SilkAir MI 185 [Archive]

nick charles

12th Feb 2008, 21:22

A pdf version of Flight Safety Australia will be available next week at:
www.casa.gov.au
----------------------------------------------------------------

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has just published a report in its journal Flight Safety Australia which should picked up by the media, for the sake of Australians who have to forsake our very safe airlines and fly with foreign carriers.

Without making a judgment, the report says "readers can draw their own conclusions."

The report of a crash in December 1997 seems to show that the aircraft, carrying 102 people, was destroyed by a deliberate act of the captain, who, it is claimed, was in serious financial difficulties. It seems he switched off the cockpit recorders and sent the loaded airliner into an inverted dive at over the speed of sound, an action which required a positive, deliberate, control input up to the moment the aircraft began to break up before impact.

The investigation was one of the most comprehensive possible, but "the Indonesian National Transport Safety Committee ... produced an evasive and worthless report," contradicting the careful findings of the non-Indonesian investigative bodies.

A further report in Flight Safety suggests that there is a deep-seated official reluctance to admit it is possible "that anyone who would commit suicide would also kill so many innocent people alongside him." The pilot involved had been reported and indeed demoted for landing too fast and trying to "reduce flight times."

Travellers would be well advised to study this excellent article and consider its import.

Centaurus

13th Feb 2008, 12:14

The MI 185 article mentioned is one of the best I have ever read. Mac Job who wrote the story from his study of the accident reports and from his personal involvement as an expert witness in a subsequent civil action in Singapore, is to be congratulated on putting it altogether in a superb piece of writing. This is one Flight Safety Australia edition pilots should hang on to for future reference.

Slasher

14th Feb 2008, 07:25

If Mac Job wrote it I'd be interested in reading it.

Everyone knows that bloodey maniac killed himself and
murdered 102 innacents dispite what LKY and his Court
sprooked.

Pass on the link please NC when the PDFs available for
downloading.

tipsy2

14th Feb 2008, 09:19

Mac's article is (as is usual for him) a masterpiece of assessment and unique understanding. Thanks Mac:D

tipsy:ok:

OhForSure

14th Feb 2008, 10:01

Agreed. His Mt Erebus write-up was excellent too... if you can get your hands on it, do so.

Blip

14th Feb 2008, 13:11

As far as I am concerned, Macarthur Job is a living legand!

I have the first three of his "Air Disaster" series of books which cover the important accidents that changed the way things were done in the jet-age airline industry. (Not meaning to trivialise any airline accident that is not mentioned in the books of course but there are some that had a profound effect on the industry.)

It's not just what he writes (absolutely thorough research into every minute detail) it's how he writes it (almost like a thriller novel at times) that keeps you wanting to read on. Plus the diagrams that accompany the text are just amazing.

I learned so many essential lessons by reading these three books. They should be compulsory reading for anyone involved in the airline industry, including management.

ISBN 1-875671-11-0 (Volume 1)
ISBN 1-875671-34-X (Volume 2)
ISBN 1-875671-19-6 (Volume 3)

I can't recommend them highly enough.

Thank you Mr Job.

Di_Vosh

14th Feb 2008, 23:26

Hey Blip,

If you liked the first three "Air Disaster" books, you should also read his 4th one, which focussed on "The propeller era".

He also wrote a book called "The old and the bold", which is a collection of GA type accidents and incidents. Fascinating and sobering reading!

DIVOSH!

flyitboy

16th Feb 2008, 09:09

.......what/who ultimetly controls an A/C???? A human being, there in lies the situation that we have witnessed with SILKAIR MI 185.
You can make a plane to perform almost flawlessly, but not the PIC
Expect it to happen again, maybe not now but sometime in the future.

F

parabellum

16th Feb 2008, 09:53

I was living in Singapore at the time and I agree with Slasher. Captain of 185 was a high flyer in the SAF but didn't make it into SIA so went to Silk Air, considered a second best to ex SAF pilots and something of a loss of face. Progression to SIA was not impossible but he would have been junior to some of his previous 'Juniors' who did make it straight into SIA, everything else is history. We who lived there at the time had little doubt but no evidence as to the cause.

Casper

17th Feb 2008, 06:48

There was a heap of evidence as to the cause in the 49 page document from the NTSB to the Indonesian NTSC. It's all there.

parabellum

17th Feb 2008, 11:37

Maybe I should have said legally acceptable evidence Casper.

nick charles

17th Feb 2008, 20:58

The evidence was legally acceptable, if not politically. It's just that the NTSC ignored it.

Absolutely none of the evidence suggested any malfunction of the aircraft or its systems.

The evidence obtained during the investigation included:
* Autothrottle disconnected. Engines at high power settings.
* Stab trim at the full electric down position.
* CVR and DFDR circuit breakers pulled manually.
* Radar plots (he forgot to s/w off the transponder) indicating a descent rate of some 30000 fpm - only one way that can be achieved!
* Horizontal distance travelled during the dive was only some 3 nm - only one way to achieve that, too!
* Aircraft inverted at the point of impact.
* No sqawk 7700 or mayday calls.

Recovery was possible but not attempted. Both pilots were above average in manipulative skills and both well trained in recovery from upsets or unusual attitudes.

It was all there, including the real financial problems being faced by the PIC - just politically ignored.

Brian Abraham

17th Feb 2008, 22:16

One point I've wondered about, and we will never know, is how did he make young Mr. Ward a non participant in the event. RIP

Casper

17th Feb 2008, 23:16

The final info on the CVR was the snap of the seatbelt being unbuckled as the PIC prepared to leave the cockpit. Approx 5 minutes later, the F/O replied in a normal voice to Jakarta ATC (source: ATC tapes).

When the PIC returned to the cockpit, the most likely scenario involved his advising the F/O that he was needed in the cabin regarding a leaking tap etc.

Pulling the CVR cb was obviously not noticed by the F/O. Pulling the DFDR cb, however, causes a MASTER CAUTION light to illuminate and that was why the PIC wanted the F/O out of the cockpit.

All suggestion and scenario, but the most probable.

International Trader

19th Feb 2008, 09:04

Evidence ignored? by who? Do you really expect a company/country to admit guilt?
Rather like QF1, deny, deny, deny...and hope it goes away.

amos2

19th Feb 2008, 09:27

Mac Job is not the superstar you all make him out to be.

If you met him and spoke to him, as I have, you would realise that.

He's just another bloke with an opinion!...not necessarily the correct one!

tipsy2

19th Feb 2008, 10:07

If you met him (I have) and spoke to him( Done that too), as I have, you would realise that.

He's just another bloke with an opinion!...not necessarily the correct one! (or necessarily the incorrect one either)

So dear Amos, what's your spin on MI 185, go on let us in on it so we can compare it to that of Mac's.

Please

tipsy

amos2

19th Feb 2008, 10:22

You've taken umbrage when none was meant, Tipsy.

Just stating a fact.

Casper

19th Feb 2008, 20:53

In the case of MI 185, Mac Job has the correct version. He has had access to ALL the factual evidence and that evidence supports only one possibility - deliberate pilot input.

das Uber Soldat

20th Feb 2008, 01:10

I too thought the article was great, however I was interested as to why the US court still found fault with Parker Hannifins rudder PCU?

Watching that cornerstone of aviation fact, Air crash Investigation (note sarcasm), the program postulates that other factors were responsible citing evidence such as similarities between SA 185 and UA 585 rudder hard over, the fact that the FDR had been switching itself off in the preceding flights etc.

I could be wrong but I believe the LA court case with Parker Hannifin is in appeal.

3 Holer

20th Feb 2008, 01:55

Gidday Slasher, how's it all going in Nam? See U still giving that spell checker a good work out!;)

This is for you! (http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2008/feb/18-28.pdf) :ok:

56P

20th Feb 2008, 02:02

The Parker Hannifin case was the one that PH had to lose in order to appease an important Boeing customer - SQ. PH planned to mount an agressive appeal to the finding but, to the extreme surprise of PH's attorneys, the appeal was dropped. Blame politics at the time but PH's attorneys certainly wanted to proceed.

One of the plaintiff's attorneys in the PH court case appeared in the Nat Geo documentary on MI 185. He lost considerable credibility when he referred to the B737 fuel dump system. It doesn't have one.

The crash of MI 185 was not caused by any system or component malfunction, rudder or otherwise. A "human" component was solely responsible - and I use the word "human" with much hesitation.

amos2

20th Feb 2008, 08:31

Aw! look...this report of Macs is full of holes!...

let's start with a simple one...

he say's the skipper pulled the CVR c/b...

but doesn't state it's position...

does he know where it is?

Being a G/A pilot, I doubt it!

tipsy2

20th Feb 2008, 09:32

Given that NONE of us were onboard MI185 when all this took place, what we have left is an interpretation of the available known hard evidence. It then becomes an educated guess as to what happened based on that evidence.

Mac's background and experience makes that educated guess worthy of serious consideration.

Again, I ask amos,what's your spin on MI 185, go on let us in on it so we can compare it to that of Mac's.

tipsy

amos2

20th Feb 2008, 10:02

Well, I don't have any "spin", as you put it on, on this 737 prang, Tipsy.

I'm just not impressed with comments like..." the scream of a fast flying jet"

or..."it appeared to be upside down"

or..."Five units of flap". How much flap is that? I know, but does Mac?

I mean, Mac Job gives no references what so ever to any other publications re his claims. This is simply speculative journalism, which is his forte from days gone by! Or does he still do it? I don't know, I gave up reading his rubbish years ago!

And now we have this rubbish!

FlexibleResponse

20th Feb 2008, 11:50

I would like to congratulate Marcarthur Job for reporting the investigation facts as they were found and especially for reporting the inescapable logical conclusions to be drawn from those facts.

The cover-up attempts by the Singapore Government and also their heavy handed leaning on the Indonesian Government to do like-wise with the Indonesian investigation makes a complete mockery of aviation safety in the civilised world.

It is an immense relief that some country's aviation accident investigation and safety branch has finally had the guts to stand up to the orchestrated lies of the Asian Governments involved.

Well done to Macarthur Job, to CASA and to Bruce Byron the CEO of CASA for making this happen!

amos2

20th Feb 2008, 12:29

Oh please, Flex!...spare us your drivel...

any 737 pilot with half a brain knew what caused this prang 10 YEARS AGO!!

Mac Job, CASA and Byron, with no 737 time between them, bring forth this revelation thats been a given to all of us for so long it doesn't feature on the radar any more!

Give us a break!

Casper

20th Feb 2008, 20:13

Amos2,

I have 12+ years experience on the B737. Mac Job has had access to ALL the evidence and his version is the only accurate one to date.

And, yes, it was PROVED that the PIC pulled the CBs to both the CVR and DFDR.

And, yes, the stab trim was in the full down position and, yes, the autothrottles had been disconnected and the engines were at high power - in a dive??

And, yes, local villagers did mention a "screaming jet' and the sound of "thunder" but without any clouds.

And, yes, it was inverted at the point of impact.

Mac Job received this info from the most reliable sources.

There is absolutely no doubt as to the cause.

Brian Abraham

21st Feb 2008, 01:07

For those wishing to take a swipe at Mac Job may I remind you that he was the editor of the Flight Safety mag back when it really was a safety mag. Most of you may well have been in short pants at the time. :E

Slasher

21st Feb 2008, 01:14

3 Holer. Thanks mate! :ok:

tipsy2

21st Feb 2008, 05:56

When I find my metric adjustable spanner, I will be able to fix my walking frame to enable me to be on bended knee in the presence of O wise one (aka amos)

tipsy.;)

malcolmyoung90

22nd Feb 2008, 03:09

Post #9

I was living in Singapore at the time and I agree with Slasher.

I was also living in Singapore at the time, although was not working in the aviation industry. A friend of mine, a qualified pilot but not working in that industry at the time, mentioned to me (this was a year or so after the crash) that the relatives of the deceased were so disturbed at the pace & integrity of the investigation, that they had requested a meeting with (then) PM Goh Chok Tong. Apparently he refused such a meeting.

Post #20

Watching that cornerstone of aviation fact, Air crash Investigation (note sarcasm), the program postulates that other factors were responsible citing evidence such as similarities between SA 185 and UA 585 rudder hard over, the fact that the FDR had been switching itself off in the preceding flights etc.

I had always wondered what the final analysis of this crash was. I recently saw the Air Crash Investigations episode that you were referring to. There was mention that the police investigated the pilot's apparent financial woes, but concluded that he was solvent at the time of the accident. So I thought what they had presented in this episode to be true and correct.

Post #22

The Parker Hannifin case was the one that PH had to lose in order to appease an important Boeing customer - SQ. PH planned to mount an agressive appeal to the finding but, to the extreme surprise of PH's attorneys, the appeal was dropped. Blame politics at the time but PH's attorneys certainly wanted to proceed.

One of the plaintiff's attorneys in the PH court case appeared in the Nat Geo documentary on MI 185. He lost considerable credibility when he referred to the B737 fuel dump system. It doesn't have one.

If that's the case then all credibility has been lost.

Post #5

Agreed. His Mt Erebus write-up was excellent too... if you can get your hands on it, do so.

Erebus appears in Vol 2. The Introduction to this volume is written by Gordon Vette, which is also well worth reading. Now there's a man with integrity.

nick charles

22nd Feb 2008, 20:21

I had always wondered what the final analysis of this crash was. I recently saw the Air Crash Investigations episode that you were referring to. There was mention that the police investigated the pilot's apparent financial woes, but concluded that he was solvent at the time of the accident. So I thought what they had presented in this episode to be true and correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Singapore Police concluded that he was solvent at the time. This is SINGAPORE police, remember, and they are part of Singapore Inc. Likewise, the CAAS, RSAF, SQ, MI etc etc.

The independent Price Waterhouse audit of the PIC's finances painted a vastly different picture, so much so that a genuine attempt was made to re-open the investigation under ICAO Annex 13 a few years ago. The Indonesian NTSC (with a new chairman) would have none of it, however.

When the CVR was played at the NTSB in Washington, it was realised with some considerable shock that the recording ended abruptly. When asked if that occurred often, the NTSB representative, who knew absolutely nothing of the PIC's financial or company problems, declared: "No, this does not happen often. This is bizarre. Now, we have to consider pilot suicide." As stated, this statement was made by someone who knew nothing of TWM's demotion or financial woes.

The PH case was one of political concern. PH changed their attorneys after the case and their new ones were preparing an aggressive appeal when politics intervened to appease a valuable Boeing customer - SQ. Never underestimate Singapore Inc aka Lyin' City.

When the TV NZ program on MI 185 went to air, the local manager of SQ in NZ made a complaint to the NZ Broadcasting Commission. This was made despite the fact that SQ had earlier declined an invitation to contribute to and be part of the production.

Why were we not surprised?

malcolmyoung90

24th Feb 2008, 11:21

The Singapore Police concluded that he was solvent at the time. This is SINGAPORE police, remember, and they are part of Singapore Inc. Likewise, the CAAS, RSAF, SQ, MI etc etc.

On my rare encounters with the Singapore Police over fairly minor matters, I never had any problems with them. But point taken, there is a certain lack of tranparency on certain occasions, particularly with the big decisions (I am referring here to the endless amounts of civil suits launched against opposition party members in the past 20+ years).

When the TV NZ program on MI 185 went to air, the local manager of SQ in NZ made a complaint to the NZ Broadcasting Commission. This was made despite the fact that SQ had earlier declined an invitation to contribute to and be part of the production.

Was it made by TVNZ? I only saw the episode once, and just assumed that it was another epiosde of Air Crash Investigations, in which case it would have been made by Cineflix's Montreal office. But if it was made by TVNZ then it must have been called something else (never saw it on TV, just on one of the internet sites).

Tee Emm

24th Feb 2008, 11:44

He's just another bloke with an opinion!...not necessarily the correct one!

You miss the point completely. Mac Job is a first class aviation journalist. His expertese lies in his ability to plough through pages and pages of an accident report and by picking out the salient points turn the report into an eminently readable account of the accident. The "opinions" you complain about are nothing more than views of accident investigators put into intelligent and concise English by Mac. In his Air Disaster series he chose the subject matter after consulting with various experienced airline pilots. He has never pretended to be an "expert" but rather a fine journalist and former pilot with a wonderful flair for writing with dignity.

And by the way. No mention has ever been made of the professional "mouths for hire" brought from Europe that were presented by the defendents as so called expert witnesses at the court case. I sat next to them in the court room.

And as to the knowledge of the position of the circuit breakers in the 737 and other technical matters pertaining to the operation of MI 185, you might be interested to know that Mac was an observer present in the 737 simulator when various crash scenarios were tested. Forget the uncommanded runaway rudder theory too. It was dead easy to recover from that at cruise altitude in the simulator even with a 10 second delay before countering its effect. Been there-done that.

mohdawang

24th Feb 2008, 20:00

nick charles

24th Feb 2008, 20:39

Biggest mistake of Indonesian investigators was to let Boeing & NTSB fella get their hands on the acft parts and FDR/CVR...some " magic " happened!

Sadly because of the state of corruption and disorganisation in Indonesia, local investigators were treated like buffoons. So to get some credibility, they naively handed over a lot of things that could have exonerated the skipper to "people" who worked " magic " over the evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

No "magic" was worked on the evidence. I was there when it was recovered and physically watched as each flight control component was examined by investigators from all countries taking part. Both the DFDR and CVR were escorted by international teams to the NTSB for analysis.

No magic could have exonerated the skipper. He did it all by himself.