the Boeing 737 which crashed into the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997.

"No, I didn't. But some of my friends did.

"Still, what does it matter? Like I said, he was one of us. He was a pilot. We've got to stick together."

So, would they be around to see the final outcome, I asked.

"We're working pilots," they reminded me. "But we will try to make it when we're between flights.

"But even if we're not here, we believe others will be here. You see, we posted a line on the pilots' union website encouraging members to make an effort to show up.

"We hope they do because aside from the solidarity bit, this is a great experience for us. We can identify with plenty that has been exchanged in this court."

Yesterday, they listened as SilkAir's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, introduced as his third defence witness, one of their own.

He was Capt Anthony Leong, SilkAir's deputy chief pilot and fleet manager of its Airbus A320 division.

They heard Capt Leong say that Capt Tsu didn't breach any safety regulations when he did a "go-around" before landing his aircraft at Manado in Indonesia.

In earlier testimony, Capt Tsu's co-pilot on that flight, First Officer Lawrence Dittmer, had said that, to "go around", the plane needed extra power to climb.

But not enough power was applied.

Asked by Mr Lok if this was acceptable, Capt Leong replied: "The only breach was not reporting it."

"What about taking off without sufficient target thrust on that flight to Kunming on Nov 20, 1997?" Mr Lok asked.

"It was a good decision,"said Capt Leong. "It was a judgment call. A split-second decision. That's what we pay our pilots for."

I turned to steal a glance at the airmen in the gallery.

I saw them nod. They were in agreement.

Later one of them pulled me aside and said: "Capt Leong was right. We're paid to make those split-second decisions.

"You know, there's a saying. It goes like this.

"Surgeons bury their mistakes. If a pilot makes a mistake, he gets buried with that mistake."

Picard

17th Jul 2001, 19:25

AFP
17th July 2001

SilkAir trial adjourned to source for new expert report

SINGAPORE, July 17 (AFP) - A negligence suit against SilkAir over a 1997 crash was abruptly adjourned in the Singapore High Court Tuesday, as lawyers scrambled to get their hands on a confidential expert report on the tragedy.
The report by the Cranfield Impact Centre in Britain was commissioned by Singapore Airlines, the parent company of SilkAir.

The families of six of the 104 people killed when a SilkAir flight crashed in Indonesia en route to Singapore in 1997 are suing the airline for negligence.

The existence of the report was revealed by Denis Howe, a professor at Cranfield University's College of Aeronautics in England during expert testimony.

Howe, in testimony last Friday, said he could not release the report because he prepared it as a consultant specifically for a client.

However, he admitted having discussed some details of his findings with Professor Oetarjo Diran who led the official Indonesian investigation into the crash.

Howe said "SIA had done their own calculations from photographs taken of the wreckage" and wanted confirmation from him.

Justice Tan Lee Meng adjourned the hearing on Tuesday afternoon when Michael Khoo, the counsel for the plaintiffs, demanded he be given a copy of the Howe findings. Defence lawyer Lok Vi Ming also said he did not have a copy.

Lawyers told AFP outside the court there was no guarantee the document would be introduced when the hearing resumed on Wednesday.

Before the adjournment on the 12th day of the hearing, evidence again focused on the safety record of Tsu Way Ming, the captain on the fatal flight.

The victims' families claim there was evidence the crash was deliberately caused by the cockpit crew.

Silkair vice president and chief pilot of flight operations Captain Leslie John Ganapathy testified that mistakes Tsu made in three separate incidents were "an issue of discipline" and were not safety concerns.

He said the indiscretions did not show that Tsu was irrational.

A three-year inquiry by Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee, led by Diran, could not determine what caused flight MI185 to crash, and said there was insufficient evidence to back the theory of a suicidal pilot.

[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: Picard ]

Bedowin

18th Jul 2001, 02:40

Can someone explain to me how:

If thrust is supposed to be checked by 60 knots...how is that a spilt second decision?

If one thrust lever is in front of the other by several knobs "three as described in court" that something might be wrong with the engine?

That a fuel leak was found following an inspection.

And the damn engine was changed! So a good decision eh?

And the pilots as a group are standing behind a decision like that.

Do we assume that they are happy to fly unairworthy aircraft.

And are they standing behind "one of theirs" no matter what the performance, attitude and competence of "one of theirs".

And do they condone pulling circuit breakers.

And what of the landing climb performance of an overweight landing (have "they" even heard of such a limitation and had it been checked)?

What a sham, joke and apology for so-called profesional pilots..who are "paid to make split second decisions".

Methinks you have been watching too many Hollywood movies.....and if you think I am wrong, ask the relatives of the dead!

What a disgrace to make a court a meeting place for the aviation illiterates who "must stick together! :confused: :( :(

Loner

18th Jul 2001, 05:13

18 July 2001 (The Straits Times)
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
Ex-captain disturbed over pilot's behaviour
Former captain said he could not take Capt Tsu's abuse of the aircraft and voiced concern just days before crash

By Alethea Lim and Tan Ooi Boon
ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR

A FORMER SilkAir captain had apparently voiced concerns over the unsafe behaviour of MI 185 pilot Tsu Way Ming just days before the crash and wanted its management to hold a meeting to discuss this.
But that meeting never took place because days later, on Dec 19, 1997, Flight MI 185 went down in Palembang.
Yesterday, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, the lawyer for victims' families who are suing SilkAir, told the court that Captain Mohan Raganathan was the pilot who complained.
He said in December 1997, Capt Raganathan had decided that he would not want to renew his contract as he could 'handle any emergency but would not tolerate any abuse of aircraft by Capt Tsu'.
Mr Khoo said Capt Raganathan was disturbed that Capt Tsu had proceeded to take off to Kunming, in China, on Nov 20, 1997 although one of plane's twin engines did not have sufficient power. While the plane took off safely, Capt Tsu decided to return to Changi Airport 20 minutes later for checks.
The lawyer noted that Capt Raganathan later complained to SilkAir's then flight operations manager, Captain Leslie Ganapathy.
But yesterday, Capt Ganapathy said he did not recall receiving such a complaint from Capt Raganathan.
He said the management had agreed to meet some of the pilots, but the meeting was meant to discuss routine operational matters, and not Capt Tsu.
As one of Capt Tsu's supervisory managers, he earlier told the court that his relationship with Capt Tsu had often been good, even after the management demoted Capt Tsu in August 1997 for failing to report an incident and for stopping a cockpit voice recorder.
He said about eight days before the crash, Capt Tsu came to see him about the flight to Kunming, and told him that while he forgot to report the incident, he went beyond his duties to help transfer passengers to other flights and help ground staff check the plane.
Capt Ganapathy said: 'I remember agreeing with Capt Tsu that he had done good work and told him that if he put this down in writing...I would certainly write to him to thank him for his good work.'
The trial continues today.

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.

SILKAIR CRASH
18 July 2001 (The Business Times)
Court hears SilkAir pilot had good flying record
By
Beth Jinks

THE disciplinary record and judgement of late SilkAir pilot Captain Tsu Way Ming came under scrutiny again in the Singapore High Court yesterday as his superiors gave evidence in a civil hearing into the Singapore Airlines subsidiary's 1997 crash.

SilkAir vice-president Captain Leslie Ganapathy testified that Capt Tsu had a good flying record except for the time when he disconnected a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) during another flight.

Capt Ganapathy said while it was a serious breach of discipline in turning off a CVR, Capt Tsu had made up for his mistake by reconnecting the recorder and continuing the flight.

His testimony followed that of SilkAir deputy chief pilot Captain Anthony Leong, who also continued to defend his pilot yesterday. Michael Khoo, the lawyer acting on behalf of the families of six of the 104 people killed when flight MI 185 nosedived into a Sumatran river, claimed the pilot had made serious mistakes, overlooked report guidelines and exercised poor judgement on several occasions before the fatal crash.

But Capt Leong insisted that despite scaring his co-pilots, Capt Tsu's earlier decisions to switch off the CVR to preserve a conversation, allegedly flying 'severe' S-turns to correct a badly approached landing and making an overweight landing after deciding to take off with engine thrust problems were at most errors in judgement, rather than instances of recklessness.

The incidents prompted an internal investigation and led to Capt Tsu's demotion earlier in 1997. When questioned about Capt Tsu's failure to report an incident after having been counselled over past complaints, Capt Leong said: 'His interpretation (of when reports were needed) was incorrect, but you can't take a person to task like that... in our view it was not that serious.'

Capt Leong told the court both he and Capt Ganapathy had counselled Capt Tsu to 'put the incident behind him' and told him 'this is not the end of your career path' when the pilot was demoted. The hearing continues today.

:eek: :p :mad: :( :confused:

Casper

18th Jul 2001, 06:30

Bedowin

You are spot on the target. Only the uneducated, foolish or ignorant would try to defend the indefensible. Professional? Most definitely not.

Crockett

18th Jul 2001, 11:53

The New Paper from Singapore reports yesterday or today that about 10 to 15 pilots have been attending the court in the last week or so, to show support for the pilot...

Not having been in the Court myself, perhaps someone who has could verify this information..

Runway Rumble

18th Jul 2001, 14:16

Crockett,
It is always possible that off duty pilots may have been "counselled" to attend the court.

Runway Rumble

18th Jul 2001, 15:01

Just an afterthought.
How did anyone know they were pilots?
Were they wearing uniforms?
Reason for asking is that in most places uniforms are only worn on rostered duty.

knackered

18th Jul 2001, 17:41

Dear Bedowin, not so spot on!

Where do you come to the conclusion that the 'pilots as a group are standing behind a decision like that' and is it 'they' - ' the pilots as a group' - you are referring to throughout your post? If so please enlighten us as to how you come to this interesting conclusion.

Waiting.

Hudson

18th Jul 2001, 17:51

The hypocrisy of the Silk Air expert witnesses and supervisory management is breathtaking. Just before its failure (pulled CB), the FDR indicated that the stab trim setting was at normal cruise setting of 4.58 units. At the crash site it was found at 2.5 units which is the electrical fwd limit switch. At 0.2 units per second rotation speed, that means someone operated the stab trim for 10 seconds to get to full fwd. That is a dramatic change of trim in a very short time span.
The UK Professor for Silk Air suggested that although the stab trim was found at full fwd electrical setting of 2.5 units it could have possibly rotated itself from 3.08 units to 2.5 units during partial break up. Operative word is possibly.

But then he threw in another red herring and said that possibly, just possibly, there could have been a progressive electrical failure which manifested itself by firstly the mysterious failure to the CVR. Then six minutes later on by another mysterious failure - this time of the FDR (another pulled CB?)

Then guess what! Next was a possible - just possible, the Professor said, failure of the front windscreen that panicked the crew into a premature dive (due human instinct, he said) and that they simply forgot to forgot to close the throttles and extend the speed brakes, then lost control altogether.

Then another mysterious progressive electrical power failure which caused the transponder to fail passing 19500 ft. All these occurrences were served up as possible by the UK Professor and studiously repeated by the French Test pilot (tongue firmly in cheek for sure).
Not content with that, these two expert witnesses then threw in yet another red herring by suggesting that another part of the progressive electrical failure conspiracy may be that a faulty pressurization warning suddenly occurred causing the crew to shove the 737 into a steep dive. Jesus wept!! Can you really believe that this all actually happened in the court room? Well, it did. Ask the media and for once they reported quite accurately.
So the red herrings were trailed across the court room. Very effective delaying tactics so that the other side may run out of money due wasted days of crap.

The plaintiffs had hoped for the truth to come out in this court case, instead it was bleeding obvious (hopefully to the Judge)as each day dragged on, that the Defendants were desperately attempting to dredge up excuses to cover the captain of Silk Air 185 well documented potentially dangerous cowboy flying. Sadly, as events turned out, it may have been lethal flying...

The media reported everything very fairly and accurately, so far.

Picard

18th Jul 2001, 18:19

Pilot on fatal SilkAir flight normal prior to crash, says witness

SINGAPORE, July 18 (AFP) - The pilot of a SilkAir jet that crashed killing 104 people in 1997 showed no sign of abnormal behaviour in the days before the flight, the Singapore High Court was told Wednesday on the final day of a negligence suit against the airline.
"On December 11 (1997), I did meet Captain Tsu. He was very normal," said Leslie Ganapathy, chief pilot of flight operations at SilkAir, a regional Asian carrier.

Eight days later Tsu Way Ming captained a Silkair Boeing 737 which crashed into an Indonesian river on a flight from Jakarta to Singapore.

The families of six victims are suing SilkAir, a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, claiming there was evidence the crash was deliberately caused by the cockpit crew.

But Ganapathy, testifying for SilkAir, said it was not possible Tsu could have intentionally caused the crash.

"I could not believe that would be true. He could not have done something like that," Ganapathy said.

An Indonesian-led investigation was not able to determine what caused the crash and ruled out the theory of a suicide attempt by the pilot due to insufficient evidence.

The families claim the plane's death plunge was the deliberate action of a troubled pilot who should not have been at the controls.

Under cross-examination by the plaintiffs' lawyer Michael Khoo, Ganathapy refused to be drawn on the cause of the crash.

"I really can't say. I really don't know," he said.

"For me to come up with a view would be inappropriate."

Although Tsu's safety record has been questioned during the hearing, Ganathapy said the pilot's failure to report an attempted "S-turn" in order to lose altitude on an earlier flight was not a breach of safety.

"He should have recorded it in the voyage report. It's nothing to do with safety," he said.

The final day of the trial continued after Justice Tan Lee Meng said the hearing should proceed without the admission of a confidential report on the crash commissioned by Singapore Airlines.

The case had been adjourned on Tuesday after Khoo demanded he be given a copy of the report, by the Cranfield Impact Centre in Britain.

The existence of the report was revealed by Denis Howe, a professor at Cranfield University's College of Aeronautics, during testimony last Friday.

But Howe said he was unable to release the study because he had prepared it as a consultant for a client.

Thomas Oey, whose mother and brother died in the crash, said in court he was withdrawing his suit filed against the aircraft manufacturer in the United States and would concentrate only on the negligence claim against the airline.

"Enough information has come out. I am quite convinced there is no point pursuing against Boeing at this point," he said.

The judge gave lawyers five weeks to prepare final submissions and he would then set a date for the submissions to he heard in court.

Picard

18th Jul 2001, 18:31

Latest News - Singapore
18 July 05:26PM -- Singapore Time

One family drops suit against Boeing

The Straits Times
By Alethea Lim and Tan Ooi Boon

ONE of the five family members who are suing SilkAir for the MI185 crash said on Wednesday that he will drop his lawsuit against plane manufacturer Boeing because he was convinced that mechanical faults were not the cause.

Mr Thomas Oey, 39, who lost his brother and mother in the crash told the High Court that he had initially filed suits in 1998 against Boeing and related parties such as makers of the plane's parts, because the cause of the crash is unknown.

This came after American lawyers flew here to look for families of the victims, with the view of getting them to sign up for an action against Boeing.

But after hearing the expert witnesses' testimonies in the 13-day trial here, Mr Oey said he would withdraw all claims against the plane manufacturers.

In particular, he noted that SilkAir's expert, Professor Denis Howe, had dismissed rudder malfunction -- a cause in other crashes -- as the reason of the MI185 crash.

Mr Oey, who attended the trial daily since it started earlier this month, said: 'I don't believe it was mechanical failure that caused the crash.'

The lecturer of a Baptist seminary here was called as a witness to refute SilkAir's claim that the families were being inconsistent when they sued SilkAir for 'intentional pilot action' when they also had another ongoing suit against the plane's maker.

All 104 passengers on board the Boeing 737, including Mr Oey's mother, Berenice Braislin Oey, 71, and brother, Jonathan Edward Oey, 39, died when the plane plunged into the Musi River in Palembang on Dec 19, 1997.

But the other four families who are suing SilkAir did not join Mr Oey in dropping their US suits.

Mrs Ruby Joseph, who lost her husband John Joseph Parappuram, 45, in the crash told the court on Wednesday that she would continue with her action against Boeing and the other related parties.

She said: 'I was advised it was all right to keep the actions'.

The trial has been adjourned for five weeks for the parties to prepare their final arguments.

Picard

18th Jul 2001, 18:50

Runway Rumble

Just saw over 100 CX pilots on TV news marching to Mariners' Club in Tsimshatsui from Star Ferry to attend press conference...all in uniform and presume they were not on rostered duty...

Seems CX pilots are more organised than SQ ones when comes to supporting each other...

Crockett

19th Jul 2001, 00:11

I do not know how the pilots in court who were presumably were off duty, were identified as such. All I know is what I read in the newspaper article and that one or two of them was interviewed..

Not really important information anyway, I would suggest.

So what next...it could be a long wait...??

My take of the case so far...No one has proven one way or the other what caused it beyond reasonable doubt.. But then I have not been in the court and have not heard everything, so I might be wrong

Casper

19th Jul 2001, 00:48

Hudson

You are quite correct. The defence case is like the pristine bullet theory in the JFK assassination. And this in a court room? Just hope that the final defence witnesses are comfortable with their submissions GIVEN UNDER OATH.

Hudson

19th Jul 2001, 05:32

The Singapore Police Report attached to the Indonesian Accident report on MI 185 declared that there was no evidence of suicidal tendencies concerning the captain.
The captain's supervisors said the same thing. None of that means a thing.

I am no trick cyclist, but it is my reading that suiciders don't always telegraph their punches. Attached article (part of) makes topical reading on these matters:

To Die For (from AVWEB)
The December 1997 SilkAir 185 crash in Indonesia and the October 1999 Egypt Air 990 crash in the U.S. have both focused attention on an aviation safety question that most of us would really rather not discuss: pilot suicide. Could psychological testing of pilots help prevent this sort of tragedy? Does cockpit crew size (three vs. two) make a difference? Does the FAA's policy of grounding pilots who take antidepressant medication help or hurt? AVweb's Ken Cubbin examines these and other facets of the problem.

by Kenneth A. Cubbin ([email protected])

Partial quote from this article, sub-headed
Who's at risk?

"Let me say up front that I have no psychological or clinical psychiatric expertise. But an article titled "The Neurobiology of Depression" published in the June 1998 issue of Scientific American presents some opinions that I find quite interesting. At the time the article was published, its author Charles B. Nemeroff was professor and chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Emory University School of Medicine.

In his article, Professor Nemeroff describes the symptoms of depression as being quite different from "the blues" that everyone feels at one time or another, including grief from bereavement. He states that depression can include a sense of overwhelming sadness, guilt, and a sense of self-worthlessness. A person suffering from depression may lose appetite and have trouble sleeping -- or conversely, want to eat and sleep constantly. Such people can be preoccupied with suicide and have difficulty thinking clearly, remembering, or taking pleasure in anything.

How can someone suffer from such debilitating effects and yet remain functional? Eva Winer, a spokesperson for the APA, explained that in her career as a testing officer in a psychiatric hospital, she had seen "many deep-seated, practically asymptomatic cases of 'smiling' or 'larvae' depression that didn't impair daily functioning and easily went undetected for a long time." Therefore, presumably, a person can be severely depressed, yet hide it from his or her peers.

Professor Nemeroff suggests "that 5 to 12 percent of men and 10 to 20 percent of women in the U.S. will suffer from a major depressive episode at some time in their life. Roughly half of these individuals will become depressed more than once, and up to 10 percent (about 1.0 to 1.5 percent of Americans) will experience manic phases in addition to depressive ones, a condition known as manic-depressive illness or bipolar disorder… As many as 15 percent of those who suffer from depression or bipolar disorder commit suicide each year."

In what may be a very disturbing statistic in relation to pilot suicide, Professor Nemeroff contends that "many people who kill themselves do so in a way that allows another diagnosis to be listed on the death certificate, so that families can receive insurance benefits or avoid embarrassment."

End of quote.
-------------------------
So there you have what most people already know, and that is you don't have to necessarily go around trailing blood from a slit wrist to indicate that you are thinking about topping yourself.

The captain of MI 185 apparently went around happy as a lark in the days before he took the high dive. So forget that as sure fire physical evidence that he had no intention of prematurely meeting his maker. Nor taking those other innocent souls with him.

The coincidences of CVR and FDR circuit breaker pulling (pity he forgot to switch off the transponder, too) and full forward stab trim, high thrust levels and no speed brake use, and no radio call, were all too uncanny to dismiss as flat earth nonsense.

If the Judge dismisses all this evidence as purely coincidental events, then the plaintiffs case for a verdict that indicates the "Most probable cause of the crash of MI 185 was intentional pilot action" is in grave jeopardy.

Loner

19th Jul 2001, 10:05

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.

WSSS

20th Jul 2001, 09:54

Crocket, my condolences to you and the families of the victims.

The Vne/Mmo is known as the "red line" speed or the "never exceed" speed. If exceeded, the aircraft could experience structural failure. The Vne\Mmo for the 737 is about 80% of the speed of sound (at 33,000 ft). Given this, I doubt whether the aircraft could have been flown at 1.2 times the speed of sound without breaking up. Well, then again, I'm no expert.

I do remember reading of eye-witness accounts that two explosions were heard before the impact. Some experts suggested that this may have been the aircraft breaking the sound barrier on its descent.

Good luck with the court case.

Crockett

22nd Jul 2001, 01:38

And now we wait....for the outcome..

Just hope that no one forgets about all of this in the coming months until court case reconvenes..Time has a way of making people forget..

The families will not however..

Picard

22nd Jul 2001, 19:46

The Straits Times
22 July 2001

THE TWO FACES OF SILKAIR PILOT
Lawyers in the SilkAir MI 185 trial have painted two very different images of Captain Tsu Way Ming. TAN OOI BOON and ALETHEA LIM piece together a portrait of the man in charge, the day 104 people died

THE mystery that surrounds the crash of flight MI 185 has made the pilot of the doomed plane the target of many accusations.

Captain Tsu Way Ming, who was 41 when he died, had such a colourful flying career that the allegations became irresistible.

Three times had he diced with death as a pilot in the Republic of Singapore Air Force. Just months before his final fatal crash, he pulled off some unorthodox manoeuvres while flying for SilkAir.

So was it just another stunt that went horribly wrong and caused the plane to go down near Palembang on Dec 19, 1997? What could have made the plane nosedive from 35,000 feet and crash, within minutes, into the Musi River?

Even at the trial the 'stunt' question cropped up.

Capt Tsu's first close call was on Dec 19, 1979, exactly 18 years before the MI 185 crash. Then 23, he was set to fly with four other pilots on a training mission near Manila. But his plane developed a last-minute fault and he was grounded.

The four pilots were killed when they flew into a mountain.

On Sept 6, 1981, he and a student pilot took off in a trainer jet. It crashed while performing a take-off roll. The student pilot died.

On March 3, 1986, Capt Tsu again cheated death. He was flying with a student pilot south-west of Tengah Airbase when his A-4 Skyhawk struck problems and both ejected safely.

The fact that he was involved in two crashes and was on the sidelines of a third was enough for these incidents to be used as possible explanations for the MI 185 crash.

He was also painted as someone plagued by problems at work, and as a punter who had suffered financial losses to the tune of $2.25 million, while playing the stock market.

Moreover, four months before the Palembang crash, SilkAir demoted him for breaching flight procedure.

Allegations that all this drove him to down the plane came fast and furious when the interim crash report cited 'human factors' as a possible cause.

That MI 185's flight recorders stopped working minutes before the crash - and that Capt Tsu had stopped a flight recorder on a flight before - sparked off more rumours. Of suicide.

They subsided when a police probe ruled out suicide as a motive for the crash.

Despite this, there was no killing the allegations that he was a reckless 'cowboy' pilot who did not hesitate to push commercial Boeing jets to the limit. Two incidents reported within 10 months of the crash.

On March 3, 1997, a plane he was piloting into Manado, Indonesia, came in too high and too fast for a landing. He still tried to land by putting the plane into a 'S'-like flight path in an attempt to reduce speed and height.

He did not land on the first attempt. He circled and landed safely the second time. He did not report the incident to the airline.

In Singapore on Nov 20, 1997, a month before the crash, he took off for bound for China although one of his plane's twin engines was not working at full capacity.

He returned to Changi Airport 20 minutes later to make an 'overweight' landing, when a plane is carrying fuel meant for a long flight. Again, it was not noted in his report.

Antics such as these raise eyebrows. At least one pilot colleague complained that Capt Tsu was 'abusing' the planes.

Captain Mohan Raganathan, who is no longer with SilkAir, said the pilots had decided to call a meeting to discuss Capt Tsu's actions.

The meeting was scheduled for Dec 23, 1997.

It was never held.

Four days before they were to meet, Capt Tsu went down with his plane.

And, perhaps, he took with him any chance of finding the cause of the MI 185 crash.

THE TWO FACES OF SILKAIR PILOT
A doting Dad, good husband, top pilot with much to look forward to
HE WAS in every sense a family man.

A loving son, this picture of Capt Tsu was taken on Mother's Day in 1997. Before he died, he was preparing for his Dad's birthday party.
A devoted father and loving husband, Captain Tsu Way Ming, 41, made an effort to spend time with his three sons and often cooked for his wife.

He was a Buddhist and a filial son.

The weekend he died, he was preparing for his father's birthday celebrations.

The Tsus were looking forward to attending a bursary award ceremony for one of their sons the following Monday.

Capt Tsu had an impressive career.

He joined the Republic of Singapore Air Force in 1975 and was a combat pilot, flight instructor and member of the elite Black Knights aerobatic team.

One of his proudest moments took place on Aug 9, 1990, when he flew with the Black Knights in a National Day flypast.

He was one of the first Singaporean-trained A-4 Skyhawk pilots promoted to flight instructor, after he graduated at the top of his Pilot Attack Instructor Course in 1986.

In 1992, he was a major when he quit the RSAF to join SilkAir as a first officer.

He was appointed a commander in January 1996.

With 6,900 hours of flying experience, he could have flown for Singapore Airlines.

But he chose to fly for its smaller sister airline so he could spend more time with his family.

Extroverted, sociable and outgoing were descriptions that came easily when his family members, friends and colleagues remembered him.

They also called him forthright, tough-minded and daring but disciplined.

At work, he was the 'easy-going' and 'caring' captain.

His supervisors thought highly of him and were impressed with his flying skills.

In March 1997, he was promoted to line instructor pilot, just one step away from being an instructor pilot.

But four months later, his career hit a snag with a demotion to captain and a reprimand for breaking the rules: He had stopped a cockpit voice recorder and failed to report an incident.

Another time, he was reminded to be more careful after he failed to make another incident report when a flight from Singapore to Kunming, China, that he had piloted had to turn back.

His supervisors still regarded him as well-trained and came to court to speak up for him.

The rules he broke did not affect flight safety.

His skills and competence were never in doubt. One flight supervisor, Capt Leslie Ganapathy, said pilots do forget to make incident reports.

It was only because Capt Tsu's file was scrutinised so closely that his breaches seemed more serious than they were.

But he was still a responsible captain.

So when the Kunming-bound plane turned back, he went beyond the call of duty and helped passengers transfer to other flights and helped ground staff check the plane.

His supervisors maintained that the demotion would have been no more than a temporary setback and he had plenty of chances to prove himself.

And he did not hold a grudge against them. Their working relationship remained 'cordial', they said.

So did they think Capt Tsu deliberately crashed his plane?

Capt Ganapathy said: 'I find it difficult to imagine the person I knew as I did, to be personally involved.'

Tripper

25th Jul 2001, 14:24

Crockett,
I don't know if you will get any justice from the court case, but the proceedings will throw light on the charade in Singapore.
Capt.Ganapathy and Capt.Leong may consider all the actions of Tsu Way Ming as just minor errors of judgement. But, any pilot worth his salt might think otherwise.
Just look at what Tsu had accomplished in the 9 months preceeding the crash.
1.He does "S" turns to lose height to correct the approach into Manado. Except that , his co-pilot had to slam the thrust levers forward when the Go Around was initiated with just "will power"!! by the captain. The aircraft was around 700 feet AGL overthreshold. I wonder who considers this just a minor error!!
2.In May 1997, Tsu takes an aircraft out without the Parking Brake serviceable. He has just a Second Officer trainee on the right hand seat. Tsu's total experience as an airline captain is hardly 500 hours. Is that safe?
3.In June 1997 he pulls out the CVR on a scheduled flight. This is not just a minor error!!
4.In November 1997, Tsu experiences power loss on one of the engines, while setting take-off thrust. The company SOP specifies " SET TAKE OFF THRUST BY 60 KTS". He firewalls the engine and does not get take off thrust. He returns back after take-off and makes an overweight landing. All these errors are not reported.

Now we have the two management pilots stating that "though he scared co-pilots, pulled out CVR CBs, took out an aircraft which was unsafe, firewalls engines and does overweight landings", he is a very good and safe pilot. After all, he is supposed to have transferred all the passengers on his flight to Kunming, to other flights!!
I hope the captain of SQ 006 realises his major mistake. He didn't transfer the surviving passengers to other flights!!!!!

web page (http://null)

Picard

25th Jul 2001, 18:38

I wonder whether Capt Ganapathy and Capt Leong had felt embarrassed in the way they defended SilkAir and themselves in the court. Ganapathy had been pretty consistent in giving tha same answers since the release of interim report in April 1999 though.

Perhaps both of them felt helpless as well since whole SilkAir management had changed guards after the crash and left 2 of them to fend for themselves.

Crockett

26th Jul 2001, 06:50

Pathetic and very sad...

The whole entire event and the past three plus years actions and words by all involved are simply, to say the least..in my humble opinion, a tragedy.

If it wasn't so serious and lives had not been lost and lives of hundreds of relatives and friends of the deceased so tragically effected, it would make a good comedy of errors..

Tripper

26th Jul 2001, 15:42

Pathetic is an understatement. Their whole attitude is pitiable.
But look at the plus points!! The aviation world has learnt a lot from experts of Wright Brother vintage.
1) We have a French expert who is probably the only one in the world who has ever flown in a simulator with "Presuurised" cabin. If not , how would he have been scared along with his co-pilot, when the pressurisation failed , during a SIM session? Or, as the experts have stated in their deposition, "scaring co-pilots" is acceptable!!
2) We have a Geriatric expert from UK, who questions the veracity of the "Ugly Americans"!!
First, he says that the NTSB has cooked up the Radar plot. Then, he questions the Boeing procedure!! If Boeing is to follow his expert opinion, they have to re-write the Non-normal procedure for cracked window pane. The Boeing 737 QRH has no restriction for "outer"pane crack. But the Silkair expert says that has caused an explosive decompression.
Probably, the co-pilot was too scared ( just like many of the others who flew with Tsu), to react to a series of failures caused by imaginary electrical failures--CVR/FDR/Autopilot/Autothrottle/ thrust levers moving to full thrust position/ stab trim moving to full down position/ outer window pane crack resulting in pressurisation failure. Well, I think all of us who are flying around haven't learnt anything!!!

Picard

26th Jul 2001, 16:55

From www.news.com.au (http://www.news.com.au)

SIA shifts suspect directors

By ERIC ELLIS
26 July 2001

SINGAPORE Airlines has made a subtle but telling power shift to its
board of directors that seems designed to assuage regulatory concerns
about its bid to win Air New Zealand and Ansett Airlines.

As criticism mounts about the connections between Singapore's government
and the island's premier companies, as they diversify into more rigorous
regulatory environments, three directors with close government links
have quietly resigned.

Gone from the SIA board are Moses Lee, the permanent secretary of
Singapore s Health Ministry, Major-General Raymund Ng, the recent former
head of Singapore's Air Force, and former head of Singapore's secret
police Tjong Yik Min.

Their departure will go some way towards advancing Singapore's claims to
Canberra and Wellington that government and business are not connected
here, despite the ownership of strategic operations by government
investments companies.

The military man Major-General Ng and internal security apparatchik Mr
Tjong seem the most telling departures.

The executive president of Singapore Press Holdings, Singapore's
near-monopoly print media company, Mr Tjong is also the chairman of
Singapore's aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority of
Singapore.

The CAAS has been a bidder to manage Sydney Airport and owns a stake in
the company that manages Auckland Airport. Sydney and Auckland are the
main hubs of Air New Zealand and Ansett, the two Singapore Airlines
targets.

Mr Tjong has been criticised by foreign analysts for sitting on both
boards simultaneously, given that SIA monopolises Singapore's aviation
sector.

Singapore Airlines public relations officer Innes Willox has denied Mr
Tjong had any conflict of interest but some analysts have argued there
would be very few matters before either board that would not affect the
other.

Mr Tjong is one of Singapore's more controversial figures, a former
schoolmate of Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and a long-time head
of the Internal Security Department, which has frequently used its
state-sanctioned powers of arrest and detention without trial to round
up local dissidents.

A career civil servant, he joined both the SIA and CAAS boards, as well
as that of SPH, without previous experience in aviation or publishing.
It is quite common in Singapore for civil servants and parliamentarians
to sit on the boards of big government-owned companies such as SIA and
Singapore Telecommunications, both now bidding for strategic Australian
assets.

The management and board of SIA is littered with ex-Singapore military
personnel. Air force chief Major-General Ng was also a director of the
aviation regulator.

However, as so-called Singapore Inc companies push offshore there is a
move under way on the island to open up the notoriously cosseted
business world.

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Picard ]

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Picard ]