PDA

View Full Version : SilkAir 185 - I do not get it..??


Crockett
7th Apr 2001, 07:10
Having now had a chance to see the recent programme shown on TVNZ...I have the following questions that baffle me...

I can understand the Organisations from Singapore and Indonesia not wanting to appear on the programme but what I do not get is why the Australian Organisations and their people involved in the investigation did not agree to be interviewed..

Why won't they speak out.. Reasons given on the programme stated they did not want to upset their Asian neighbours.. I just do not buy this..

The NTSB have made it very clear they think the investigation was a sham. Could the reason for talking out and criticising the investigatioin be that they are trying to protect Boeing.. or somebody else for that matter.

I agree that Australia wants and needs to maintain relations with their neigbours for Business reasons...But so do they wish to maintain relations with the USA...so why do the not speak out in support of the NTSB theory..

Is it that the investigation actually discovered other information that the governments of USA,Australia, Singapore, and Indonesia would all rather remain a secret...

I simply do not get it...why the fear or apprehension about speaking out...with all the facts...THE TRUTH.

Hugh Jeego
7th Apr 2001, 07:40
Crockett unfornunately Singapore et al in the S China Sea area not going to admit the true facts of the accident.

Its a Chinese thing but if it gets buried then the insurance payout is less.

Hmmmmm

Zeke
7th Apr 2001, 08:52
Crockett,

Everyone in the area has to try and save face, the culture in Asia is just like that. If you have every operated in Jakarta it is not the best of ATC or radar and I assume is reflects somewhat to the performance of their overall aviation industry.

From my understanding the Australian involvement was technical back up and not the lead agent. Possible conclusions drawn from not knowing all the facts, as I am lead to believe in the Australian do not do anyone favors. As technical backup the role is just a “clearing house” for the evidence, and report on the same to the lead agent.

I have not seen the TV program you refer to, however I understand that the F/O was from New Zealand, and blaming the crew (i.e. partially a New Zealand FO) is not palatable in New Zealand if it is not warranted.

Theories are great, but until someone can identify particular irrefutable facts as to the cause the accident it will remain inconclusive.

The attitude in the US is that Boeing (for that matter any aircraft/helicopter manufacturer in the US) can never do any wrong. They protect their own industry. When an accident occurs, they move on and keep going like nothing happened.

My personal view is that when the NTSB starts crying foul pilot error, I will be looking for problem with the aircraft. I am less than convinced with other incidents like the Egyptair and Swissair where the dead crew were essentially blamed.

How long did it take to get the 737 rudder problem sorted ? When was the jet ranger tail gear box fixed ? Both caused countless lives to to be lost, but their industry strives along at the cost of a few.

:rolleyes:

Crockett
8th Apr 2001, 03:47
Zeke

I tend to lean in your direction....of opinion...

Whilst there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that the pilot may have had cause....there is some evidence that suggests that he did not...

I guess the real problem is that the effort to really identify the truth and make it public in the interest of Aviation Safety does not seem of paramount importance by all parties involved... Rather, the result as it stands at present is okay with the airline, the manufacturer and all others involved..

The losers here are the Next of Kin and the flying public as a whole...Very Sad indeed that apparently, BIG business and politics wins again..

One day, the truth will be known...It may take a while but I am confident that whomever is responsible for the SilkAir 185 crash will be identified one day.. Fate/Karma has a way of dealing with this type of event..aswell as committed Next of Kin who continue on with their quest for the truth..

SKYDRIFTER
8th Apr 2001, 04:23
CONFUSING -

While there has been a certain amount of convincing 'evidence' presented, the one question that remains is, "Where was the co-pilot during the described maneuver???"

Given the NTSB scammed investigations of the past (and those they refused to investigate), I remain damned curious as to the more probable events.

Especially with the NTSB taking the position on the Thai B-737, either the entire Boeing fleet needs to be grounded immediately, or some data needs to be obtained from an independent laboratory.

In the Thai explosion, the NTSB failed to account for the ignition source. Hot vapors are not enough to ignite A-1.

An actual explosion of the center tank would have ignited the adjacent wing tanks via the vent system. So, what really happened?

I won't totally discount the SilkAir possibility, but I'd like to know more in the way of true facts.

Crockett
8th Apr 2001, 04:45
Sky Drifter..

I am glad you ask the question..."Where was the co-pilot during the described manoeuvre"..??

At the present time, it is all just a theory that the co-pilot was not in the cockpit..As we all know the CVR and later the FDR were not working or were switched off ?? so we have no real knowledge of what went on and who was in the cockpit...and we will never really know what went on in the cockpit because of the lack of CVR and FDR data..

If you go by what was on the CVR until it went off, the co-pilot was in the cockpit and the Captain was out of the cockpit or at least leaving it.. I assume he (the Captain) did actually leave the cockpit because, the Co-Pilot was several minutes later on the radio with air traffic control..

The TVNZ programme was naturally produced with the intent of defending the Co - Pilot and embarrassing the Government of Singapore and the airline.. Personally, I have no problem with this as any exposure to the current situation to the public is good exposure. Whilst the programme may have been partially imbalanced, it still serves to keep the subject in the public eye..and to be honest, the Singaporeans, the Indonesians and all the other countries involved do deserve some criticism for their handling of this particular crash investigation and the for the manner in which the families (Next of Kin) have been treated and for the manner in which they have all shown that, the apparent interest or commitment in enhancing aviation is simply not there at all..

For whatever reason, there appears to be no apparent sense of urgency or commitment to get the truth made public and actions taken to make changes to improve the flying safety of the public by all concerned.

I am disgusted with the entire affair...

B772
8th Apr 2001, 04:57
I understand the co-pilot may have been incapacitated at the time SKYDRIFTER

Crockett
8th Apr 2001, 05:16
B 772

No one knows whether the Co-Pilot was incapacitated... The CVR and FDR had been inoperable for some 8 minutes and 2 minutes or so respectively before the aircraft went into the dive..

The last words on the CVR were of the Captain leaving the cockpit...and the last words from the aircraft with traffic/ground control were between the co-pilot and ground control..some two minutes or so before the dive.

The incapacitated theory is just that "A theory"...it has not been proven and will never be as far as I can see..

BUNYA
8th Apr 2001, 05:23
Sadly Crockett, those more cynical of us fear that the object of most investigations (at least those in Asia and Oceania) is not to fairly apportion blame but to ensure that blame is not directed towards those in authority.

Most media reports are distorted but as you say they help to keep the issue in the spotlight.

I am sorry to say that that, perhaps, is only the best we can now hope for.

Best Wishes.

titan
8th Apr 2001, 08:13
That two competent pilots allowed the aircraft to go into a dive on autopilot with full throttle is just a bit far fetched, don't you think?
Maybe B772 was a little too subtle for some of you. Try changing the word incapacitated into terminated.
I do understand that many people with a minimal aeronautical grounding feel more comfortable with any theory that includes mechanical failure. The idea that one person can be directly responsible for so much carnage doesn't fit well with our humantiarian side. It is also an unnerving thought for any passenger. However, history shows this to rarely be the case.
I know the pressure that working for a company like SIA(Silkair) and living in a country like Singapore can bring where your entire value as a human being is measured in monetary terms.

Crockett
8th Apr 2001, 11:05
Titan.....whilst you may be right in some of the things you say... Zeke's posting and listing of 737 accidents above also speaks for itself aswell...

Zeke
8th Apr 2001, 12:05
Titan

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">That two competent pilots allowed the aircraft to go into a dive on autopilot with full throttle is just a bit far fetched, don't you think?</font>

Thinking of an A320 accident that happened in India where the crew selected 3000 ft/min descent instead if a 3 deg down flight path angle, aircraft flew into the ground on autopilot. A simple push button switch changes the autopilot mode from flight path angle to vertical speed.

Its called CFIT, unfortunately it has happened a far bit, some other examples American Airlines B757 Cali, Air New Zealand DC10 Mt Erebus, or more recently Gulf Air 072 where the crew flew the aircraft into the ground when they were too quick for the approach and decided to do a low level orbit to lose speed.

It does happen, unfortunately too often.

This is a list of all B737s that have been written off, surely they all could not have been due to “pilot error” or “suicide tendencies on the part of the crew”

01 APR 2001 According to the Indian Court of Inquiry final report, the Air Alliance B737 crash (July 2000) was caused by a loss of control; the crew had not followed the correct approach procedure and allowed the plane to stall and crash.accident description (http://aviation-safety.net/database/2000/000717-0.htm)

I have just sorted these in date order……..


[list=1] B737-222 W/O 19JUL70 UNITED AIRLINES N9005U PHILADELPHIA, PA B737-222 W/O 08DEC72 UNITED AIRLINES N9031U CHICAGO, IL B737-2A8 W/O 31MAY73 INDIAN AIRLINES VT-EAM DELHI, INDIA B737-247 W/O 31MAR75 WESTERN AIRLINES N4527W CASPER, WY B737-2H6(A) W/O 04DEC77 MALAYSIA AIRLINES (ILFC) 9M-MBD SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA B737-275 W/O 11FEB78 PACIFIC WESTERN AIRLINES CF-PWC CRANBROOK, BRITISH COLUMBIA B737-2A1(A) W/O 03APR78 VASP PP-SMX CONGOHAS, BRAZIL B737-229C(A) W/O 04APR78 SABENA OO-SDH CHARLEROI, BELGIUM B737-2A8 W/O 17DEC78 INDIAN AIRLINES VT-EAL HYDERABAD, INDIA B737-2A8(A) W/O 26APR79 INDIAN AIRLINES VT-ECR MADRAS, INDIA B737-2M2C(A) W/O 05NOV80 TAAG ANGOLA AIRLINES D2-TAA BENGUALA, ANGOLA B737-293 W/O 17FEB81 AIR CALIFORNIA N468AC SANTA ANA, CA B737-222 W/O 22AUG81 FAR EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT B-2603 TAIPEI, TAIWAN B737-222 W/O 13JAN82 AIR FLORIDA N62AF WASHINGTON, DC B737-2A1(A) W/O 24MAY82 VASP PP-SMY BRASILIA, BRAZIL B737-2Q3(A) W/O 26AUG82 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES - JAPAN JA8444 ISHIGAKI, JAPAN B737-2A1C(A) W/O 22FEB83 VASP PP-SNC MANAUS, BRAZIL B737-2B1 W/O 28MAR83 LAM - MOZAMBIQUE C9-BAB QUELIMANE, MOZAMBIQUE B737-2V2(A) W/O 11JUL83 TAME HC-BIG CUENCA, ECUADOR B737-2P6(A) W/O 23SEP83 GULF AIR A40-BK DUBAI, ABU DHABI B737-2M2(A) W/O 09NOV83 TAAG ANGOLA AIRLINES D2-TBN LU BANGO, ANGOLA B737-2M2(A) W/O 09FEB84 TAAG ANGOLA AIRLINES D2-TBV HUAMBO, ANGOLA B737-275(A) W/O 22MAR84 PACIFIC WESTERN AIRLINES C-GQPW CALGARY, ALBERTA B737-2H7C(A) W/O 30AUG84 CAMEROON AIRLINES TJ-CBD DOUALA, CAMEROON B737-2P5(A) W/O 15APR85 THAI AIRWAYS HS-TBB PHUKET, THAILAND B737-236(A) W/O 22AUG85 BRITISH AIR TOURS G-BGJL MANCHESTER, ENGLAND B737-266(A) W/O 24NOV85 EGYPT AIR SU-AYH LUQA, MALTA B737-2A1 W/O 28JAN86 VASP PP-SME GUARULHOS, BRAZIL B737-281 W/O 16FEB86 CHINA AIRLINES B-1870 MAKUNG, TAIWAN B737-286(A) W/O 15OCT86 IRAN AIR EP-IRG SHIRAZ, IRAN B737-222 W/O 25OCT86 PIEDMONT AIRLINES N752N CHARLOTTE, NC B737-270C(A) W/O 25DEC86 IRAQI AIRWAYS YI-AGJ ARAR, SAUDI ARABIA B737-2A1(A) W/O 04AUG87 LAN CHILE CC-CHJ SANTIAGO, CHILE B737-2P5(A) W/O 31AUG87 THAI AIRWAYS HS-TBC PHUKET, THAILAND B737-230(A) W/O 02JAN88 CONDOR D-ABHD IZMIR, TURKEY B737-297 W/O 29APR88 ALOHA AIRLINES N73711 KAHULUI, HAWAII B737-260(A) W/O 16SEP88 ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES ET-AJA BAHAR DAR, ETHIOPIA B737-287(A) W/O 26SEP88 AEROLINEAS ARGENTINAS LV-LIU USHUAIA, ARGENTINA B737-2A8 W/O 19OCT88 INDIAN AIRLINES VT-EAH AHMADABAD, INDIA B737-4Y0 W/O 08JAN89 BRITISH MIDLAND (GPAG) G-OBME LEICESTER, ENGLAND B737-2B1(A) W/O 09FEB89 LAM - MOZAMBIQUE C9-BAD LICHINGA, MOZAMBIQUE B737-248 W/O 03APR89 FAUCETT PERU OB-1314 IQUITOS, PERU B737-241(A) W/O 03SEP89 VARIG PP-VMK S. JOSE DO XINGU, BRAZIL B737-401 W/O 21SEP89 US AIR N416US LAGUARDIA AIRPORT B737-209(A) W/O 26OCT89 CHINA AIRLINES B-180 HUALIEN, TAIWAN B737-204 W/O 30DEC89 AMERICA WEST AIRLINES (ASC) N198AW TUCSON B737-2X6C(A) W/O 02JUN90 MARKAIR N670MA UNALAKLEET, ALASKA B737-222 W/O 22JUL90 US AIR N210US KINSTON, NC B737-247(A) W/O 02OCT90 XIAMEN AIRWAYS B-2510 CANTON, CHINA B737-3Y0 W/O 05NOV90 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES (GPAG) EI-BZG MANILA B737-3B7 W/O 01FEB91 US AIR N388US LOS ANGELES B737-291(A) W/O 04MAR91 UNITED AIRLINES N999UA COLORADO SPRINGS, CO B737-2A8(A) W/O 16AUG91 INDIAN AIRLINES VT-EFL IMPHAL, INDIA B737-2K6(A) W/O 17NOV91 SAHSA (GPAG) EI-CBL SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA B737-204(A) W/O 07JUN92 COPA PANAMA (BRITANNIA) HP-1205CMP LA PALMA, PANAMA B737-2A1C(A) W/O 22JUN92 VASP PP-SND CRUZIERO DO SUL, BRAZIL B737-287C W/O 20NOV92 AEROLINEAS ARGENTINAS LV-JNE SAN LUIS B737-3Y0 W/O 24NOV92 CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES (GPAG) B-2523 GUILIN, CHINA B737-3Z6 W/O 30MAR93 ROYAL THAI AIR FORCE 33-333 BANGKOK B737-2A8(A) W/O 26APR93 INDIAN AIRLINES VT-ECQ AURANGABAD, INDIA B737-2H6(A) W/O 18JUL93 SAHSA (ILFC) N401SH MANAGUA, NICARAGUA B737-5L9 W/O 26JUL93 ASIANA (DMA) HL7229 MOKPO, KOREA B737-112 W/O 19NOV93 COPA PANAMA HP-873CMP PANAMA CITY, PANAMA B737-2R4C(A) W/O 08MAR94 SAHARA INDIA AIRLINES VT-SIA DELHI, INDIA B737-3W0 W/O 29JUL94 YUNNAN PROVINCIAL B-2540 KUNMING, CHINA B737-3B7 W/O 08SEP94 US AIR N513AU PITTSBURGH B737-2C0 W/O 26NOV94 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES N11244 HOUSTON B737-2D6C(A) W/O 21DEC94 AIR ALGERIE 7T-VEE COVENTRY, UK B737-4Y0 W/O 29DEC94 TURKISH AIRLINES (GPAG) TC-JES VAN, TURKEY B737-298C(A) W/O 02JAN95 KINSHASA AIR ZAIRE 9Q-CNI RAN OFF R/W, GEAR FAILED B737-281(A) W/O 16JAN95 SEMPATI AIR (ASEAN LEASE) PK-JHF JOGJAKARTA B737-2A1(A) W/O 02FEB95 VASP PP-SMV SAO PAULO, BRAZIL B737-2H6(A) W/O 09AUG95 AVIATECA (ILFC) N125GU SAN SALVADOR B737-2F9(A) W/O 13NOV95 NIGERIA AIRWAYS 5N-AUA KADUNA B737-2A8(A) W/O 02DEC95 INDIAN AIRLINES VT-ECS DELHI - OVERRAN INTO SOFT GND B737-2K9(A) W/O 03DEC95 CAMEROON AIRLINES TJ-CBE DOUALA B737-222 W/O 29FEB96 FAUCETT PERU (IALI) OB-1451 AREQUIPA, PERU CT-43A (B737-253) W/O 03APR96 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 73-1149 DUBROVNIK, CROATIA B737-2D6C(A) W/O 02AUG96 AIR ALGERIE 7T-VED TIEMCEN, ALGERIA B737-2C3(A) W/O 14FEB97 VARIG PP-CJO CARAJAS, BRAZIL B737-31B W/O 08MAY97 CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES B-2925 SHENZHEN, CHINA B737-242C W/O 03AUG97 AIR AFRIQUE (POLA) TU-TAV DOUALA, CAMEROON B737-268(A) W/O 06SEP97 SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES HZ-AGM NAJRAN, SAUDI ARABIA B737-36N W/O 19DEC97 SILKAIR (GECA) 9V-TRF PALEMBANG, INDONESIA B737-291 W/O 02FEB98 (RAM AIR SALES) N737RD DBER IN TORNADO - MIA B737-2K3(A) W/O 26FEB98 CHANCHANGI AIRLINES (AGX) YU-ANU LAGOS, NIGERIA B737-2H4(A) W/O 12APR98 ORIENT EAGLE AIRWAYS (PALM BCH AERO) P4-NEN ALMATY, KAZAKSTAN B737-282(A) W/O 05MAY98 PERU AIR FORCE FAP-351 ANDOAS, PERU B737-2J8C(A) W/O 19JUL98 SUDAN AIRWAYS ST-AFL KHARTOUM, SUDAN B737-524 W/O 16SEP98 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES N20643 GUADALAHARA, MEXICO - FUSELAGE @ MHV DEC99 B737-2P6(A) W/O 01NOV98 AIR TRAN AIRWAYS (GECA) EI-CJW ATLANTA B737-228(A) W/O 04MAR99 AIR FRANCE F-GBYA BIARRITZ B737-4Q8 W/O 06APR99 TURKISH AIRLINES (ILFC) TC-JEP CEYHAN, TURKEY B737-247 W/O 10MAY99 MEXICAN AIR FORCE XC-IJI LOMA BONITA, MEXICO B737-2A6 W/O 17MAY99 LADECO AIRLINES (CORS) CC-CYR B737-3Y0 W/O 09JUN99 CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES (GECA) B-2525 ZHANJIANG, CHINA B737-204C W/O 31AUG99 LAPA LV-WRZ BUENOS AIRES B737-3T5 W/O 05MAR00 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES N668SW BUR OVERSHOT R/W ON LDG B737-2H4(A) W/O 19APR00 AIR PHILIPPINES RP-C3010 DAVAO, PHILIPPINES B737-2A8(A) W/O 17JUL00 ALLIANCE AIR VT-EGD PATNA, INDIA B737-4D7 W/O 03MAR01 THAI AIRWAYS INTL HS-TDC BANGKOK, THAILAND
[/list=a]

SKYDRIFTER
8th Apr 2001, 14:52
PERSPECTIVE -

Reasonable confusion during a maneuvering phase is understandable. However, cruise flight is radically different.

Given the 'politically correct' data distortion of ValuJet 592 - notably the impossible dive - I just don't trust this one. The NTSB is, unfortunately, famous for data distortion as early as the 'Hoot' Gibson 727 tumble.

As cited before, this crash has enough earmarks of the Copa crash that I'm just not satisfied.

I just got an E-mail that my speculation that the yaw damper was the culprit in the 737 rudder hard-over cases may have been on target, as suggested by a related series of AD notes. Therefore, this one remains 'open' in my mind.

Casper
9th Apr 2001, 05:50
3000 fpm descent is a little less than 15000+ fpm and that is what the silkair 737 managed. The throttle power setting and position of the stab trim indicate human input. Why no distress call? This was a CFIT crash - intentional CFIT.

Captain Erebus
9th Apr 2001, 09:26
No doubt about it Casper. The obvious speaks for itself doesn't it.

I wish everybody else would simply get to the guts of the whole issue...namely, what else could cause the supersonic dive at full power? Forget the FDR/CVR/Position of co-pilot/3000fpm excursions/3 degree FPA.....it's all crap at the end of the day.

You just can't put a 737 into a 15,000fpm+ dive at full power with stab trim full down unless somebody does it deliberately...fly the simulator and try it...I have.

Loner
9th Apr 2001, 11:48
I totally agreed with Capt. Erebus

Until now, nobody have challenged or questioned the results coming from the simulator. Simulator results are more convincing than each of our own opinion on the clash is. Everyone can talk what they like, but can they proof whatever they said is correct?

I do not believe a man can kill somebody when he is mentally alright. However, there is always the exception. Look at racial riots in Indonesian, headless body dragged behind motorcycles, teens smiling at camera with his one hand holding a dead man's head.
Also, back here in UK, where a 12 years old kid killed his younger brother because of jealousy

Milly
10th Apr 2001, 02:53
I saw the documentary and thought that for "TV" is was quite well done. However, what gets me is the attempt to present as fact what we do not (and probably never will) know. However, at least someone has come out and said in public what a lot of people are only prepared to say in private (or on Pprune). A previous posting from another link referring to the SQ006 crash, but still relevent to this, said "It appears the only people interested in events like this are pilots. Its obvious to me passengers couln't care less about their lives. They are more interested in the inflight service." I take exception to this. The passengers who fly these airlines are not "stupid and suicidal" as the posting said but ill informed. The reason passengers are ill informed is because people aren't prepared to say the truth in public. Despite what many think - not too many passengers read Pprune before making flight bookings. Most pilots on the site seem to feel that venting to each other will make a difference - it will not. As long as pilots continue to attack journalists and anyone else who is interested in their cause - passengers will continue to be "stupid and suicidal".

Crockett
10th Apr 2001, 12:14
Milly

Precisely my point and reason for this posting in the first place..

Why won't any one involved in the investigation from Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, etc come out with all the facts..that apparently are out there..

Sadly, even the British government have officially said they agree with the findings and conclusions of the Indonesian crash report...I have a letter from the relevent government minister advising me of this fact. Then again,what would you expect given the performance of the British Government officials in the Indonesian and Singapore Embassies after the crash with regards the so called support offered to British families effected by the crash.. It was pitiful...

Something is going on...I just do not get it..

Milly
11th Apr 2001, 01:22
Australia will not officially disagree with the Indonesian findings because it would not be a good move diplomatically. I think there was also some mention on the documentary about Indonesia and Singapore giving Australia free access to accident investigations which involve their nationals. I do not exactly understand this but it would appear that if Australia upsets either Indonesia or Singapore then they will make things difficult for them. The thing to realise is that this investigation has been compromised by politics. It is a sad inditement on our polititians that they care nothing for the safety of their people.

Casper
11th Apr 2001, 01:58
Australia may not make comment on the report officially. Only three states (manufacture - USA / operation - Singapore / location - Indonesia) may have official input to the formal report. Australian investigators were present at the invitation of the Indonesian authority.

The NTSB comments on the official report probably created a precedent in that the comments disagreed with the official findings. These official findings are a disgrace to both Indonesia and Singapore, both states purporting to be signatories to ICAO. What a joke!

All investigators in the case (Singapore and Indonesia included) PRIVATELY agree that the crash was caused by human intervention. Apart from all the human factor aspects which are valid DESPITE the rubbish presented by the Singapore police report, there is simply NO OTHER POSSIBLE cause.

As mentioned in previous posts, the trajectory has been flown in simulators. It takes a lot of down trim on the stabiliser and a lot of thrust to achieve the plotted course and descent.

KEEP IT SIMPLE.
Manually set stab trim + manually set thrust = human input.

Claims about yaw damper problems etc are simply not valid in this case. All flight control components of the aircraft in MI 185 was recovered and ALL were okay.

geoffrey thomas
11th Apr 2001, 02:10
Finally some perspective to this debate. There is no way known that anything but pilot action caused that tragic crash. All the rudder hard overs in the world would never recreate that dive at full power. THAT is a fact.

Milly
11th Apr 2001, 06:15
Thanks for the info on why Australia did not officially speak out. However if Australians were present during the investigation and are aware of this so called coverup isn't it their duty to report this? I see that Great Britian have commented on this accident although they are not one of the official three countries involved. That means that Australia could have done the same.

Crockett
11th Apr 2001, 09:27
If Australia or any other party involved are aware of facts that were not contained in the Final Crash Report and should have been...surely those parties should speak out..with the facts...

So far, all we have heard is expressions that say the final report was missing pertinent information and findings. However, no one has said what exactly was missing with specific examples..This includes the NTSB..

What appears to be the problem with speaking out.??.

If there is indeed more information that should be made public, why not release it.. I simply do not believe that it is because they do not want to upset the Indonesians..
If this is the reason, the Australian organisations involved are showing them selves to be just as bad as the Indonesian Investigators...

Corrupt.??..I think not in the true sense of the word, but corruption at a bigger Political and Economic level...

Very Sad indeed whatever the cause of the crash, that safety does not appear to be that important to the organisations who are charged with improving Aviation Safety..

Casper
11th Apr 2001, 11:00
The US NTSB comments on the official report actually did contain examples and specifics of what (they considered)should have been included in the final report. The NTSB can not force the Indonesian authority into including these facts - they can only recommend it which they did.

There is not necessarily a cover up as such. It is more like simply not disclosing all the evidence. Singapore will not publicly admit that one of its boys killed 103 innocent persons and the Indonesian investigator has simply done what his neighbours have instructed.

In the slot
11th Apr 2001, 13:32
The SilkAir tragedy was badly handled from the start. SIA was keen to distance itself totally from SilkAir to avoid bad publicity. This was impossible in Oct2000 when it hit management in the face. Whatever your opinions, SIA as a company has had a hull loss in ALL three of its flt depts. namely the flying college(learjet), SilkAir(737) and Singapore Airlines(747), over a period of only 4 years. That's almost as bad as Korean, an airline which is the butt of many jokes around flt ops. SQ management, time to wake up and smell the coffee before you spill some more.

Crockett
12th Apr 2001, 01:02
Not being an Australian...could someone tell me which Government Ministry does BASI come under..and which government minister would be responsible or the person to contact in Australia.

Any advice welcome...

SKYDRIFTER
12th Apr 2001, 09:55
A LOT OF QUESTIONS -

While most have a high degree of respect for the NTSB, the agency is riddled with false reports and left-out information - fact, not fiction.

Rmemeber the ongoing issue on the B-767 in Australia; nobody seems to have a clean show.

I won't totally discount the suicide theory, but I'd like to see a lot more holes plugged, first.

WSSS
13th Apr 2001, 08:26
Skydrifter,

It seems pretty clear cut to me. Since the crash in 1997, how many occurrences have there been of CVR's and FDR's failing in flight? My guess would be very few, if any. And furthermore, what an amazing coincidence that the two most vital pieces of equipment that could have provided some clues to the cause of the crash, stopped working just minutes before.

Now, with respect, sir, which holes exactly would you like to see plugged? Please do elaborate.

[This message has been edited by WSSS (edited 13 April 2001).]

In the slot
13th Apr 2001, 15:33
WSSS, can't agree more.
In life, "coincidence" is defined as one or more events occuring without the same causal influence.
FDR,CVR,buddies crash anniversary,new life insurance, financial problems, a flight path not possible without maintained pilot inputs.
In the above scenario, anyone with any sense of rationale or practical thinking would realise that "coincidence" is a word that only a very blinkered and rationalising SQ management body would use.
Oh sorry, I forgot you have to do WHATEVER it takes to keep those shareholders happy.

Jim lovell
13th Apr 2001, 17:41
Just in regards to US Air 427 crash(1994) and United 585 (1991)- these 2 accidents were never conclusivily proven to be caused by rudder hardovers. Although this is a very possible cause with plenty of evidence to back it up there are other possibilities. US Air 427 may have flown into the wake of a Delta 727- 6nm ahead at the time, and United 585 may have been brought down by a very vicious rotor in the vicinity of Colorado Springs at the time of the accident.

Crockett
15th Apr 2001, 01:54
As the saying goes..

Where there is smoke, there is fire..

SKYDRIFTER
15th Apr 2001, 08:44
WSSS -

1. The CVR ends with the captain leaving the cockpit with the seat slid back and nothing substantial to suggest that he pulled the circuit breakers. The CVR is dual powered.

2. How did he manage to pull both circuit breakers without the copilot noticing?

3. The ATC recordings attest to the first officer being alive immediately before the high-dive.

4. How did the captain pull off the high-dive, unopposed? A struggle would have knocked off the autopilot, leaving a radar record.

5. Finances aside, what valid indications were there of the type of anxiety or depression leading to this supposed suicide?

The ValuJet 592 investigation is a CVR and FDR farce. The date is unimportant.

The Alaska 261 CVR data is conspicuously highly incomplete. Granted the final report isn't out yet. There seemes to be spin-doctoring in progress, focusing on the jack-screw, which couldn't uniquely account for the accident.

Again, my mind is open, but so are a lot of questions.

WSSS
15th Apr 2001, 15:15
Skydrifter,

The official MI185 report implied that the CVR/FDR failed as a result of a mechanical malfunction such as that caused by a broken wire. After tests conducted by the NTSB, this was found to be unlikely. The NTSB sound analysis test results were consistent with a loss of power to the CVR that was most likely caused by physical pulling of the circuit breaker.

Furthermore, the FDR, which was still operating for about 6 minutes after the CVR failed, did not give any indications of impending electrical problems that could have caused the CVR and FDR to have failed.

Given the fact that the FDR failed 6 minutes after the CVR, and the explanation given by the official report that this was caused by a broken wire, it would be highly improbable that 2 separate cases of broken wires existed on a 9 month old airplane. And how coincidental was it that these 2 wires chose to break just before a 15,000 fpm descent into the Musi river?

We can only speculate why the F/O wasn't alert to the alleged CB pulling incident ...or who knows, he may well have been aware of this.....it's anybody's guess.

And if indeed, the Captain pulled the CB of the CVR, it wouldn't have been the first time that he's done it. And as I recall in the other CVR CB pulling incident, the Captain only replaced the CB after a lengthy discussion with his F/O. On MI 185, maybe such a discussion was taking place at the time? ....We just don't know.

Chronological order of events before descent.

09:05:15 - CVR stops. Captain thought to have left the flight deck.

09:10:26 - Last radio contact with Jakarta Control made by F/O

09:11:33 - FDR stops

09:12:17 - Commenced descent (400 ft below cruising level)

So, there's 1 minute and 7 seconds between when the F/O made radio contact and when the FDR stops. Enough time for the F/O to leave the cockpit, the Captain to lock the door, pull the FDR CB, and then commence descent about 40 seconds after?

And just one final note...if the Captain allegedly had wanted to make this look like an accident for insurance claim purposes, then he would have taken drastic measures to cover his footsteps. And I would suggest that this is the reason why this accident is as mysterious as it is, because, right from the very start, it was always intended to be covered up.

[This message has been edited by WSSS (edited 15 April 2001).]

SKYDRIFTER
15th Apr 2001, 18:47
WSSS -

Despite the age of the aircraft, Kapton wire has been a problem, note two avionics cases on this aircraft.

The :45 minute delay between the FDR quitting and the dive strikes me as unlikely that a 'planned' timing was the case. Yes, debate is possible.

In the COPA crash, the NTSB glossed over the fact that the attitude indicator AND compass switches were set to BOTH ON 1, and the pressurization controller indicated an electrical failure and a decompression at their assigned cruise altitude. The 'short' on the attitude indicator also didn't pan out.

Hence my continued distrust of the 'data control.'

In the background is the NTSB willing acceptance of the non-reporting of mechanical failures (estimated 70% non-reporting and selective reporting, additionally)on the FAA's watch - more 'data control.'

While badly dated, the 'Hoot' Gibson 727 tumble, was probably the first rudder actuator hard-over case. A long list of review requests have been denied, despite the glaring coverup.

It has also been established that Boeing and the FAA knew about the rudder control insufficiency on the 737, hence, I'm simply not willing to trust those entities.

Note also that no criminal investigation has been initiated, despite the hundreds of deaths in the 737 crashes and the associated cover-ups.

I remain highly curious, encouraging others to keep asking questions.

Casper
16th Apr 2001, 05:45
Skydrifter,

WSSS has got it right although the actual time interval between stoppage of the DFDR and starting of the dive was 1 min 10 seconds.

Other posts have addressed all of your concerns and pointed out the 99.99% fact that this crash was pilot intended and pilot induced.

Please explain your claims of cover-ups in the other 737 accidents where, by the way, FDRs and CVRs continued to operate perfectly.

Are you really that thick or are you simply refuting intelligent opinions and facts out of hand? If so, why?