The Truth about the SilkAir MI 185 Disaster

[nortwinds]

It is now almost the 10th anniversary of the SilkAir MI 185 disaster and the truth is not yet established. Has anyone any updates on resolving the true causes of this disaster?

[visselhovede]

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=silkair+185&search=Search

just to share......

[nortwinds]

Thank you Visselhovede. Has anyone now got the technical knowledge and mathematical ability to work out the odds of the cockpit voice recorder failing, and then being followed very shortly by a failure of the rudder mechanism. I could be wrong, but I think the probability of the one failure, times the probability of the other, assuming they are independent events, is so unlikely that a mechanical cause of the disaster is very unlikely.

[nortwinds]

Just having a go at it myself:

Calamatous rudder failure is fortunately very rare, say 1 in 500 aircraft, over eachs' say 20,000 hour life. That's a 1 in 10 million chance per hour, or a 1 in 100 million chance in any few minutes.

A CVR failure is more likely, say once in a thousand hours per aircraft, or a 1 in 10,000 chance in any few minutes.

Assuming they are unrelated, the chances of a CVR failure being followed within minutes by a mechanical rudder malfunction, is the one odds multiplied by the other. I reckon that gives odds against mechanical failure of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 or one in a billion.

I may have made wrong assumptions, or got the zeros wrong, but the point is that the chances of the MI 185 tradgedy being due to a mechanical rudder failure, immediately preceded by CVR failure, is remote.

[nortwinds]

Just looking at those video clips and was amazed that the servo valve was "the single remnant of the SilkAir crash" and the "only part still in existance of the SilkAir 737", yet at the same time looked in perfect as-new condition and needed a scanning electron microscope to find the manufacturing flaws. Amazing that it survived the crash in such pristine condition.

Was also interested in the comments on the inspection sheet allowing for second inspection. This is either normal practice and acceptable, or it is not.

If it is normal practice, then it was OK here too.

And if it was not OK here, then it should not be an acceptable option anywhere else.

What we are seeing here is an example of the double standards that were applied throughout the MI 185 investigation.

Also interesting to see that the co-pilot was portrayed as a mature 40 ish pilot; and that both pilots were shown at the controls at the end.

All in all, it seemed more Disney that National Geographic to me.

[airlinefan]

Simply put Boeing bailed and left Parker hanging. The pilot flew it into the ground as the authorities said as the EEC data showed max power in - so no sunshine report just a load of crap. NTSB would have clearly shown what happened and the probability is astronomical...............

[Rockhound]

According to the NTSC of Indonesia accident report, the copilot was aged 23. The captain was 41.
Rockhound

[nortwinds]

Thank you Airlinefan and Rockhound - but which pilot flew MI 185 into the ground? The 41, or the 23 year old - or both as in the NG documentary?

The whole point about not resolving the MI 185 disaster is that if the lessons are not learned, then other disasters will follow - possibly such as GA 433

[Absolutely Fabulous]

nortwinds

your analysis of the probabilities is incorrect

while it is correct to multiply the probabilities of individual independent events that result in a particular outcome, the operative words here are "that results in", hence both events, while being independent of each other, must individually also be a likely cause in the end result

in this accident, the loss of CVR while suspicious, does not in any lead to an aircraft being flown (intentionally or otherwise) into the ground i.e., there are simply no odds available for such an event, so to multiply the probabilities gives of these 2 independent events produces an incorrect answer

[nortwinds]

Thank you Absolutely Fabulous and I can see how you read that and you are absolutely correct.

What I was trying to say was that the remote chance of a control failure, being immediately preceded by a CVR failure that would therefore not record anything about the second failure, regardless of whether it resulted in the tragedy, was 1 in a billion.

In other words, I was trying to say it was extremely unlikely that the MI 185 disaster was due to mechanical causes and that if we wanted to learn from it to avoid other disasters, such as the Garuda one also being currently discussed on this forum, then we had to look at the pilots rather than being distracted by the virtually impossible chance of it having been mechanical.

So having derermined as definitely as it is humanly possible that it was the pilots and not the aircraft, the next question is which pilot?

And we do have to look at both pilots, othewise the disaster will never be explained and nothing will be learnt from it to avoid others.

[Rockhound]

If the aircraft was deliberately flown into the ground (as I believe it was), the probability is high that it was the captain who did so, acting entirely independently, as the FO had no detectable motive to commit suicide.
But surely all these suppositions have already been covered. What we need is more evidence but we're unlikely to get it.
Rockhound

[nortwinds]

Thank you Rockhound and it literally is a billion to one probability that one of the two pilots did deliberately fly MI 185 into the ground.

But why do you say the probability is high that it was the captain? and that the FO had no detectable motive to commit suicide?

It is this automatic presumption against the captain that blocks off the enquiries, and the evidence, that would enable something to be learned from this disaster.

[Rockhound]

Nortwinds,
I can see no earthly reason why a young pilot in good health, in the early days of his flying career, such as Duncan Ward, would commit suicide.
It undoubtedly is farfetched to suggest that MI 185 was deliberately flown into the ground but stranger things have happened. Tsu's record as an airman, both in the military and in civilian life, was far from unblemished. So in the suicide scenario, Tsu must be considered the prime, if not the only, suspect.
But surely all this has been rehashed many times over. Without new evidence, I see no point in further speculation.
Rockhound:ugh:

[nortwinds]

Thank you Rockhound and I note your head bashing. However the facts are that one could equally say that there was no earthly reason for a 41 year old (whom many would say was also young) in good health (as an active pilot) and at the prime of a flying careeer, to commit suicide.

I thought the Captain had a distinguished flying career in both the military and in the airlines. If it was blemished, I would ask just how serious those blemishes really were, and how they compared with other career pilots. If those blemishes were serious enough to justify suicide then why was he, and all the other pilots with blemishes, not stopped from flying.

It always comes back to this same (head-bashing) point that one pilot has every possible bit of circumstance argued against him, while the other pilot is automatically free from the enquiry that would show up the very evidence you seek.

[millerscourt]

nortwinds

You clearly know nothing about the background of the Captain involved in this incident.

If indeed it was a Pilot induced incident ie suicide and mass murder then the finger would point 100% towards the Captain for the followng reasons.

1) He was deep in debt and had huge " loss of face" because of this.

2) He had recently been demoted from Line Training Pilot because of a dive bomb approach into an airfield and where he tried to cover it up by pulling the very same CB's behind his seat that could have been pulled again thus destroying any evidence.

Again this was a huge loss of face and probably screwed his chances of ever getting over to Mainline SQ

3) It was the 10th anniversary of an A4 formation he was leading back in his RSAF days and he turned back due to a technical problem and his mates all flew into a hillside and were killed.

Opinion is divided as to the causes of this incident and the Indonesian authorities were ill equipped to deal with this enquiry and at the time Indonesia were being bankrolled by Singapore so some people reckon the Singapore Government were leaning on Indonesia.

We will never know for sure and as I said opinion is divided although the aircraft descended with maximum power on!! Nobody seems to able to explain that.

[Rockhound]

Nortwinds,
Millerscourt has it about right. What I believe to be an accurate summary of the story, written by Michael Richardson, appeared in the International Herald Tribune of 19 December 2000.
Until more evidence comes to light, there seems little point in continuing this discussion.
Rockhound

[nortwinds]

As always, Rockhound, thank you for your responses. I still believe, however, that the evidence is already there and just needs worked through objectively and logically.

Millerscourt, thank you too. I agree with you that there is no feasible alternative to the captain having pulled the CBs - as it was a billion to one that it was a double mechanical failure. This gives us another line in the sand.

So we know:
- the disaster was not due to mechanical failure;
- the captain switched off the cockpit recorders; and
- the aircraft descended with maximum power on.

However,
1) the captain was no more in debt than the average pilot - and pilots are not automatically grounded for normal debt;
2) demotions do happen - and again pilots are not automatically grounded as part of every demotion; and
3) every disaster has a 10th anniversary, including MI 185 - and the survivors again are not automatically grounded as part of having survived.

If these aspects, individually, or combined, or in the character of this particular captain, were not important enough before the accident, then why are they argued to be so crucial after it.

It was, however, useful to be reminded that MI 185 was not just suicide, but also mass murder - and my understanding is that unresolved murder cases are never closed.

[nortwinds]

All has been quiet on this topic for a couple of weeks so I'm wondering if this forum has run out out thoughts and whether we should ask the moderator to transfer it over to the wider Rumours and News forum.

It is important to keep discussion of this tragedy alive as otherwise what should be the text book example of systems' failures will fade into obscurity and the lessons never be heeded.

Bottom line is that we are dealing here with suicide/mass murder, or vice versa, that was relatively unknown 10 years ago. And interestingly, none of the present security measures could have prevented it.

[Cubs2jets]

Don't you think there was a JI/Abu Syaif/Al Qaida connection? :eek:

Maybe it was Tommy Suharto or someone from the family preventing a passanger from telling where they all hid the money? :ugh:

Maybe it was the future owners of Adam Air trying to pre-spin things so their operation wouldn't look so bad compared with a Singapore operation? :rolleyes:

Anybody else got an explaination?

Cubs2Jets

[nortwinds]

Cubs2jets thank you for your open mind. If you want to focus those thoughts a bit more please have a look at the facts first and then think outside the official boundary fence.

[Cubs2jets]

Well, northwinds, there's the rub...

Land reclaimation is continuing in Singapore with the ultimate goal of changing the shape of the island to a perfect square. Once this is accomplished, no one will have to think "outside the box"! :}

Cubs2jets

[belowMDA]

Nortwinds, you seem to be at great pains to deflect blame from the Captain to the first officer. In the interests of balance could you possibly explain why you think it is not the captain but the first officer that is responsible?

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Dear Nortwinds,

You are flogging a dead horse mate. :confused:

[nortwinds]

Not just a horse that is dead, Captain Wooblah, but over one hundred innocent people. However the mystery is not dead and, with the 12th anniversary approaching, I am just wondering if there have been any developments in resolving SilkAir MI 185 so we can learn from it and avoid anything similar happennig again.

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Dear Nortwinds,

I feel deeply saddened by the loss of life of all the passengers and crew. But I do have a big problem in believing that any pilot would intentionally murder his passengers and crew. I do understand that this has perhaps happened i.e. Egypt Air incident but then again do we really know if the FO did what he did on purpose or did something / malfunction cause him to action incorrectly. Was it poor systems knowledge / training etc. I remember the accident involving the A300-600 with the Russian crew that allowed the kids to occupy a flight deck seat and this resulted in a fatal accident.

I do not know of an accident (Except 9/11) That a pilot purposely flew his aircraft into the ground with the intent of murder that did not have some reasonable doubt attached to it.

I do know however that in initial investigations regarding rudder hard over in the B737 series the investigators had a hard time believing that such a control movement was possible. It really was a miracle that one of the crews survived, and it was this event that finally lead to the discovery of the effect of temperature and hydraulic lock commanded by the sequence valve. All due to the machining tolerances of the valve produced by Parker Hannifin.

My point here is could there have been such a problem the occurred on this fateful flight. Did the crew actually have to think out of the box to try and save the situation. Did control reversal and hard over lead them to use the engines to raise the nose. I don't have the answers to any of these questions. All I know is that there was millions of dollars at stake and that in circumstances like this all sorts of coverups and deals do get made.

Cheers,

Wooblah.

[arba]

Was the aircraft equipped with CDLS yet ?

[leewan]

12 years on and still shrouded in controversy.
As others have mentioned, it's hard to believe that someone would dive an a/c into ground along with 100+ innocent souls.
Interesting fact is that MI sold off all their B737s, some a few months old, and turned their fleet into an all Airbus fleet after this incident.

[Sky Dancer]

The post by Millers Court has been the most accurate so far on what actually happened on MI 185.The evidence gathered so far points very heavily towards the Captain deliberately diving the plane to kill himself and everyone else.I'm not sure if I'm correct but the FO who reported the unsafe approach that cost him his Training Captain status was the same FO that went down with him.For reasons that seemed beyond the scope of the investigation , the final verdict took quite sometime along with great hesitation in pointing fingers at the Captain and Silk Air.All this despite the initial reports by the Indonesians pointing towards pilot suicide...:ok:

[Luke SkyToddler]

Duncan Ward was NOT the one who flew that plane into the ground.

Anyone who even tries to pass that one off as a theory worthy of serious speculation, is completely unfamiliar with the most basic facts of the case, and is slandering the memory of a damn fine young man who was tragically murdered just like everyone else on that flight.

[Very_Low_and_Fast]

Wooblah, it does happen sometimes…

ASN Aircraft accident ATR-42-312 CN-CDT Tizounine (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19940821-1)

ASN Aircraft accident ATR-42-320 A2-ABB Gaborone-Sir Seretse Khama International Airport (GBE) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19991011-0)

[nortwinds]

Thanks all who responded but replying to Luke Sky Toddler who was closest to what he correctly describes as mass murder.

I never mention the co-pilot by name and do not blame him for what was a systems failure where under the same conditions the same thing could have happened to many other young pilots.

Therefore unless the matter is resolved the same could happen again to any of us - and to our innocent passengers and cabin crew.

I appreciate the protectiveness Luke seeks for the co-pilot but far bigger issues are at stake and the same protectiveness was not given to the Captain, or to SilkAir, or to Boeing, or to Parker Hannifin, or to the State of Singapore, or to the Indonessian NTSC, or to anyone else. In fact, all the others involved have been openly criticised while all that is asked of the co-pilot is that he be included in the investigation which otherwise would remain unresolved.

[parabellum]

I never mention the co-pilot by name and do not blame him for what was a systems failure where under the same conditions the same thing could have happened to many other young pilots


So just how many suicidal captains do you think Silk Air were employing at that time? There is no evidence to support a theory of systems failure, none at all.

To those of us who lived and worked, in aviation, in Singapore at the time the main failings, apart from the captain, were the Indonesian authorities to properly address the known facts and the Singaporean authorities collusion in this deliberate obfuscation.

Don't attempt to add an air of mystery to this event nortwinds, it was blatant mass murder.

[Blacksheep]

A Question: Why was one elevator found on the ground some distance back along the flight path, while the rest of the aircraft was in the river?

[leewan]

A Question: Why was one elevator found on the ground some distance back along the flight path, while the rest of the aircraft was in the river?

Any credible source to that claim ?

[King on a Wing]

Yes it is true.Half of the stabiliser was found,along with parts of the vertical fin way upstream of the actual impact point along the projected flight path.The airplane had reached Vmo and then Vne within 15 seconds of the dive.Somewhere along the diving flight path,the weakest(or most stressed) link shears.This just happened to be the stabiliser(the sheared one) and part of the vertical fin.
Whats the angle anyways Blacksheep..??
Just curious..

[Blacksheep]

Whats the angle anyways Blacksheep..??That we are asked to believe that a B737 empennage will start to disintegrate at Vmo and fall off at Vne.

[parabellum]

I think the report stated that the aircraft descended at nearly full power so by the time bits fell off it was way above Vmo and Vne.

[training wheels]

I recall those on the ground living near the Musi River reported hearing a big boom which many now think was the sonic boom caused by the aircraft exceeding mach 1 on it's way down. It's therefore no wonder bits started peeling off the aircraft.

BTW, didn't the NTSB also conduct their own investigations due to the fact that the aircraft was manufactured in the USA? Unlike the NTSC's report, the NTSB did actually come to a conclusion which is in agreement with what most of us here on this thread are thinking. Hope someone can dig out the NTSB report and post the link here.

[training wheels]

Found this article published in Flight Safety Australia (http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2008/feb/18-28.pdf), a publication produced by Australia's CASA, which summarises the NTSB's criticism of the NTSC's report.

Unprecedented criticism by NTSB

But the most damning criticism came from the American NTSB. Normally diplomatic about the findings of other nations’ investigations, the NTSB unambiguously declared: ‘Of greatest concern are the statements … that “the NTSC is unable to find the reasons for the departure of the aircraft from its cruising level of FL 350 and the reasons for the stoppage of the flight recorders” and that the “investigation has yielded no evidence to explain the cause of the accident.” ’The examination of all of the factual evidence is consistent with the conclusions that:

(1) No airplane-related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident.


(2) The accident can be explained by intentional pilot action; specifically,
(a) the … flight profile is consistent with sustained manual nose-down flight
control inputs,
(b) the evidence suggests that the cockpit voice recorder was intentionally disconnected,
(c) recovery of the airplane was possible but not attempted, and
(d) it is more likely that the nosedown flight control inputs were made by the captain than by the first officer.'

Throughout the report, the NTSB was repeatedly forced to take serious issue with wording and misleading inferences. The following paragraphs summarise the NTSB’s principal comments:
A significant amount of pertinent factual information developed during the three year investigation is either not discussed or not fully considered in analysing the cause of the accident.

There was no evidence of any pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures. Further, the pilots did not report any problems or make any distress calls.

Finally, engineering simulations of flightpath data were conducted to determine the motion of the aircraft from the time it departed cruise flight until the end of recorded data.

No single mechanical failure of the aircraft structure or flight control systems would have resulted in movement of the aircraft through recorded radar data points. Further, there was no evidence of any combination of systems failures.

The flight profile is consistent with sustained nose-down manual flight control inputs. The horizontal stabiliser trim was set at the maximum nose-down main electric trim limit (2.5 units) at the time of impact.

On the basis of the engineering simulations, it is very likely from the time it departed from cruise flight until the end of the recorded data, that the aircraft was responding to sustained flight control inputs from the cockpit.

The NTSC report states that no reason could be found for the stoppage of the flight recorders and recommends that ‘a comprehensive review and analysis of [DFDR and CVR] systems design philosophy be undertaken to identify and rectify latent factors associated with the stoppage of the recorders in flight’.

This implies the NTSC believes the flight recorders stopped because of mechanical malfunction. This is not supported by evidence. Rather, the evidence suggests that the CVR was intentionally disconnected. There is also no evidence to indicate the DFDR stopped as a result of mechanical malfunction. The first indication of an anomaly in the flight occurred when the CVR ceased recording. The stoppage of the CVR was consistent with the removal of power to the unit through ‘pulling’ of the circuit breaker, rather than as a result of a mechanical malfunction or a short circuit.

Evidence from the last recorded minutes indicates that only the captain and first officer were present in the cockpit. The CVR also recorded sounds consistent with seat movement and removal of a seat belt. The sequence is consistent with the captain preparing to leave the cockpit.

The circuit breaker panel directly behind the captain’s seat contains the circuit breakers for both the CVR and DFDR. Thus it is evident that the captain would have been in the best position to manually pull the CVR circuit breaker at the time it stopped.

The DFDR stopped recording approximately six minutes after the CVR did so. There was no evidence of any malfunction of the DFDR until the moment it stopped … It can be concluded that the DFDR stoppage was not due to a loss of power. However, the stoppage could be explained by someone manually pulling the circuit breaker.

The NTSC suggests that the cessation of the CVR and FDR could in each case be explained by a broken wire. Although technically correct, the probability of two such unrelated wire breaks occurring several minutes apart and affecting only the CVR and DFDR is so highly improbable that it cannot be considered realistic.

For the full article from Flight Safety Australia, click here (http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2008/feb/18-28.pdf).

[Centaurus]

Those present at the subsequent civil court case in Singapore will recall things given in evidence including, among other things:
The British expert witness giving his personal opinion that the first indications were that of a progressive electrical failure (his testimony). When asked to explain his theory he said the CVR circuit breaker popped first followed a few minutes later by the popping of both FDR circuit breakers.

He then theorised a crack appeared in the windscreen and alarmed one of the pilots so much that he put the aircraft into an emergency descent but forgot to make a radio call warning other aircraft of the emergency descent.

This pilot (no inference was made by this expert witness WHICH pilot was PF at the time) then in his panic to descend, not only forgot to extend the speed brakes but also omitted to close the thrust levers and omitted to recover as the overspeed warning sounded and in all probability inadvertently held his thumb on the stabiliser trim switch for 12 seconds so that when the wreckage was discovered the stabiliser trim jack-screw was found in the maximum full forward or down position.

Strangely enough, just before the FDR was disabled by the action of both circuit breakers popping, it took the reading of the position of the stabiliser position and recorded close to five units which equates to normal cruise. In the cruise flaps up configuration the stabiliser strim runs much more slowly than with flaps extended which is why it takes 12 seconds of continuous thumb switch depression to go from five units of stab trim to full nose down electrically.

This pilot regardless of his experience FORGOT to do an awful lot of things.
Later evidence from the Indonesian inquiry mentioned that it is technically possible to differentiate between a circuit breaker popping electrically or being pulled manually. As the circuit breakers were located in the wreckage it was stated the investigation confirmed the circuit breakers had been pulled - not popped. Also to inadvertently hold down the stabiliser trim switch for 12 seconds is quite unusual as most 737 pilots would probably agree.

Evidence was produced during the court case that the captain had on an earlier flight with a local first officer, deliberately conducted a take off by firewalling one throttle at the start of the take off run when the N1 on that engine was around five percent less than the serviceable other engine.

This split throttle take off was recorded in the technical log (maintenance release) by the captain who after take off decided to return and land. The cause of the defect was a leaking fuel control unit. It also came out in evidence that when the captain started the engine prior to taxiing it took a long time to light up - well beyond the maximum of 10 seconds limit stated in the 737 FCOM. Again this was the first sign that the engine had a problem - but it was ignored by both pilots of that particular trip. .

In evidence, an expert witness qualified as a 737 pilot and produced by Silk Air, was asked by the court whether he would have continued a take off with a split throttle at such a low speed at the start of the take off run. He replied he would have no problem with that action and that was why pilots were paid such high salaries because they needed to make split second decisions (I kid you not...)

When his evidence was completed he walked past the expert witnesses for the relatives of the deceased and leaning over quietly said "He should never have taken off - but I couldn't say that - I'm on the other side" - or similar phrased sentence. In other words, he quietly agreed with the opposition that the captain was capable of making an irrational action. The unusual actions by the captain on previous flights was brought out in evidence, with one Silk Air pilot called to the stand where he described some violent aircraft handling by the deceased captain. This violent handling included full range control wheel rolling on final approach in order to lose height quickly after the aircraft was deemed too high. The copilot was able to push open both throttles and force a go-around. It was this incident that resulted in the captain being demoted. A letter from another former Silk Air captain was produced in court and this stated he had elected not to renew his contract with the company because he feared for his safety after taking over from any aircraft flown by the deceased captain known for his irrational behaviour and high speed flight beyond the stated limitations.

Mention is made in an earlier post of the possibilty of a uncommanded rudder hard over during cruise. Simulator tests revealed that recovery from such an event at high altitude was easily attainable by a competent pilot. Both pilots involved in the crash had been certified competent to recover from unusual attitudes.

As someone said earlier, we are no closer to proving the truth of the matter. If the British expert witness is to be believed (the court accepted his evidence with apparently no reservations), a mysterious and unexplained series of electrical events caused such consternation on the flight deck that one or both of the crew lost the plot and placed the aircraft into a near vertical dive. The opposing point of view is well documented.

[Blacksheep]

The reports, including detailed analysis of aircraft and debris trajectories, as well as a Boeing comparison of estimated flight conditions with the flutter envelope, are available on-line for anyone who is interested. Though the graphs and charts suffer from the usual confusion of differing scale measurements, one doesn't need to be an engineering genius to unravel them.

Once a belief in a particular causal theory sets in there is always a danger that the facts may be forced into supporting that theory. One prefers to muse around the hard facts of the debris field and puzzle out the order of events as far as possible. The suicide assumption may well be correct, but that doesn't rule out sifting through the pieces for other possibilities.

One thing is for sure, once the elevators are detached from an aeroplane that is designed such that the tail surfaces apply a downwards force to hold the nose up in normal trimmed flight (as is the case with B737/B757/B767 et al) it is going to nose over and head down very rapidly. Thus, the question of which came first - elevator detachment or overspeed - is the key to unlocking the root cause.

I am only asking a question. "Why were the elevator and stabiliser tips so far from the impact point, when all other parts, including the ailerons and wingtips, were gathered together at the impact site?

[training wheels]

Thus, the question of which came first - elevator detachment or overspeed - is the key to unlocking the root cause.

This could have been easily answered if the FDR was working properly. But damn, the FDR decided to fail just prior to its fatal descent. Pfft! How friggin unlucky is that!! :rolleyes:

[Centaurus]

One prefers to muse around the hard facts of the debris field and puzzle out the order of events as far as possible.

No wrap arounds for the above quote because for some reason the click on the icon is not working.

Good point about the hard facts. Presumably that would include the hard fact on the FDR that a few seconds before the dive started the FDR recorded cruise stab trim in normal position for that phase of flight yet the stab trim jackscrew was found among the wreckage in full trim forward position. An in-flight break up would not cause the stab trim screw jack to gradually unwind itself coincidently full forward.

One of the more outlandish statements given to the civil court by the British expert witness (not a pilot) when asked for his opinion why the engines were at high power at impact, was that whoever was in the cockpit at the time of the impact had deliberately pushed open the throttles in the near vertical dive in order to raise the nose. No sane pilot would have ever have tried that trick. Especially as the speed brakes were also retracted. When you read the accident report and then listen to testimony in the subsequent civil court case the series of utterly amazing "coincidences" are difficult to dismiss as just coincidences.

[leftseatview]

Did the CVR also stop?
Could a stabilizer run away(it is electrical) be followed by total electrical failure.
Pilots with milatary/aerobatic background may consider adding power to pitch up the nose.
But then the Capt also had a prior incident where he pulled the FDR/CVR cbs in flight.
The main argument in favour of the sucide theory is that the A/C trajectory as seen on radar, can only be attained if it is intentionally put into a power on dive(a military manoevre) and the stab moved full down.
No failure/other scenerio can quite replicate that same vertical dive trajectory acheived in this case.

[nortwinds]

Parabellum, with respect, you miss the whole point that, to use Blacksheep's warning against forcing facts into supporting theory, there was no evidence to support what someone else called "Black Rumours" against the captain. There is no valid reason to suggest that SilkAir had any suicidal captain at all.

There is however, evidence that there was a systems failure that put the co-pilot in control of an aircraft beyond his ability to handle the situation.

You resist extending the investigation to the co-pilot yet again abuse the Singaporean captain and both the Singaporean and the Indonesian authorities.

Training wheels, the Flight Safety Australia feature reminding that SilkAir MI 185 was still unresolved after what was then 10 years did not take the debate any further forward.

It simply repeated a page of "Black Rumour" against the captain and blocked off the co-pilot in a paragraph.

This was disappointing as I understand the Australian CASA authority have or had staff who had previously been significantly responsible for the training of the co-pilot in New Zealand and who might have been able to add some more detail to the background of the co-pilot.

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Here are some interesting facts, Parker Hannifin lost the US lawsuit.

Lawsuits and Compensation
The incident led to several lawsuits in Singapore and the US against SilkAir, Boeing and other manufacturers of the aircraft's parts. Many of these cases were eventually settled out of court. The first trial took place in the Singapore high court in 2001, where the families of six victims sued SilkAir for negligence and sought higher damages than what the airline had offered them. The basis of their lawsuit was that the pilot or co-pilot had caused the crash. However the judge dismissed the case; their subsequent appeal was also rejected. Most of the other families had already accepted SilkAir's compensation of between US$140,000 and US$200,000 per victim.

Boeing and several aircraft-part manufacturers were also sued in various US states by some of the victims' families. In 2004, in the first US trial, the jury in the Los Angeles superior court found that defects in the plane's rudder control system were to blame and the court ordered the manufacturer Parker Hannifin to pay US$43.6 million to the families of three victims; neither Boeing nor SilkAir were found to be at fault. Evidence of the faulty rudder had been recovered in 2003. After news of the discovery emerged, Boeing dropped its claim that pilot suicide had caused the crash and withdrew its lawsuit against SilkAir, and SilkAir's insurer likewise dropped its lawsuit against Boeing.

[training wheels]

So lawyers came up with the cause of the crash, yet professional accident investigators couldn't come to a conclusion? Yeah, right. :ugh:

[Centaurus]

There is however, evidence that there was a systems failure that put the co-pilot in control of an aircraft beyond his ability to handle the situation.


What evidence? That is crap. There was no shortage of evidence presented in court that pointed to the captain's basic incompetency. But this was studiously disregarded. Reading through transcripts of the proceedings there is nothing that remotely suggested that the first officer was not proficient.

I am reminded of the old saying "there's none so blind as he who will not see".

[leftseatview]

i am surprised that the lawyers decided to add this accident to the other 2 Rudder Hardover ones(Colorado Springs and Pittsburg).Because the Flight Safety folks have certainly not gone down that path.

[parabellum]

Nortwinds - I refer you to Centaurus, (who I happen to know), who knows far more about this crash than anyone else on this board.

[nortwinds]

Centaurus, Parabellum, you are absolutely correct that there was "evidence" presented in court against the captain - and nothing that suggested that the copilot was not proficient. That is my very point.

However, much of that "evidence" against the captain, and protection of the copilot, was given by another copilot out of the same system as the MI 185 copilot. I believe the other copilot was called a "key witness".

If you do indeed know "far more about this crash than anyone else on this board" would you like to comment upon the Palmerston North newspaper reports of the time, that the copilots' training school was already under investigation by both the New Zealand education and the aviation authorities.

I am sure that if the captain's Asian training school had been under similar investigation by the Singaporean education and aviation authorities then this would have been used in evidence against him.

[parabellum]

that the copilots' training school was already under investigation by both the New Zealand education and the aviation authorities.

Bit of a red herring there nortwinds. What were the school under investigation for? The deceased FO in question not only passed all tests to the satisfaction of the NZ CAA, (not the training school), but also passed the Silk Air training system both at initial training and his subsequent periodic checks, to the satisfaction of the company and the CAAS. The training school being under investigation was/is irrelevant.

The captain was known to be an excellent pilot when it came to handling an aircraft, with a very sound training and subsequent career in the RSAF under his belt. The deceased captain's ability to fly the aircraft has never been in doubt, but his management of an aircraft and a flight has.

[Centaurus]

I believe the other copilot was called a "key witness".

I don't know about a "key" witness but the person you refer to certainly was crewed with the captain in question on several occasions. His evidence was compelling. Interestingly, both the counsel for the defence and the judge accepted his evidence without resorting to the harsh blow-torch cross-examination they had both applied on earlier expert witnesses for the dead passengers. Lost for words maybe?

It was also instructive to observe how the defence counsel and the beak went real easy on defence expert witnesses. Some could argue there was clear bias. I wonder why? Maybe this thread should be wrapped up now, as there is nothing to be gained by sniping away at a subject which, like the Mount Erebus Air New Zealand accident, will forever arouse emotions on both sides.

[inderaputra]

Slander against both the dead pilots serves no purpose. Let it be; there are many accidents where the truth can never be determined. Give it a rest.

For the families of the victims of the tragedy, sue whoever they like to get what they want if they have deep pockets but at the end of the day, the absolute may never surface.

[nortwinds]

Centaurus, you are happy to talk of "the captain's basic incompetency" yet when I raise the background of a training system failure (which is not a criticism of the co-pilot himself) you suggest that this thread should be wrapped up.

Like Erebus, the SilkAir tragedy will become a case-study not just of the disaster itself but also of the challenges of investigation.

SilkAir has to be kept open and resolved, not just as a matter of justice for those killed, but to publically identify the causes and hopefully inhibit similar disasters in future.

Remember this was mass murder of commercial passengers - not a simple recreational accident, Inderaputra.

Parabellum mentions the NZ CAA. The reality at the time was that it simply rubber-stamped the output of the training school and no one above a clerical worker would have known anything at all about the co-pilot or that he would be going straight into a responsible airline position without the 2-3,000 hours of consolidation experience in general aviation that was the normal standard at that time in New Zealand before competing for entry to the airlines. SilkAir, however, would have been unaware of this and would have accepted him and assessed him on the assumption of an assured background.

[Luke SkyToddler]

nortwinds - stop dancing around the edges and just come out and say what you believe - you have spent 3 pages of this thread making lots and lots of little sinister implications and allegations and vague statements always pointing very slightly towards Duncan, without actually saying what we all know you are trying to say.

I don't know if you're doing this because you are a misguided mate of Tsu, or if you're stirring the pot trying trying get info for a new angle for another lawsuit, or some other reason, but trying to somehow muddy the waters by involving Massey School of Aviation and the NZCAA in your conspiracy theory is the most bizarre thing I've heard about this accident yet. In fact my friend no matter HOW hard you try and smear the FO, I do believe you will find the mud is not going to stick.

It's very clear you have an agenda here so let's have it on the table, then the people who know the FACTS can rip you to ribbons properly. It's only pprune after all not exactly a court of law what are you afraid of.

[parabellum]

Thanks Luke, good post. Nortwinds you have now belittled the NZ commercial pilots licence to nothing more than a piece of paper, stamped by a clerk of the NZ CAA, endorsing the training of any dodgy flying school in NZ, without any consideration of satisfactory levels of competency. Do you really believe that? Your insinuation that Duncan was the product of a dodgy flying school who may have obtained his licence by other than honest hard work and proper competency checks is way, way below the belt and I would hope to see it challenged by many other NZ licence holders.

You seriously under estimate the Singaporean CAAS if you think they don't do a lot of back ground checking before they will issue a reciprocal licence, there are still many countries whose licence they don't accept and require the applicant to sit the Singapore exams.

Now, please, respond to Luke Sky Toddler's post above.

[nortwinds]

Luke and Parabellum, I thought my agenda was completely clear - justice for those who died; and the opportunity to learn from the tragedy and improve aviation safety in future.

I appreciate the annominity of PPRUNE - sort of like pulling the CB of the CVR - and will not abuse it. I chose my words carefully and say nothing I would not be prepared to support with written evidence in court.

Yes, I could be blunt and say what I am as sure as it is possible to be, about what the evidence indicates happened in the cockpit. However you have already said in advance that you would rip me to ribbons. To be acceptable, the truth has to be teased out and accepted, however reluctantly, stage by stage.

I have just done a websearch for information on the copilots' flying school and suggest you do the same to see that problems with it are well known. The practical training - the so-called practicum - was then done with Garudu - and again you may wish to consider the current threads on that airline and some pertinant comments.

Between the copilot getting his CPL and the tragedy, the NZ CAA did try to investigate the flying school but again the Singaporean CAAS would have been unaware of this and would have accepted his NZ CPL at its face value.

While checking the website for the training school I was reminded of the other student fatals of ZKMBI, ZKMBD and ZKMBL, and of the fatal of 22 July 2009 in an aircraft from New Plymouth. I also know of one other where an instructor died in PNG with a full load of passengers.

Reading the recent thread on the New Plymouth fatal was instructive in its comments on the pilots' instructors.

In summary, and especially when an agressive examination of one pilot was unsucessful, there is more than enough substance to justify a proper investigation of the other pilot.

[Massey058]

I am very offended by the slanderous implications you are making. Sadly most training schools suffer fatal accidents and certainly have former students who have accidents.

I knew the New Plymouth pilot personally and also know very well his instructors. Everyone was very shocked by what happened, it does not seem cut and dry.

The original MBI accident although certainly still a bit mysterious seems to have fatigue as a central factor.

MBD and MBL had factors including inherent blind spots and poor airspace management. It still took over a year after the accident to establish a dedicated traffic frequency in what has increasingly become a very busy training area.

Are there faults with the organisation? Absolutely! However, that aside being in the pilot workforce for some time now I am proud of the training I received and its clear that it has given me a good platform to build on.

I have met and discussed the the 185 accident with an investigator who was involved with it at the time. What he said very compelling and certainly makes it clear that pilot suicide by the captain was the most likely cause.

[nortwinds]

Massey058, as with others, you again seek to perpetuate the "black rumours" against the Singaporean captain, yet are offended by a simple call to investigate the background of the ex-pat copilots.

You say that most training schools have fatal accidents, yet a fatal during the captain's background was argued to be a cause of him supposedly killing every person on board. Those are double standards.

Now, what exactly did your 185 investigator discuss with you that was so compelling and yet outside of what is already claimed and under challenge.

And if I am not back on line before the 19th of December then I am sure all will remember the underlying human tragedy of SilkAir MI 185. RIP

[parabellum]

investigate the background of the ex-pat copilots.

Be it good or bad there is nothing in the background of the First Officer on this SilkAir flight that would give any cause, whatsoever, to even wonder if he may have been involved in a very high speed, full power on, dive into a river with the flight recorder CBs pulled. On the other hand, the background of the captain speaks volumes. Duncan was a young man on the threshold of an airline career with everything to go for. The captain, an ex RSAF Major, I believe, thought he should have been a trainer on the B744 with SIA mainline but had been rejected by SIA and found himself as a line pilot with SilkAir on the 737 having recently been demoted from a training position for very non standard behaviour.

Why this pre-occupation with the FOs background?

[Luke SkyToddler]

Even if I bought into this utter nonsense for a second, which I don't, your line of reasoning is a complete red herring

It should be

1) First, prove to all of us here assembled that a failure involving the incredibly unlucky and catastrophic simultaneous failure of the CVR, the FDR, the thrust control and the forward trim position took place :rolleyes:

2) THEN, assuming it was an accident, extend your line of reasoning to prove why you think it was the FO not the captain at the controls at the time

3) THEN, explain to us exactly why you think that person was unable or unwilling to recover the aircraft manually

4) Once you've done that, can you please demonstrate how some hypothetical flaw in that individual's basic flying training mysteriously went undetected throughout all the advanced training, B737 rating, line training and line flying, how it was not discussed or even considered as a possible causal factor by no less than THREE different national accident investigation bodies, and not picked up on by numerous highly qualified compensation lawyers searching for someone else to sue, and yet how it has now become the prime suspect in YOUR personal line of enquiry.

Until you have satisfactorily laid out your reasoning that's led you through these four steps, please stop making distasteful references to unrelated investigations of flying schools (which, you have somehow failed to mention, was an investigation nothing to do with safety whatsoever but was in fact an investigation of the financial status of certain students at the helicopter school!) I have no love for Massey whatsoever - in fact I despise their management, their marketing strategies, and during the short time I worked as an instructor for them I was treated extremely badly - but their training standards are at least as high as any other school in NZ - i.e. damn high.

None of that has got ANYTHING to do with flight 185 however, and you know it. As I said, and you agreed with me in post 31 of this thread, this was an act of mass murder. Duncan could have been a space shuttle commander or got his licence from a packet of third world cornflakes and it doesn't really matter - like all the other people on that flight, he was a victim of Tsu's crime, not a perpetrator.

That is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the pilot community based on the hard facts presented at the time, and also that of the NTSB.
Your persistent and bizarre attempts to find non existent flaws in the FO's background and somehow implicate him in the causes of this are completely unsupported by evidence, they are in fact as baseless as they are distressing for his friends and relatives.

[anito4a]

Well said Luke SkyToddler.

Nortwinds, before your next post, could you kindly respond to all of Luke SkyToddler's points?

And what's your motive for trying to direct the blame on to the co-pilot of MI 185? Are you a lawyer for one of the victim's family?

[millerscourt]

anito4a

Please don't invite further responses from Nortwinds who has an agenda all of his own.

I agree totally with parabellum as we were all there at the time in Singapore.

Nothing more is going be gained by further discussions as the high speed descent saw to any light being shed on this incident. Tsu knew that would be the case.

[Lee]

Today is the 12th anniversary of the MI 185 crash.

Sequence of Events

On 19 December 1997, a SilkAir Boeing B737-300 aircraft, registration 9V-TRF, was on a scheduled commercial international passenger flight under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), routing Singapore – Jakarta – Singapore.

The flight from Singapore to Jakarta operated normally. After completing a normal turnaround in Jakarta the aircraft departed Soekarno-Hatta International Airport for the return leg.

At 08:37:13 (15:37:13 local time) the flight (MI 185) took off from Runway 25R with the Captain as the handling pilot. The flight received clearance to climb to 35,000 feet (Flight Level 350) and to head directly to Palembang 6. At 08:47:23 the aircraft passed FL245. Ten seconds later, the crew requested permission to proceed directly to PARDI7.

The air traffic controller instructed MI 185 to standby, to continue flying directly to Palembang and to report when reaching FL350. At 08:53:17, MI 185 reported reaching FL350. Subsequently, the controller cleared MI 185 to proceed directly to PARDI and to report when abeam Palembang.

At 09:05:15.6, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) ceased recording. According to the Jakarta ATC transcript, at 09:10:18 the controller informed MI 185 that it was abeam Palembang. The controller instructed the aircraft to maintain FL350 and to contact Singapore Control when at PARDI. The crew acknowledged this call at 09:10:26. There were no further voice transmissions from MI 185. The last readable data from the flight
data recorder (FDR) was at 09:11:27.4. Jakarta ATC radar recording showed that MI 185 was still at FL350 at 09:12:09. The next radar return, eight seconds later, indicated that MI 185 was 400 feet below FL350 and a rapid descent followed.

The last recorded radar data at 09:12:41 showed the aircraft at FL195. The empennage of the aircraft subsequently broke up in flight and the aircraft crashed into the Musi River delta, about 28 kilometres north east of Palembang. The accident occurred in daylight and in good weather condition.

Source: NTSB report

[leftseatview]

That corresponds to a ROD(Rate of descent) of about 30,000 feet per minute.
Dont Know of any other A/C accident with such a high ROD.
Best compared with any Stab runaway cases,if anywhere near that high.
Are such high RODs possibly during intentional combat manoevering by military pilots?

[arba]

That corresponds to a ROD(Rate of descent) of about 30,000 feet per minute

that's what I heard (from a very competent person at that time), that they could not "duplicate" it on the sim.

[Sky Dancer]

Does that explain why the engines were at full thrust , to try and force a pitch up moment ?:ok:

[wongsuzie]

faced with this situation, and 'reverting to early training', what self- preservating instinct will make firewalling the throttles when hurtling towards the ground?

[nortwinds]

Luke, I have already argued that the odds were that it was virtually impossible for a mechanical failure to follow any CVR "failure". ie it was not an accident. So we agree on that, and we agree that it was mass murder. That all fits the descent profile.

Then the last undisputable evidence was that it was the copilot who was at the controls up to a minute or so before the tragedy. There is no evidence that the captain took back, or indeed did not take back, control.

And I think your reference to a training school investigation was to a different investigation of the same school.

[millerscourt]

In order to pull both CB's the Captain could not have done this whilst in his seat as it would be obvious what he was doing. He would have needed to be out of his seat and his body shielding his pulling of the CB's which would have then gone unnoticed. From then on nobody knows who is doing what.

[parabellum]

Millerscourt, thank you too. I agree with you that there is no feasible alternative to the captain having pulled the CBs - as it was a billion to one that it was a double mechanical failure. This gives us another line in the sand.

So we know:
- the disaster was not due to mechanical failure;
- the captain switched off the cockpit recorders; and
- the aircraft descended with maximum power on.

However,
1) the captain was no more in debt than the average pilot - and pilots are not automatically grounded for normal debt;
2) demotions do happen - and again pilots are not automatically grounded as part of every demotion; and
3) every disaster has a 10th anniversary, including MI 185 - and the survivors again are not automatically grounded as part of having survived.

If these aspects, individually, or combined, or in the character of this particular captain, were not important enough before the accident, then why are they argued to be so crucial after it.

It was, however, useful to be reminded that MI 185 was not just suicide, but also mass murder - and my understanding is that unresolved murder cases are never closed.


1) the captain was no more in debt than the average pilot - and pilots are not automatically grounded for normal debt;

How many millions SGD does one have to be in debt to still be considered 'normal'?

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Chaps,

Am not here to stir ****e or take sides just looking at this as an accident. And if, and I say if some obscure failure did occur a lot of people would have mud on their faces. Research Captain Foot can't assure you if the spelling is correct but the accident was SIN BOAC RWY overrun. He was blamed but in actuality it was a problem never before encountered and has resulted in safer techniques for all of us.

MH653 was a B732 that did a power on dive went Mach, ROD approx 30,000fpm The tail section inclusive of stab did not detach and was found with the wreckage within a very small radii debris field. Of course that was a hijack and both pilots were shot dead. The Captain was a very close friend of mine.

Maybe this was a suicide maybe an obscure failure. I really don't know. Personally I would rather like to believe it was a suicide as this puts closure to a terrible horrific accident and we have a known cause. But if it is a latent problem with the 737 then I hate to think of this ticking time bomb going off again and the pain and anguish faced by passengers and crew.

Just my penny's worth.

Wooblah

[leftseatview]

MH 653 did not dive at 30000 fpm, as per the FDR it did a series of stall and recoveries(consistent with A/P off and no pilot intervention...there were 3 shots ...so appearently the hijacker shot himself too)
The boeing 737s(200s and later variants too) hidden bug was the rudder hard over problem.
IMHO it is statistically very unlikely that there is yet another bug waiting to bite.
An interesting descent profile comparision would be with the Egypt Air 767 suspected siucide/mass murder.
By the way that suspect was also ex-milatary
What would make the 737 safer would be a flight envelope protection system like on the airbus family.
The Turkish crash on approcah at Amsterdam is the latest 737 stall down accident.

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Left seat view,

So you have seen the FDR data of MH 653??

Can you please explain the near vertical dive and a debris field as small if not smaller in radii than silkair?? Futhermore can you also explain the depth of the nose in the swamp and its vertical trajectory into such. Additionally please explain why it took months to recover the cockpit due to it's depth in the mud. It surfaced eventually due to air trapped within.

Wooblah.

[leftseatview]

Wooblah,
a quick web search seems to suggest that only the CVR is refered to(shots fired,cockpit door forced etc)
There is mention of oscillations....and a low forward velocity and high vertical velocity(suggestive of a stall)
if you are aware of other details of the sad event and knew capt Ganjoor,
perhaps you could share it on the thread which has been running for quite a while on MH 653 on this forum
This thread is on Silkair MI 185...and the possibility of it being an intentional act of mass murder by the Capt
If you think there is some link between the two...perhaps you could explain your conjecture clearly

[nortwinds]

Parabellum, why not ask how much debt the copilot was in after an expensive flying school and after flying with Garuda on trainee wages? For the captain, I have seen but do not have to hand, figures that seemed within a normal range to me. My point is that if we ask a question of the captain, we should also ask it of the copilot.

Captain Wooblah, thank you for your recognition of the "ticking time bomb" which underlies my arguements for extending the investigation to the copilot. Unfortunately, the fact that the tragedy was almost certainly suicide (as well as mass murder) does not defuse the situation as until the full circumstances of MI 185 are recognised, then those same circumstances could repeat.

Leftseatview, with respect, as I started this thread, it is most certainly not about any possibility of it being any intentional act of mass murder by the captain - and is quite the reverse - as I believe the balance of evidence points towards a systems failure with the copilot.

[parabellum]

Nortwinds - In your post I have quoted above you say:

So we know:
- the disaster was not due to mechanical failure;
- the captain switched off the cockpit recorders; and
- the aircraft descended with maximum power on.

and now you say:

as I believe the balance of evidence points towards a systems failure with the copilot.

Yet no such evidence exists, so how do you come to this incredible conclusion?

[training wheels]

Parabellum, why not ask how much debt the copilot was in after an expensive flying school and after flying with Garuda on trainee wages? For the captain, I have seen but do not have to hand, figures that seemed within a normal range to me. My point is that if we ask a question of the captain, we should also ask it of the copilot.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on PPrune. Nortwinds, most newbie pilots who finance their own flight training will be in debt at the start of their career. If you didn't know that, then I doubt that you are connected in any way to the aviation industry. How else do you think other young pilots deal with this situation? They work hard, get promoted and then pay their debt off once they start earning a decent wage as a senior F/O or Captain. They don't go committing suicide because of it. :rolleyes: You are a real loony, nortwinds. :rolleyes:

[parabellum]

Anyone seen Nortwinds? Some questions are still unanswered.

[slayerdude]

my 2cents worth....
I had a look again at the Nat Geo aircrash investigation on MI185...
all factual evidence was indeed laid out logically.
possibly causes as we all know

1) pilot suicide
2) mechanical failure

for both these causes, there has been inconclusive evidence to actually point the almighty finger.

The findings was classified as unresolved by Nat Geo... indeed this is also the offcial finding.

Sometimes air crash investigations will be unconclusive due to available evidence.... I suspect that is what we can expect of AF447....

What has happen here now is here say... Indeed the voice recorder was disconnected... but was it the captain.... no way to tell really......

rudder actuator failure.... again possible but actuator valve was recovered and tested ...ops normal.....

another possibility is could the airplane have been pranked on an earlier sector but was not written up..... perhaps some structural failure????

too many possibilities... as the evidenence is inadequate to make a conclusion.... let us allow the dead to rest in peace... law suits have all been settled... people have moved on..... MI185 will however always be a mystery.....

[nortwinds]

Slayerdude, thank you for joining the debate but to update you: mechanical failure is effectively ruled out as the odds against first a CVR failure then immediately afterwards an unrelated mechanical failure, are just too huge.

Also the main Nat Geo point, if I remember correctly, was of a microscopic irregularity in the only bit of wreckage to otherwise and amazingly survive pristine. So that leaves suicide and murder, or murder and suicide.

LukeST, you say you were an instructor at the MI 185 copilots flying school so could I please ask you what the selection processes were at that school, firstly for entry to flying training, and secondly for selection for an airline position.

Massey 058, you have yet to share with us the "compelling" thoughts of your investigator.

Training wheels, I do not know the finances of the particular copilot, but we all know that generally young pilots, who are not selected for military training, have to invest heavily in training to get started. I am most certainly not suggesting they commit suicide because of it, of course not, so why argue that the captain committed suicide because of debt. We have to treat both pilots equally and I do not believe either pilot committed suicide, or murder, for financial reasons.

Finally, I will copy relevant extracts from an open letter to a local flying newsletter. It was written a few weeks after the MI 185 tragedy but makes no reference at all to it.

"My name is xxx xxx. Under paid over worked ya ya ya you know that story well!!! ..... I can't afford to be a fully paid up member to fly there three or four days per year. ..... A little about me Is in order I think. 26 years old, raised in Wellington, was an Automotive Engineer for a few years till the flying bug really kicked in. Worked and went gliding, the latter as much as the former permitted. Soon had inspirations of having a job a "little higher" in life. So went to xxx xxx and did the Bav. Ended up being one of the few to go to Garuda Indonesia, based in Jakareta.. So went from flying PA34-220T aircraft with a mere 190 hours total time to B737-300/400/500 aircraft. I don't think I need to say just how much of a "lucky break" and career booster it was! Did that for three years, till the recent uprisings in Indonesia forced us out to fairer pastures. You may be interested in passing to note the current going rate of the pound of flesh there..... After the currency DEVALUATION we received in our hands on our final pay 3,400,000 Rp (Rupiah) = 242 US$ (for a month)!!!!!! Yes we did live off the credit cards a lot!!"

[slayerdude]

I really feel for the writer of the open letter... especially at times like this where avaition is at the bottom end of the provebial wave... guys do get screwed around alot... as the ones that have been lucky in aviation will attest that its all about timing!!!

notwinds ... I just can't accept some arguments nor can I dispel some arguments simply because the evident is found wanting and not concrete. In other words the evidence can be distorted to advantage any party. this we have seen lawyers do during the legal proceedings for the class action suits against Boeing and Silkair(separate cases)... the same evidence used to advantage a certain group.

I was lucky to to able to do an A&I investigation course conducted by RMIT, and have learned that an inconclusive verdict is possible if and when the material and evident of the accident or incident is found wanting... as I said earlier ... AF447 will probably suffer the same fate...
Indeed very difficult to accept as closure is always important for situations like MI185... however as most pilots are blessed with a logical thought process... if we do remove emotion out of the argument... there can only be one verdict... INCONCLUSIVE... and please accept that in no way am i running down anybody's view here... this is a personal view after reviewing the fact and material.

[Massey058]

nortwinds,

I originally intended my post to be a PM but in typing it on my phone I somehow ended up posting it publicly. I don't wish to go into further what the person who I talked to said. It was a private conversation, although compelling started on my curiosity over the circumstances and the link with one of the victims coming from my training school.

Take that as you will but some of you're reasoning and lines of questioning are flawed. To be pedantic with the quote the school never had PA34-220T's in the 90's. They arrived in 2003. Prior to that multi-training was on PA44-180T's and latterly PA44-180's.

[Luke SkyToddler]

It's freely available information nortwinds, why don't you ring Massey up and ask them, or go and inspect the place yourself, I'm sure they'll be glad to show you round.

In fact since you're so sure of the facts, why don't you get off the internet and go tell the Singapore CAAS what you know and arrange an all-guns-blazing dawn raid on this terrible dodgy flying school. I'm sure they'll be really happy that your detective work has solved this long-outstanding mystery for them. Or alternatively, they might call the psychiatric police and take you away in a white van. :hmm:

I'll talk about Massey with you all day long, just as soon as YOU provide clear and concisely reasoned answers to the 4 questions I posed to you in my previous post (#62), which you have conveniently failed to do. Again.

In fact forget about that, all you have to do is provide us here with ONE single, solitary, no-matter-how-tiny, piece of actual EVIDENCE - or find ONE credible witness statement, that can point towards Duncan or his training background as having any bearing whatsoever on this case. Until then, it's kind of pointless discussing things further with you.

And my friend, unless YOU can provide proper answers to MY questions, or find someone who clearly isn't a complete bloody lunatic, to support your line of enquiry here on pprune, can I politely suggest that you get off this forum for professional aviators, and go find a new home on a forum discussing alien abductions or area 52 or something slightly more suited to your obsessive-compulsive-sinister-conspiracy flogging-a-dead-horse nature.

Can I also ask the mods to consider closing this thread if it degenerates into any deeper levels of bizarreness, I don't know his family but if I was Duncan's parents reading this I'd find it pretty deeply upsetting that this kind of level of nonsense was being talked about regarding their dead son.

[Sky Dancer]

I wonder why people are trying to point fingers at Duncan Ward unless you were a close friend of Tsu's and you're trying to shift the blame.All the evidence points to an intentional act of putting that aircraft into that manouvre and the probability of Tsu having done it is very high.The rudder hard over theory does not hold much weight because in all the previous cases of rudder hard over it happened when the aircraft had descended from cruise altitude and were in the initial or intermediate approach.The huge temperature change is what caused the PCUs to malfunction the way they did.I wonder how the courts accepted this claim in the first place.:ok:

[millerscourt]

Sky Dancer

It is not "people" pointing fingers at Duncan but just Nortwinds who clearly has an agenda all of his own for reasons he is not telling us.

Where on earth the F/O trained at has to do with incident is a complete red herring all in Nortwind's crazy mind.

[nortwinds]

Slayerdude, thank you for your impartial comments but I believe the verdict of "inconclusive" is only a default situation because only the captain was examined in detail. The captain was deemed guilty within hours of the tragedy - and in the circumstances the "inconclusive" is a testimony to the logic and integrity of those who were only given access to half the facts.

Massey058 I respect your wish not to go further but it does mean that your arguement is not such "compelling" evidence for anyone else.

I have checked the source for the quote of PA34s and I am sorry if the type is incorrect but I did quote it exactly as written. I did not continue to quote the letter but the copilot had already gone on to better things.

LukeST, if the information about the flying school selection criteria for airline positions is freely available then could you or someone else please share it with us all. At the time, the lack of information about what the selection criteria were was one of the students' complaints that precipitated the educational investigation, then the CAA investigation, of the flying school. I will get back to you as soon as I can on your post 62 questions as they merit their own response.

Could I also gently remind you that there are not just one but 104 grieving families for whom all that can be offerred is justice and the opportuity to learn and improve safety for others.

Millerscourt, it is not where the co-pilot trained that is important in itself, but the whole process of his initial selection, classroom training and testing, flying training, flight testing, experience, certification, and selection for the airlines, that led to him being a copilot in a B737 - and how this compared with the more traditional selection, training and experience of the captain.

And why challenge whether I am a friend of the captain when others clearly show a friendship with the co-pilot. These double standards where comments can be made with complete impunity against the captain, yet calls be made to the moderator to close the thread when the co-pilot is discussed, are obvious and inequitable.

[Tee Emm]

One of the most intriguing aspects of this whole subject of who dunnit in the cockpit of MI 185 was a letter sent by a former Silk Air foreign captain to Silk Air management a few weeks before before the crash happened. It was later given to lawyers acting for the relatives of the dead passengers but was not offered as legal evidence of any blame. The foreign captain had been offered an extension to his employment contract. He thanked management for the offer of extension but declined stating that he never wanted to risk his life flying an aircraft after the deceased pilot was an operating crew member. He wrote that he was extremely critical of the way the deceased pilot conducted his flying with passengers saying the structural integrity of the aircraft was often compromised by the severe handling technique the deceased pilot was known to adopt while flying passengers. The captain who wrote that letter to Silk Air management was an experienced 737 contract captain from the Middle East. He voiced strong criticism of the system that allowed the deceased captain to carry on flying despite numerous evidence that he should have been grounded. For the Mods I hope this information does not cross Pprune editorial boundaries. If this is any possibility of this please remove the post.

[parabellum]

and how this compared with the more traditional selection, training and experience of the captain.



Total tosh!!! Tsu was ex military, have a glance through the pilot workforce of SIA and you will see that only a few actually come from the air force, be it SIA or SilkAir, the vast majority come through the SIA, in house, training network.

If you want to do a real witch hunt Nortwinds try comparing the SilkAir training records of the Capt and FO in question. I doubt these, complete and unedited, were made available to the enquiry.

[nortwinds]

LikeST, sorry but I thought we had moved on from your Post 62 questions - but you requested a response:

1) Nothing to prove here as we agree with other. I do not belive all those failures could or did take place one after the other. I believe the captain pulled the CBs - the final recordings support this, and no one challenges it. I then believe one of the pilots put the aircraft in. Again few, apart from Nat Geo, dispute that. The debate is simply which pilot (and to learn from it, why).

2) All we know from the recording is that the copilot was at the controls when the recordings ceased shortly before the aircraft was lost. Assuming the destruction was deliberate, and not mechanical, it does not matter who was actually at the controls as the other pilot had access to the "fire axe" referred to in earlier posts. I myself believe the copilot was still at the controls but it does not matter - the result was the same.

3) Assuming the destruction was suicide/murder, or murder/suicide, the pilot at the controls was either dead, disabled, or berserk.

4) The answer to this one is complex. Basic training flaws are important latent weaknesses (eg see the current Garuda and Adam Air threads) and investigators do go back to check training records. They did with the captain but not with the copilot.

How were the early weaknesses overlooked - well by definition that is the very danger of latent weaknesses. There is also halo effect, taking earlier things for granted. And in this particular investigation simply because of a close-off of this line of enquiry following an immediate diversion of blaming the captain. Some other contributors have used stronger words.

Personally, whenever I have suggested looking at the copilot there has been an emotional defensive reaction which presumeable stopped others who did not have the anominity of PPRuNe to support them. Yet by contrast, you refer to "Tsu's crime" with impunity.

Now, could you please answer my question on what were the criteria for selecting pilots for airline positions as being an instructor at the flying school one would assume you were aware of them.

[nortwinds]

Tee Emm, yes I have heard earlier suggestions of that letter yet by contrast Parabellum in his post 52 of 8 December said "the captain was known to be an excellent pilot when it came to handling an aircraft with a very sound training and subsequent career in the RSAF under his belt. The deceased captain's ability to fly the aircraft has never been in doubt, but his management of an aircraft and a flight has".

Perhaps your key word was "intriguing"

[parabellum]

You are grasping at straws Nortwinds. It was known that Tsu could fly an aircraft well, the facts were that frequently he didn't and was reported for it.

Having been rejected by SIA mainline and only offered SilkAir and then losing his training position Tsu's self esteem was low and he had lost a lot of 'face' amongst his RSAF friends and colleagues.

[slayerdude]

Having been rejected by SIA mainline and only offered SilkAir and then losing his training position Tsu's self esteem was low and he had lost a lot of 'face' amongst his RSAF friends and colleagues.


It's heresay! I know a 3rd party that said he was offered both when he applied, however time to command was shorter in Silkair, hence he took the obvious route.

Nortwinds... I agree that BOTH pilots must be looked at more carefully.However the very least we can all agree on is that there was no cause for premeditated suicide/murder... Tsu and Ward had people waiting for them!

[millerscourt]

slayerdude

You miss the point. Tsu may well have been offered a position in mainline for all I know but the point is he joined Silk Air and after his previous actions at Silk Air culminating in his loss of his Line Training position he was doomed as far as ever getting into mainline or ever getting any further in his career.

Loss of Face is all important to some in that region and he had also made huge losses on his and his parent's investments so was both professionally and personally a deeply troubled individual.

If Tsu had intent to suicide he would have covered his tracks by getting his wife to meet the flight and he would have acted normally on the turnround in Jakarta as he knew that this would be looked into. He also knew that with both the FDR and CVR CB's pulled ( something he had done previously!!) that in a dive with full power on that it would be impossible to prove exactly the cause of the incident.

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

So you guys are saying that Tsu was a brilliant genius that pulled off the crime of the century by murdering 103 people. Covering his tracks and destroying all evidence. I just don't buy it. It's too brilliant a plan. Something is amiss.

[nortwinds]

Thank you Captain Wooblah. I also do not buy it and never have.

Also Slaverdude, I fully agree that there is no reason why either pilot had any thought of suicide or murder when they got up that day, when they took off in MI 185, or even right up to the pulling of the CBs. It was only in the next final minute that something disasterous went wrong.

Looking at the NZ Evening Standard of 15/16 November 1995, it quotes the copilots' flying school Students' Association calling for "full and frank disclosure" of the educational investigation of the flying school with the school refusing and citing commercial sensitivities.

The NZ Ombudsman Sir Brian Elwood was therefore called in by the newspaper but even he could not access 3 of the 23 recomendations being kept secret.

The newspaper also reported that when the NZ CAA was finally moved to audit the school and withdraw its approval, the school took out a court injunction to not just stop the withdrawal but prevent the CAA authority from even publicising its decision to withdraw approval.

The Omsbudsman also said that evidence of the investigations had already been destroyed to prevent substantiation of some of the comments made.

There was therefore already in place a culture of cover-up over the training and assessment of the copilots that even the Ombudsman, who is a very powerful independent NZ government official, was unable to overcome.

Given this known background of both problems with the training and assessment of the copilots, and of cover-up, it is not surprising that the copilot of MI 185 has not yet been properly investigated and that the investigations to date therefore remain officially inconclusive.

It is ironic that in that era of the early days of Human Factors (for which Erebus was a major trigger) SilkAir MI 185 conveniently and immediately reverted right back to "Pilot eror - blame the Captain" so that everbody else could walk away.

[parabellum]

I fully agree that there is no reason why either pilot had any thought of suicide or murder when they got up that day, when they took off in MI 185, or even right up to the pulling of the CBs.


Nortwinds - Pure conjecture, manufactured to suit your strange, very strange agenda.

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Gentlemen,

Just as I think that The murder plan was too brilliant. I do not think the FO's training school or his initial flight training had anything to do with the accident.

Silkair and it's training syllabus would have professionally assessed his abilities and would not have let him clear to line unless he met the company standard which is as high a standard found anywhere in the world.

[parabellum]

Thank you Captain Wooblah, well said and so very true.

[nortwinds]

Parabellum, just what is conjecture, manufactured, or very strange about saying that two professional airline pilots got up and went to work that day without either of them planning to kill themselves and 103 others?

My main point however, is that there already was well recorded cover-up of the background that the copilot came from; and that it was therefore very likely that the cover-up would carry over to the investigation of SilkAir MI 185 and most probably explain why it was inconclusive.

[parabellum]

"... that there already was well recorded cover-up of the background that the copilot came from"


Would you please go into some detail about this so called 'cover-up' please, who covered up what? Or was certain information not presented as it was considered irrelevant?

As Captain Wooblah says:


I do not think the FO's training school or his initial flight training had anything to do with the accident.

Silkair and it's training syllabus would have professionally assessed his abilities and would not have let him clear to line unless he met the company standard which is as high a standard found anywhere in the world.

[nortwinds]

Parabellum, when court injunction is taken out against the aviation authority and ombudsman information requests refused, then there is indisputably a covering-up in the copilots' background.

Whether this information is relevant to MI 185 is not for the coverers-up to decide but should be for an open forum to decide - for which we presently only have PPRuNe.

At this stage we are looking at latent weaknesses and human factors which are more likely to show over time to captains in line oerations that in formal airline flight testing.

Interestingly, the current Erebus thread on DG and P Reporting Points has some relevant debate on continuing to discuss as-yet unresolved tragedies.

[millerscourt]

nortwinds

Two years ago CAPTAIN WOOBLAH told you that you were flogging a dead horse yet you are still flogging that same dead horse.

The only relevant background is Tsu's immediate one of demotion, personal and professional disgrace, loss of face and financial ruin.

[nortwinds]

Thank you Millerscourt but the discussion of the SilkAir MI 185 tragedy has developed considerably over the last couple of years and it will continue to progress.

To assist this progress, would you like to comment upon how much what you call the captain's "demotion, personal and professional disgrace, loss of face and financial ruin" was directly caused by a couple of two particular co-pilots.

[nortwinds]

Millerscourt, while awaiting your response, it may be of interest to mention an old novel called Airscream by John Bruce about a fictional NZ air disaster cover-up - co-incidently in the training area of the copilots' flying school.

Just fiction, of course, although no less a PPRuNer than Prospector said the author "certainly did his homework on ... the Aviation scene in NZ at the time'.

The novel, for that was all it was, and the plot is irrelevant, did however explore in detail how tensions could build up between pilots in an aircraft cockpit.

[millerscourt]

nortwinds

I was not going to reply as it is time to put this thread to bed as you clearly have an agenda all of your own in bringing it up time and time again when nothing further is going to be discovered.

However Tsu's financial ruin was caused by his own greed and stupidity. Losing a line training salary caused by his unusual way of operating was no big deal financially compared to his personal finances.

Yes he had to be reported by co pilots as he was flying dangerously. The days of F/O's sitting there and saying nothing is over.Perhaps flying with this particular F/O was just too much for him on the day and he flipped. We will never know whether he pre planned this or did it on the spur of the moment.

Please not lets have any more rubbish about where the F/O got his basic training.

This is my final word on the subject.

[nortwinds]

Millerscourt, my agenda remains simply as justice and as learning from the tragedy of SilkAir MI 185 to minimise the chances of it ever happening again.

There are few further facts to discover - probably the main outstanding fact is what the flying school process was to select which of its trainees were selected for the coveted airline entry positions as copilots with Garuda.

What we are doing now is reconsidering the known facts and we really are moving closer to discovering the truth. Your own contributions towards this are much appreciated and it would be disappointing if you left the debate.

However, you repeat, in your ongoing derogation of the captain, your claim to his "financial ruin". This was investigated by the Singapore Police who commented on the NTSC's draft Final Report that the claim of debt was "incorrect" and that "the pilot's realizable assets were higher than his loans and debts".

The involvement of the same couple of copilots in all the incidents, including the CVR incidents, leading right up to the final tragic flight is crtical; and this is the first forum in which this aspect has even started to be discussed.

Yes of course a copilot has a duty to speak up - but this is a very difficult area and it takes experience to know when and to know how to speak up.

In this particular case, quite apart from the cross-cultural aspect, there was a huge cockpit gradient in terms of knowledge and of experience. The background of the copilots is therefore very relevant in this comparison with the educated, experienced, ex-military captain.

[leftseatview]

fair enough

[nortwinds]

Thank you Leftseatview.

ICAO held its first Asia and Pacific regional seminar on cross-cultural issues in aviation safety in Bangkok from 12 to 14 August 1998 - less than a year after the SilkAir MI 185 tragedy.

The proceedings of the seminar record no mention of MI 185 even though the attendance list included some of the managers of the co-pilot's flying school.

Nevertheless, Ansett Australia presented a relevant paper "A tale of two cultures - Part 2" which clearly identified the very different cultural factors which would have underlain the captain and the copilot of MI 185.

The example Ansett used was of a Western captain, and an Eastern copilot - especially if ex-military. With MI 185, the situation was even more extreme with an ex-military captain and a New Zealand Western copilot.

It is surprising that the area of cross culture, with the same pilots being involved in all the ongoing incidents which culminated in the SilkAir MI 185 tragedy, has not yet been explored.

[WSSS]

I understand that Silk Air, today, have a number of western expat F/Os who are under the command of local Captains. If the company thought that this is an issue, then they would have already stopped this practice long ago. But they haven't.

It is surprising that the area of cross culture, with the same pilots being involved in all the ongoing incidents which culminated in the SilkAir MI 185 tragedy, has not yet been explored.

The reason why it hasn't been explored yet is because it is a non-issue.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Oh didn't you read that part of the ATPL human factors textbook WSSS, it is actually a well documented risk that normal, socially well adjusted western FO's, may have a sudden uncontrollable desire to deliberately pull the CVR and FDR circuit breakers, apply full forward trim and spear the plane into the ground, because they were flying with a difficult local captain :ugh:

[PappyJ]

I understand that Silk Air, today, have a number of western expat F/Os who are under the command of local Captains. As a passenger, I feel much more confident knowing that the local captain is under the watchfull eye of a qualified western F/O.

[southernmtn]

"As a passenger, I feel much more confident knowing that the local captain is under the watchfull eye of a qualified western F/O."

Hahahahahahaha..........
This must be the funniest, so far.

:}:}:}:}:}:}:}:}:}

[ecureilx]

PappyJ: what is it your are insinuating ?? :=

Would a local captain, trained and qualified in the west count as a one of those who need a Western F/O ????

You just lightened up my day ....

[PappyJ]

Would a local captain, trained and qualified in the west count as a one of those who need a Western F/O ????

"...trained and qualified in the West..."

Are you insinuating that there's a difference?

[ecureilx]

PappyJ

before I run for cover, and let the thread back to it's original intent ..

Would a Western Pilot Trained in Asia make a difference, in your opinion ?

Cheers, I dont expect you to answer that anyway ...

[slayerdude]

pappy j... do run for cover as advised.... however the view you share is typical of an uninformed, ignorant non aviator... one does wonder why asian power houses like SIA have fairly decent load factors while not flying in hills with local captains as well as non western expat captain??? if they needed a western watch dog.. the will never be a need for western co-pilots in non western carriers!!! please pappy j,lets keep this as an intelligent disussion about a sad incident

[Adrian Cronauer]

looks to me that pappyj was just making a little joke. obviously he doesn't know that Singaporeans don't have a sense of humor and aint capable of thinking outside the boundarys.

[ecureilx]

Adrian:

Another stereotyping of Singaporeans ..

If it was implied that I don't have a sense of humor, I am not a Singaporean, and, I do have a sense of humor ... And I do know more than enough Singaporeans who have a great sense of humor, but then again, don't laugh at some certain Western jokes, which only said Western Country people understand .. and probably the whole of Asia will also have problem seeing the humorous side of such jokes .. like an English comedian who was making jokes about Merseyside, and apart from the Brits in the crowd, not many even know what he was talkign about .. [Damn - that is too much of a thread drift .. ] :=

I still am perplexed with PappyJ's suggestion that Western Co-Pilots are much better .. that Asian Pilots .. :oh: :oh:

Anyway, let's get back to the subject matter at hand .. and not let this thread deviate into another assault on Singapore. :ok:

Apologies for the drift ..

[PappyJ]

I still am perplexed with PappyJ's suggestion that Western Co-Pilots are much better I do have a sense of humor

My dear friend. First of all, I didn't suggest that at all. I thought the tongue-in-cheek nature of that comment would be so plainly obvious that most anyone would see the intended humour. If I've offended you, or any Singaporean, please accept my humble apologies.

By the way, HUMOR me a little; what part of the States are you from? Singaporean (and Brits) would spell it, Humour.

[parabellum]

Please! Can we now get back to the thread?

PappyJ - feel free to use the private message facility.

[nortwinds]

Thank you very much Parabellum

And thank you too Centaurus - there was an Empire class flying boat of that name once - thank you for your post on DG and P Reporting Points on the Axe Man of Apia which is relevant to all readers of this SilkAir MI 185 thread.

I apologise if it was insensitive to mention cross cultures but all I intended was to suggest that the difficult situation of a co-pilot drawing the captain's attention to a concern, would be even more difficult when the co-pilot was from a cuture and a training that emphasised equality while the Asian ex-military captain could culturally have expected to be treated with some deference.

Regardless, the initial incident led to other incidents, CVR pulling either to preserve evidence or to talk off-the-record, demotion, loss of some income, etc. Nothing to commit suicide or murder over, but nevertheless a slippery slope of unanticipated misfortune.

The individual events are well recorded but the inter-relationship of the sequence is not recognised. Nor is the relationship between the captain and the two co-pilots yet explored adequately.

Logically, when the captain deactivated the CVR on the final tragic flight, something that following the Ansett disaster in the co-pilots training area in NZ was recognised as justified in some circumstances, it was for the captain to say something, off-the-record, to the co-pilot.

[slayerdude]

Logically, when the captain deactivated the CVR on the final tragic flight,

Notwinds,as aviators we all know assumptions are the biggest mother to all %$*&ups!!!! as we know the fact is the CVR break tripped... however the was no evidence of how it tripped.. electrical failure, or either pilot tripping it. however ever there was only as assumption made.. hence the assumption that the captain tripped the breaker is flawed. however the x-cultural argument is a valid one and might yield some light. albiet Tsu is not your "normal" sporean pilot and does have a 'colourful" personality and pass. I maintain that this isnt an open shut case....

[nortwinds]

Slayerdude, thank you and I do try not to assume but to work with facts which I prefer to have in writing in front of me.

It certainly has been assumed, as a criticism, that the captain pulled the CVR, but I do tend to agree with that on the basis of the virtual impossibility of a mechanical failure of the CVR coinciding with the other events.

The current thread on the main forum "NTSB recommends airlines routinely monitor CVR's" suggests that manual deactivation is not unknown - and the SilkAir MI 185 captain was indeed recorded as having done so before with those two copilots.

I do accept that the captain had a colourful personality - which could have increased the effect of the cockpit gradient in any difference of professional opinion.

However the big outstanding point of the jigsaw is still how the copilots' flying school selected its graduates for the coveted airline entry positions. One of the very few known facts is that the students selected were not necessarily the students who achieved the better accademic or flight training grades.

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Dear Nortwinds,

It appears to me that you have an axe to grind with this particular flying school and that seems to be the agenda you are pushing here.

With regard to the accident I think we have explored most possibilities in the realms of technical, cultural and administrative.

The fact of the matter regarding the FO's training is that his flying school basic training is irrelevant. I don't know what airline you fly for, your experience level or if you are in this industry at all. What I do know is that I've been in this for 30+ years and hold many licenses I can tell you that all ATPL's are a waste of money and that we all learnt by watching others and being guided by trainers on the line. If we survived our single engine and and light twins days.

The training of any airline will weed out those found unfit or without potential to fly as FO's and have some potential to be upgraded at a suitable date commensurate with experience. Any Captain will tell you that.

Regards,

Wooblah.

[Sky Dancer]

Nortwinds,

From the information available to all , it is quite clear that this crash was caused by a deliberate input by a pilot.Which pilot did it is the question.And if you go by the circumstances , you don't have to be very smart to figure that is was Tsu.Even the NTSB's report says this.

Now if you are going on your line of investigation I would assume that you have some information on Duncan's background.If you do , you might as well spell it out.Did he have an inherent weakness in his flying ability ?Did you at anytime fly with him ?Your inputs may help close this case.

If I were you the question I would be asking is why were the Indonesian authorities so hesitant in calling it pilot suicide ?Why did the Singaporean authorities pressure the Indonesians in keeping the conclusion open.Does anyone have an answer to this.In their final report they never even mentioned the possibility of pilot suicide.

We live in a selfish world.Business interests,money and politics are the underlying factors that help decide matters.You must remember that years after this crash the Egypt Air crash took place.Another case of pilot suicide covered up.

No body wants to rock the boat but in the end it's innocent lives that are lost.You must remember that one day it could be your family on board an aircraft in a similar situation.

So I would advise you to get to the root of the real problem and not chase a far fetched theory mooted by some misinformed person..:ok:

[nortwinds]

Thank you Captain Wooblah but I do not have any axe to grind with the copilots' particular flying school. I am, nevertheless, well aware of threads such as the two currently active on DG and P General Aviation and Questions:
Massey University Selection Requirements; and
Massey University Flying School.

My axe, which is very much a safety axe, is about recognising the whole system from initial virtual self selection (see the first DG and P thread above); through the flying school training (see the second DG and P thread above); to the selection of particular students for a first airline position.

We all agree that any captain and airline training should weed out those found unfit or requiring more experience - and perhaps this was the very thing that the SilkAir MI 185 captain was doing with particular copilots who had been nurtured to see their own ability rather differently.

Sky Dancer, again thank you too very much and we again generally agree both philosophically and professionally. We just disagree that it was the captain to blame, and that is because we are considering, as NTSB did, different circumstances.

The case of SilkAir MI 185 was left unresolved and inconclusive simply because the background and interaction of the copilots was closed off. When it is looked at openly, as we are now trying to do, the parameters change significantly; and the opportunity starts to open for passenger safety, including our own families, to start to balance out against the business, money and political interests.

[slayerdude]

The case of SilkAir MI 185 was left unresolved and inconclusive simply because the background and interaction of the copilots was closed off. When it is looked at openly, as we are now trying to do, the parameters change significantly; and the opportunity starts to open for passenger safety, including our own families, to start to balance out against the business, money and political interests.


M in total agreement Notwinds!!!Always two sides to a coin.

[Adrian Cronauer]

The case of SilkAir MI 185 was left unresolved and inconclusive Bollocks!


SilkAir Flight 185, a Boeing 737-36N, registration 9V-TRF, was a scheduled passenger flight from Jakarta to Singapore, which crashed on 19 December 1997 after abruptly plunging into the Musi River from its 35,000 feet cruise altitude, killing all 97 passengers and 7 crew on board.

Remarkably, the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder stopped recording, at different times and for no apparent reason, minutes before the aircraft departed level flight and entered a steep vertical dive.

The crash was investigated by various groups, with different results. The Indonesian NTSC, who were lead investigators, were unable to determine the cause, while the U.S. NTSB concluded that the crash resulted from an intentional act by a pilot, most likely the captain.

Seems perfectly clear to anyone, except maybe, a Singaporean!

[nortwinds]

Thank you very much Slayerdude. Those who have an open mind, or even generally agree, tend to be a silent majority, whilst those who disagree tend to be more proactive in putting their own case.

Thank you too Adrian, but "most likely the captain" - the old blame of "pilot error" so that everyone else can walk away from it, is too simplistic - and ignores the other half of the pilots' backgrounds.

You also concede that the "....lead investigators, were unable to determine the cause". To their credit, they had the integrity not to deviate from the facts into fantasy.

It is fact that there were initially unrecognised problems with the copilots' initial selection, training, assessment, and oversight. The final remaining piece of the jigsaw is their selection for direct entry airline positions.

All that my research has been able to unearth to date is that:

1. Both the students and the ordinary staff at the flying school were unaware of what the selection process for the airline positions was.

2. The selection process was not primarily one of academic and flying ability. Known good students were not selected; while some students of relatively modest academic and flying ability were selected.

3. Selection software developed for the aviation industry, such as the Selector Program from a local Feilding company, was available but was not used.

4. Students who complained were apparently not selected. The list of complaints about their training of 13 June 1994 was signed by 34 trainee pilots; and known good students on the list were not selected while conversely the SilkAir copilots' names do not appear on the list of signatures.

5. One complaint on the list was the ban on discussion of East Timor, prior to the Australian led intervention, where "all present understood the school's stance to be that anyone who raised the matter with the Indonesians in the future would be sent packing". Without debating the rights or wrongs, or practicalities, of the policy, this was the only known example of any guidance on selection policy.

It is unusual for pilots that, to date, no selected copilot has spoken about their selection.

[Adrian Cronauer]

You also concede that the "....lead investigators, were unable to determine the cause". To their credit, they had the integrity not to deviate from the facts into fantasy.

I didn't concede a damn thing. I just assumed that everyone was smart enough to realize that the American NTSB doesn't suffer from the "Saving Face" virus!

US NTSB just call things the way they are. If someone looses some face or pride, so be it!

[Luke SkyToddler]

F**k's sake nortwinds, you really are as mad as a box of frogs.

You know there were in fact a great number of sub-standard students with practically zero aptitude at Massey, back in the day. They were called the Chinese cadets :rolleyes:

But let's give you enough rope to hang yourself with, and for the purposes of argument, hypothetically assume that Massey has an open door policy of allowing any and all talentless muppets to train there. What exactly would that prove? It doesn't mean that all graduates are sub standard, at the worst it might just mean that there was a mix of some excellent graduates and some not-excellent ones. Well blow me down if you haven't just described the typical output of every flying school on this earth, and you have proved absolutely nothing about any individual person.

And furthermore even if you COULD somehow dig some dirt about Duncan Ward's ab initio training, which you clearly can't, despite all your mysterious pronouncements and posturing, it still wouldn't even count as 0.01% of enough to exonerate your murdering mate Tsu from the overwhelming weight of evidence against him.

You need to get over this ridiculous obsession with ab initio training, let alone "admittance criteria" to flying schools, because you're only making yourself look foolish. Captain Wooblah had it right, ALL ab initio licence training is b*llocks, all you get at the end is a licence to learn your trade properly on the job. I don't know if you are being wilfully stupid or really are that ignorant, but anyone who actually flies professionally could tell you in a second how pointless you are being with this ridiculous crusade against the guy's flying school. It's so stupid it's hard to even know how to rebut you. If Lance Armstrong fell off his bike on the tour de france, would you blame his parents for not teaching him how to ride his tricycle properly?

There isn't actually all that much mystery about this plane crash at all to be honest, it's perfectly obvious what happened to anyone who spends 5 minutes reading the intro to the NTSB report let alone the conclusion. What you are trying to achieve of course with all this pot stirring, is to distract people's attention away from the vast amount of simple, hard evidence pointing towards Tsu as the guilty party.

Nortwinds will no doubt continue to postulate and make mysterious pronouncements and allegations against Duncan / Massey forever until the thread is eventually locked but if anyone has any doubt about what actually happened I do urge you to google the NTSB report, it's pretty clear and damning.

[Centaurus]

Nortwinds will no doubt continue to postulate and make mysterious pronouncements and allegations against Duncan / Massey forever until the thread is eventually locked but if anyone has any doubt about what actually happened I do urge you to google the NTSB report, it's pretty clear and damning.

Dead right about that. It sickens me to read the the cold faced drivel by username Nortwinds who doesn't have a clue about the facts of that day. One only has to be in involved, as I was in the MI 185 court case in Singapore, to be convinced as to what actually happened to MI 185.

I really wish the Moderator would lock this this Pprune thread once and for all. I remain horrified that the well known Loss of Face syndrome is again displayed in these Pprune pages by some characters such as username Nortwinds whose ethnic and cultural beliefs transcend the facts stated in the NTSB report.
Moderator - my dear chap - please call it a day and stop this further nonsense by locking the thread.

[LongExcursion]

As someone who was flying for SQ at the time and since working for EK, let me conclude with the following - he suicided and took a plane load of passengers with him. No-one inside believed anything else, but like all things controversial or reflecting negatively on any aspect of the highly censored Nanny State, its wise if you'd prefer to remain welcomed to keep your trap shut.

[Adrian Cronauer]

please call it a day and stop this further nonsense by locking the thread Agreed!

and lock it with the conclusion...

he suicided and took a plane load of passengers with him.

[nortwinds]

Some pretty heavy responses there, gentlemen/women, considering that, even though we are looking at mass murder, the debate is generally a lot more moderate and professional than on many other PPRuNe threads.

Also double standards where you feel free to abuse me, the SilkAir MI 185 captain, Singapore, and the Chinese generally, yet take exception to even exploring the previously neglected background facts of the tragedy.

There is a lot of emotion in your responses which suggests some personal involvement so perhaps it is time for me to ask you what your own motives are for not digging deeper.

You have clearly stated your beliefs on the cause of the tragedy. Now let me state my belief which I recognise has to merge from fact into presumption.

The two pilots both boarded the flight without either having any thought whatsoever of premeditated murder or suicide.

There were significant cultural and professional differences in their background which had led to disagreement and an escalating dispute including the captain pulling the CVR to talk off the record. This accords well with the views that copilots have to learn/be taught on the job. There was background stress on both pilots, but not enough to kill for.

On the fatal flight the captain again pulled the CVR and was presumably therefore the first person to speak, probably saying something that to him was innocuous. Somehow that rapidly lead to one of the pilots over-reacting for the split second that turned everything into unrecoverable disaster.

Given the emotion of our own debate on this thread (including calls to end it all), and given some of the insensitive comments made, there is ample reason to consider this probability and to explore what must inevitably be the sensitive areas of background.

[Adrian Cronauer]

There is a lot of emotion in your responses which suggests some personal involvement Lets face the facts, Genghis Khan did get around a little, so most on the little island are probably related.

one of the pilots over-reacting for the split second that turned everything into unrecoverable disaster.
So, you're saying that a single "Split Second" action at 35,000 feet will cause a jet to crash? What f***king planet are you from? Or, are you suggesting that Asian pilots are that bloody incapable?

[Absolutely Fabulous]

Gents,

Give Nortwinds a break............he's obviously got his, or her, reasons for casting suspicion on events of the day, albeit misplaced

If you look at the time line when Nortwinds started appearing here with tales of doubt into what has, for many, been the reasons for the crash, you'll likely figure that Nortwinds is closely related to Capt. Tsu.

A family member perhaps, who has finally grown up enough to know about the facts and trying hard to find an alternative explanation that may be easier to accept.

[parsifal]

that is the only explanation i can see why he is so unwilling to let go and accept the findings of NTSB. you have to get on with your life now, nortwinds.

[WSSS]

There were significant cultural and professional differences in their background which had led to disagreement and an escalating dispute including the captain pulling the CVR to talk off the record. This accords well with the views that copilots have to learn/be taught on the job. There was background stress on both pilots, but not enough to kill for.

On the fatal flight the captain again pulled the CVR and was presumably therefore the first person to speak, probably saying something that to him was innocuous. Somehow that rapidly lead to one of the pilots over-reacting for the split second that turned everything into unrecoverable disaster.

Nortwinds, it's quite obvious that you have not read the official report released by the NTSC (Indonesian investigation team). What you're suggesting here is that there was some conflict between the Captain and F/O which resulted in argument and possibly fight in the cockpit leading to a loss of control of the aircraft.

If you'd like to take a read of the official NTSC report as released by the Indonesian DGCA, here it is for you to download (http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/MI-185_pdf_reports/MI-185_SilkAir_Report.pdf). Go to section 2.12 General Human Performance Issues
on page 40 of the report where the investigators analysed the relationship between the Captain and the F/O. I'll quote the relevant paragraph here for you if you have difficulty in downloading the NTSC report.

2.12 General Human Performance Issues
This section analyses the general human performance issues such as medical, professional qualification, training, fatigue, impairment, improper in-flight management, etc.

The relationship between the PIC and the F/O was examined. There were no reports of any conflict or difficulties between the pilots prior to the occurrence and before the day of the crash. Based on the available recorded data of the CVR, there was no evidence of any conflict or difficulties between the pilots during the approach and landing into Jakarta, on the ground at Jakarta, and during the accident flight. The infrequent non-flight related conversations between the pilots were also cordial. It was concluded that the investigation did not find any evidence of difficulties in the relationship between the two pilots either during or before the accident flight.

In one of your earlier posts, Nortwinds, you also suggested that the F/O was facing a huge financial debt from his flight training. Again, this is contrary to the findings of the official NTSC report. This is what the NTSC investigation had to say about the F/O's financial situation from section 2.14, page 42.

2.14 Specific Human Factors Issues
In this section, the specific, personal, financial backgrounds and recent behaviour of the PIC and the F/O are examined.

2.14.2 First Officer (F/O)
The investigation into the F/O's personal and professional history revealed no unusual issues. No records of incidents or unusual events were found, and no career setbacks or difficulties were experienced. Financial records showed no evidence of financial problems. Interviews with family, close friends and relations seem to indicate that the F/O was a well-balanced and well-adjusted person, and keen on his job, and planning to advance his a flying career. There were no reports on recent changes in his behaviour.

May I suggest to you Nortwinds, that you at least make an attempt to read the official NTSC report as well as the one released by the NTSB before you come up with any more ridiculous hypothesis. :rolleyes:

[Alan Lowey]

Hello everyone, I've followed this thread with much interest and have something to add.

Isn't it about time that the mystery cruise ship electrical system failures and separate engine system failures should be considered to have the same root cause as to the many airliner accidents with the same mystery dual system failures??

In the Wake of Ugly Incidents at Sea, the Cruise Industry Is in Hot Water (Mar21 2013) (http://business.time.com/2013/03/21/in-the-wake-of-ugly-incidents-at-sea-the-cruise-industry-is-in-hot-water/)

Five of Carnival Corporation's cruise ships have suffered engine / propulsion problems in the last two months: the Carnival Triumph, Dream, Legend & Elation and the Carnival-owner P&O Ventura. Prior to that there were major problems with Carnival Breeze, Ecstasy, Splendor and who can forget the Carnival-owned Costa Concordia -- 32 dead.

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/uploads/image/MAD%20Carnival%20Cruise.jpg

The principal problems have been engine fires when, somehow, nobody says how, all "hotel" power is lost as a result of a propulsion engine fire in a separate compartment far away. Also there have been long-running problems, mainly with thrust bearings, with 'Azipods," which are rotating propeller pods below the ship, like huge outboard motors (which aren't outboard).

Thank you for listening.

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Dear All,

There is so much bull**** and conjecture here it's making me sick. Guess there are not too many aviation types here anymore as even cruise ship accidents come into the picture. What a bloody ship has to do with the demise of Silk's B737 is beyond me.

Now sticking with the facts. if Parker Hannifin lost the case in a US court, you can bet your bottom dollar that they were culpable for something going wrong with the servo valve they manufactured. Because if there wasn't a problem they would have fought tooth and nail to clear their name.

Now regarding the crew. Personally I cannot believe that they didn't fight the beast all the way to the ground. I really hope that one day the truth will surface. I really feel for the family of the Captain and if he is ever vindicated would like to see apologies posted.

Woo blah........!

[CodyBlade]

All I know is that when the ground is coming up fast [mach ever] my first instinct, even tough I am plastered back on my seat is to bring the levers back.

[parabellum]

Sorry Captain Wooblah but from the limited evidence available after the accident it was not the result of a valve failure, the flight controls, including stabiliser trim and power levers were set to dive the aircraft at high speed and there was no malfunctioning valve on board that would have enabled this. As mentioned the natural reaction to save oneself would be to close the power levers and pull back/trim back.

The court case after the KLM/Pan Am Tenerife accident named Boeing as a defendant, Boeing had no case to answer but they immediately paid $5Million into the kitty, knowing they were free of all blame, as this was the cheap way out, much cheaper than defending their position in court through expensive attorneys and multiple, expensive, appeals and much more than they could have possibly been found liable for. The outcome of American courts on liability matters don't always properly reflect the facts.

[millerscourt]

I am with parabellum on this as was in SQ at the time. No ex fighter pilot would apply power and push the nose down to get out of a high speed dive.

No similarity with the Cruise Ship incident which would appear to be case of a navigating error rather than a deliberate act by the Captain as in the case of the Silk Air incident.

Really no point dragging this up again as there is no new evidence.

[Sky Dancer]

I agree , I have followed this case with much interest. The servo valves did not cause the problem because historically , the cases of rudder hardover on the Boeing 737 have always happened when the aircraft have descended from high altitude, where the temperatures are well below zero, to low altitude where the temperatures are much higher. In addition , the manoeuvres the Silk Air aircraft went through did not match the flight parameters of previous hard over cases. The action of the pilot speaks for itself. What is sad is that the truth will never come out because it was a case of cover up by vested interests and also a case of making big money for a few others.:(:ok:

[CAPTAIN WOOBLAH]

Yes guys,

A sad tale indeed. I guess I just want to believe that as pilots we seriously want to protect those in our care. I can't help but think of the guys that have fought all the way to impact to try and save the passengers and themselves. Egypt air was to me a terrible event. I'd like to think Silk was different. I too have read the available evidence and the FAA / NTSB reports are damning. But within all the reports there seems to be a glimmer albeit fractional. Sadly as correctly put, vested monetary interests will prevent the truth coming out. As with the hijacked MAS B732.

Cheers,

Woobs.

[Centaurus]

I guess I just want to believe that as pilots we seriously want to protect those in our care

There must be a word or term for those that refuse to believe their son, daughter, relative or colleague could ever be guilty of deliberately killing over one hundred people when all the evidence points to the fact they did.

How often do we see just that on TV news when a nutter blows up people in some sort of religious fervour and the mother cries "but he was a good boy and he would never ever do such a terrible deed so he must have been framed"

If the cap fits, Capt W, then wear it:=

[Absolutely Fabulous]

Dear All,

Nortwinds seem to have gone away so why don't we all let sleeping dogs lie and resign this sad chapter in aviation to the history books :sad:

[Casper]

In December, it will be 20 years since this incident.

I was part of the team that trained both pilots. I was also a member of the official crash investigation group. There is no doubt in the minds of members of the investigation team that this crash was caused by deliberate control input by the captain (TWM) who was experiencing serious professional and financial issues at the time.

If he had been suspended instead of demoted after a previous circuit breaker incident, this disaster would not have occurred.

The "official" report was written to appease Singapore (Lyin' City Inc). And that is why the NTSB disagreed with another state's official report - a first, I believe.

Let this one rest but, sadly, there were others before and have been since.