Silk Air MI 185

[Crockett]

Hi All

Have any of you read the recent articles a few weeks ago in Singapore media about possibility that new evidence shows that pilot did not do it as previously thought to be the case by a lot of people. Even though Final Crash Report was inconclusive at the time..

In fact...Crash investigators are now prepared to reopen the investigation apparently if the new evidence re Black Boxes is true..

The truth will come out eventually... even 5 to 6 years on..

Opinions anyone..???

[Kaptin M]

This is a "rumour network" - so what's the new rumour being cited as the cause?

And why has it taken "5 to 6 years" to surface?

[Hudson]

It had better be almost infallible new information. There were too may coincidences involved with that crash. Someone pulled three circuit breakers before the aircraft went into a very steep dive with not even one squeak of a radio call (despite a perfectly normal position report transmission less than a minute earlier).

Plus no sign of speedbrakes operated in the dive. Plus evidence of high engine power at impact - plus evidence from the FDR that just before the FDR circuit breakers were pulled that the stab trim setting was in normal cruise - yet the stab trim was found in full down electrical limit by the investigators. As I said - an awful lot of coincidences took place on that flight.

At the court proceedings held in Singapore there was compelling evidence of strange behaviour by the captain on several earlier flights.

[autoflight]

Too late for the airline to recover its reputation with a few rumours!

[Crockett]

Latest reports are that the data for the last few minutes of the flight from the FDR was in fact there, unlike previous reports that said last six minutes was not there..and that no data available before the aircraft left 35,000 ft.

It is reported that New data now available shows the aircraft at 16,000 with the rudder deflection of 30 degrees or words to that effect..just a minute or so before aircraft hit the ground..

Guess we continue to wait and see what happens next..

[Taildragger]

Crockett...

My compliments. By Singapore Media, do you mean that paragon of objective and truthful, unfettered by Government pressure, The Straits Times.?? If so, I believe everything they say. BTW, do they still have the Page 2 column... "What it should have been".??

[7times7]

I was following the story. Nothing appeared in the Straits Times, not surprisingly.

It first appeared only in TODAY newspaper, a rival group paper and later repeated on another so called tabloid.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/todaynews/view/707/1/.html

[Crockett]

Where there is smoke there is fire... I think the saying goes...

You have to admit that it is an interesting turn of events.....and somewhat embarrassing for all concerned in the investigation, whether from the Indonesian side or those who supposedly gave the FDR data to the Indonesian Investigators.. Was the information withheld and by whom....That is the question...

The truth will come out eventually.....

[ATC Watcher]

I am not so sure, Crockett, that the thruth will eventually come out if it indeed involves , even partially, rudder deflection.

By the way has anyone seen the accident report of the Turkish 737-300, that crashed in Turkey a few years ago, there also rudder deflection was suspected.

[lomapaseo]

No surprises here.

This should be expected when the data migrates from the impartial investigators to the lawyers who have an agenda.

I guess those that are attracted to news releases like this will just have to await a trial outcome of who's right.

[DocManhattan]

I wrote a number of pieces for Flight about this crash a while back, and I'm extremely sceptical about the Nolan Group's position. I met Tom Ellis (the lawyer cited in the Channel News Asia article) in 1998 and it was clear then that these guys had a determined agenda, which is to dump the blame for this tragedy at Boeing's door at all costs -- 'cause that's where the money is. They're lawyers - that's what they do. In all the interviews I did with parties on all sides of the dispute, nobody ever suggested to me that there may be any data from either the FDR or CVR beyond the clear times specified in the accident report when the recorders stopped working -- presumably the moment at which the CBs were pulled. For this sort of data to turn up now seems extremely unlikely, to say the least. Furthermore - both Ellis and Oetarjo Diran, the chief accident investigator, seemed keen to suggest that crash was caused by an uncommanded rudder hardover like the ones that were (probably) responsible for 737 crashes at Pittsburgh and Colorado Springs. However, in both those cases the aircraft were flying low and slow, at a speed where I understand you can no longer effectively counter a full rudder deflection with ailerons. Because they were low, they also didn't have much recovery time. MI185 was in the cruise -- well above the threshold speed -- at 35,000 ft (if memory serves me well), so plenty of altitude to recover. The crew had a clear sky, so orientation shouldn't have been a problem, then there's the lack of distress call, the trim, the engine power settings, the captain's financial and disciplinary troubles... the list goes on. Unfortunately, this seems to be one of those cases where we'll never know for sure. But based on the available information, the most likely conclusion is that the crash was caused deliberately. Grim, but that's how it is...

[highcirrus]

DocManhattan

“However, in both those cases the aircraft were flying low and slow, at a speed where I understand you can no longer effectively counter a full rudder deflection with ailerons.”

Hmm. Not too sure whether that would really have been an issue in this case, with a rudder hard-over at M.74 and FL350. In that event, the overriding consideration must surely have been one of catastrophic damage to the tailplane – including possible separation – leading to inevitable, rapid and spectacular loss of the aircraft.

In those circumstances, “plenty of altitude to recover ….. clear sky, so orientation shouldn’t have been a problem” would seem to be irrelevant.

[DocManhattan]

...fair point, highcirrus, but the descent profile isn't consistent with a fin separation. It was a steep, high-power, high-speed swandive... And the wreckage showed no sign of that kind of damage (I'm almost 100% sure). So that's another argument against the rudder hardover theory...

[highcirrus]

DocManhattan

Actually I implied that the whole tail might have separated rather than just the fin. In that case a number of things are likely to have taken place during and subsequent to this event. An extremely violent flick would have instantly occurred during the rudder hard-over, followed by a very high energy autorotation, severe yaw-roll coupling and then a steep nose drop into a high angle dive. In the event the whole tail separated, elevator control would have gone forever, making this dive terminal. Interestingly, the circuitry of the DFDR, sited in the tail, would, in all probability, have sustained electrical shock load in this catastrophic event and tripped the flight deck circuit breakers. The flight crew, meanwhile, suddenly pointing straight down, following a shocking, sick-making, un-practiced, noisy and highly disorientating (despite clear skies) un-commanded manoeuvre would have, I can categorically assure you, instantly recognised their imminent demise – from which point, all bets are off as to whether any rational (though likely to be futile) action was carried out in the short time remaining.

On the point of the wreckage – and I will stand corrected here – I do seem to remember that the tail components were found some distance from the main body of the aeroplane at the crash site.

You also mention “captain's financial and disciplinary troubles” as being a contributory cause of the disaster. It may interest you to know that the alleged cause of the former trouble (gambling) is endemic down here (Singapore) and that many more than one pilot in the history of SIA/Silk Air has managed to operate quite safely and successfully, despite such desperate woes. However, if the airlines concerned are so mindful of such stress (they’re not, as it doesn’t show on a balance sheet) they might like to consider that a plethora of their pilots are currently operating under similar debt overhang duress, having burned their fingers, gambling in the property market of three years ago. Their positions are now made even more acute, as the pilot body is apparently responsible for losses incurred by the two airlines, during the SARS crisis and now have to make amends by sustaining a government imposed 40-50% pay cut (see Far East threads of this web site).

Finally, as you are a journalist, you might like to ask Boeing for their idea of the likely course of events, subsequent to a rudder hard-over in the circumstances specified (M.74/FL350). Having spoken with them, maybe you could then ask the FAA why they’ve quietly insisted on a complete re-design of the B737 rudder control system and why they have made phased installation into the world fleet mandatory.

[DocManhattan]

OK, let's think this through. Firstly, as I recall a part of the tail assembly did separate, but that was already well into the descent. It was ripped off by aerodynamic loads, with the aircraft already far outside its flight envelope. That's the bit that was found away from the crash site. I don't know exactly which part of the empennage it was, but everything I've been told suggests that it came off as a result of the dive, and wasn't a cause of the dive. I know that parts of the tail were recovered from the wreckage (enough to prove the aircraft was trimmed nose-down, certainly), so it can't be that the whole back end came off the thing. And if a portion that big had separated, wouldn't that have shown up on radar? So that hypothesis seems pretty unlikely.

Also, my point about the descent profile is that the radar plots showed the aircraft coming down steadily, with no manoeuvres or apparent attempts to recover. It came down like a bat out of hell, and I very much doubt that an aeroplane would fly that steadily with its entire empennage off... Right, as to the flight mechanics of what happens when your tail comes off, I guess you're right, you would pitch down, but you'd be totally unstable, no? You might even try to use engine power to bring the nose up, but surely your descent would be much more haphazard than what we saw here? And that still leaves the mystery of the full nose-down trim... So I'm not convinced.

Boeing is always very tight-lipped in public about crashes involving its aircraft, cause it doesn't want to pre-empt an investigation and get itself into trouble. There have certainly been problems with the 737 rudder, which led to a redesign (check out the Pittsburgh and Colorado Springs crashes I mentioned above). All I'm saying is that MI185 was a completely different case.

I've heard it's a tough life for some pilots in Singapore, but not everyone reacts to the same stresses in the same way. Some hold out, some crack...

[Crockett]

Highcirruss and DocManhattan

Thank you for your insight..and obvious understanding of the possible events that may have occurred.. Very interesting..

Doc...Of course The Lawyers have a determined agenda... Whilst Mr Ellis is not representing me, I would be worried if he did not have a determined agenda if he was representing me..

The 737 Rudder problem is well documented over the years and again I say, where there is smoke there is fire..Let Boeing prove otherwise when it goes to trial.. The re-design requirements is fact not fiction. !!

As for the fiction... Boeing...there argument or cause for the accident is Pilot Suicide... Whilst Capt Tsu may have had some problems..They were not as bad as has been made out and it is far too simple an explanation... Guess the boys at Boeing and the lawyers representing them will say it is a "Cultural Thing " !!!... They would be very mistaken to use this arguement in a court of law in the USA..

Trial starts in October this year by the way...

[Crockett]

Just wanted to comment on something Iomapasoe said in this thread.. re "Impartial Investigators" ...

Whilst this may be generally true and investigators are supposedly impartial, I can assure you that in the case of SilkAir MI 185, sufficent stuff has gone on and so many parties involved in the investigation from all over the world that not supprisingly, some of them could very easily be described as having a direct interest in the results of the investigation and what was included or not included in the Final Crash Report, as the case may be..

I realise no system is perfect and it is a tough job to put on any crash investigative team even if they have access to all possible resources, but in the case of SilkAir MI 185, resources (equipment, expertise and people) were leant from all over the world.. some of these were most definitely interested parties and certainly not going to be impartial..

[highcirrus]

DocManhattan

You could be entirely correct in your reiteration of and belief in, events as presented in the final crash report and I’m certainly not sure of what bits of the tail assembly were found remote from the main body of the aircraft. Perhaps someone with definitive knowledge could confirm?

However, I would like to know how you surmise that “a part of the tail assembly did separate, but that was already well into the descent. It was ripped off by aerodynamic loads, with the aircraft already far outside its flight envelope.”

As far as I am aware, there has previously been no DFDR data available which covered this phase of flight and which would support this proposition, hence, I think you will agree, it must remain, for the time being, in the realms of pure speculation. Of equally valid pure speculation is my hypothesis of the sequence of events, which I previously made – or if not exactly that sequence, then variations around it – bearing in mind that events subsequent to whatever caused the initial upset, were taking place, as you quite correctly state “far outside the flight envelope” and would therefore be difficult if not impossible to predicate.

Please also bear in mind that during this terminal excursion, the very marked compressibility effect present, at perhaps M1.0+ following the initial, accelerating steep dive hypothesised, would have been a dramatic oscillation of Centre of Pressure with resulting grave pitch instability. It is entirely possible to speculate that the crew may, in extremis, and before finally losing control of the aircraft, have trimmed forward, in the absence of elevator control, to arrest a very high “G” pitch-up that could at the instant, have destroyed the aeroplane – hence the stab trim found in the full down position.

In respect of descent profile: “radar plots showed the aircraft coming down steadily, with no manoeuvres or apparent attempts to recover.” Here it is probably best to re-examine the provenance of the evidence presented to the inquiry. Was the above summation arrived at on the basis of display tapes presented in evidence and derived from civil area radars or were similar tapes analysed that were derived from more accurately profiling, military height-finding radars? If the latter, then a true picture of the descent profile could be obtained.

Moving on; if I might say, when things do go unexpectedly and very badly wrong in any jet aircraft, as far as I’ve ever been able to observe, they do so extremely quickly and to the point where subsequent recovery to safe flight may be difficult – For which reason, I think we should all keep open minds on a subject which perhaps comes under this category and which a lot of people consider far from adequately explained.

It will therefore be interesting for all of us to read of the new DFDR evidence which Crockett helpfully indicates will shortly be available, along the lines of:

“Latest reports are that the data for the last few minutes of the flight from the FDR was in fact there, unlike previous reports that said last six minutes was not there..and that no data available before the aircraft left 35,000 ft.

It is reported that New data now available shows the aircraft at 16,000 with the rudder deflection of 30 degrees or words to that effect..just a minute or so before aircraft hit the ground..”

I’m sure you realise that rudder hard-overs in the B737 are not necessarily restricted to relatively slow flight and low altitude regimes (Pittsburgh and Colorado Springs crashes). They can happen anywhere in the flight envelope – a point that begs the question, why is it that “MI185 was a completely different case”?

[Hudson]

The accident aircraft was fitted with a rudder pressure reducer which shortly after take off cuts back the hydraulic pressure to the rudder PCU such that it reduces the rudder pedal authority by about a third, allowing crews more time to respond and recover from unnecessary large rudder deflections. If any rudder pedal is pushed to its limit when the RPR transitions to reduced, then pressure airloads on the rudder reduce max rudder deflection and rudder pedal position. (this is an extract from Cockpit Panel Notes by captain Bill Bulfer USA).

So if the rudder went uncommanded sudden hard-over at cruise altitude then the RPR would come into action and the recovery would be straight forward for any competent 737 pilot.

You might lose a couple of thousand feet but it is recoverable. We have done it in the simulator. It would be too much of yet another amazing coincidence that the RPR would mysteriously fail at that precise instant an uncommanded rudder deflection occurred.

Additionally, I would guess that despite full purposeful rudder input by a pilot who was intent on topping himself, there is no way that the rudder would get to 30 degrees because not only the RPR would prevent this but blow back during any dive would negate anywhere near that figure.

During the court case held in Singapore, the records of each pilot revealed that both had recently been certified competent on unusual attitude recoveries in the simulator. And the captain was an experienced aerobatic fighter pilot. Upside down on his back was ops normal for him in his previous job.

Of course, one way of ensuring that you want to dive the aircraft at the max speed in the minimum time is to whack on full available rudder while at the same time applying full aileron and stick your thumb on the stab trim switch until you run out of forward electrical trim. That takes 8 seconds from normal cruise trim setting to full forward setting. Plausible scenario?

The suggested use of high power to get the nose up in a dive was suggested by an expert witness at the court case. I doubt if any sane pilot would seriously whack on full power in a near vertical dive near Mach One in order to try and raise the nose. Especially when the evidence indicated that the speed brakes were retracted. But certainly the "new" FDR evidence makes for interesting speculation, if nothing else.

[DIRK DIGGLER]

Errrrrr........what's your point cirrus?

[Crockett]

Diggler....

Will not respond for Cirrus as to what is the point from his perspective..

As far as I see it however...the point is that if indeed the FDR data is and was available, then this begs several questions..

1. Why was this data not released before..?
2. Why did the NTSB not release it to Indonesian Crash investigators ?? and if they did, why was it not used in the Final Crash Report..

It would also put an end to the theory that the FRDR was switched off by the Captain.

On that note, according to the CVR transcript in the final crash report, The Captain was last heard leaving the Cockpit and no one has yet proven that he returned to the cockpit, thereby leaving the possibility that only the Co-Pilot was alone flying the aircraft.. and if a rudder hardover had taken place at that time, was he experienced enough to get the aircraft under control alone..

I am not laying blame here, just looking at all possibilities.. That is the point...Just want to know what happened and I hope one day that will be the case.

Thank you all for your input..very much appreciated..

[lomapaseo]

Please keep in mind that DFDR traces are looped

Thus there is data overwrite which must be discerned where the very end of the tape really is. Not difficult for the NTSB experts, but prolly beyond the capability for the lawyer types.

Remrmber TWA800 and the claim that the last 2 minutes was witheld that showed a significant drop in altitude and heading.

[Crockett]

Iomapaseo

You have a point and I am sure that some will argue that the new data being talked about was from a previous flight..

However, that does not explain why it apparently shows a rudder deflection (if that is the right terminology?) of 30 degrees..

If it (the data) was from a previous flight, I would think that a rudder deflection of that amount at 16,000 ft would have justified an incident report or whatever is the normal practice ...and a very uncomfortable ride for the passengers and crew of course..

But then again.........??!!!!

[Mitsumi]

“If it (the data) was from a previous flight, I would think that a rudder deflection of that amount at 16,000 ft would have justified an incident report”

I think you find that the company policy that exist at time of MI 185 was for the company to “sit on incident reports” of which there were many and not forward them to the local authorities.

The policy may have changed since MI 185 and other incident in parent company. Therefore report may have been made but only internal action taken.

[Hudson]

During the court case, a New Zealand first officer described an incident in which he was with Tsui when he (the captain) made a hash of a final approach, coming in ridicuously high, and pressing on regardless of the first officer advice of an immediate go -around. He decribed how the captain attempted to lose height rapidly by throwing the 737 into a series of violent S turns. This would have certainly involved serious use of aileron, spoilers and rudder. AS the aircraft passed 700 feet high over the threshold, the first officer pushed open the throttles and finally convinced the captain to abandon his attempt to land. The captain then put the 737 into a tight low level circuit.

Evidence at the court case was given that the passengers were screaming and complaints were sent to Silk Air. The captain failed to file a formal report to his superiors and when the complaints began to emerge, he was admonished and demoted. Other evidence was presented from an Indian 737 captain who advised Silk Air management that he did not wish to renew his contract with the company as he did not want to fly any 737 flown by Tsui because of his fear of structural problems.

All this is purely coincidental of course to the unexplained fatal accident to MI185 and the now mysterious full rudder deflection allegedly noted on the revised FDR. Tsui certainly had experience with 737 rudder use.

[Crockett]

The question I have been asking is ...What were the passengers and crew feeling like and doing in MI 185.. That is a scary thought...horrifying..

As for the cause of MI 185 crash...well guess we have to wait and see what comes out in the US courts..

[G.Khan]

If the tape had been over written then it is possible that the 30 degree rudder deflection recorded was caused by the 'full and free' flight controls check done on the ground in Jakarta before take off, the timing would be about right. Quite where the 16000' comes in remains a mystery.

Crockett - Knowing of your personal involvement in this flight it won't help you to dwell on what happened in that last few minutes but my guess is that the attitude of the aircraft and the 'G' forces felt would have blocked out any realisation of what was about to happen, our thoughts are with you but try to console yourself with the possibility that it all happened too quickly for there to be a full understanding of their predicament.

[Tripper]

The DFDR recordings are digital. Has anyone tried the manouvre that MI 185 did? Try taking one hand off to push the DFDR CB in, when the aircraft is diving at Mach 1+.

this looks like another red herring slipped in by someone who wants to make a hero out of someone who doesn't deserve the credit

[Crockett]

Hi Tripper... apologies but I am not sure I get your point re Red Herring and Hero.. Could you expand on your comment..

G. Khan...thank you..To be honest I am not dwelling on that point at all anymore... Guess what I was trying to re-inforce is that whilst all these unknowns still exist and the cause of crash remains unknown..We should not forget the real tragedy in all of this.. Those who lost their lives.. If the reason for crash comes to light, at least we can hopefully prevent or reduce the risk of it happening again for the same reason.

Guess I did not explain myself very well in earlier posting..

[Tripper]

Crocket,

In July 1999, Prof.Diran called it " unlawful interference" but changed it completely around in another year!!!!

The NTSB report is the correct one ( I am not defending NTSB, but in this case, they are absolutely correct)

The DFDR readouts which were missing for sometime before the aircraft left FL 350 and contimued down to the level when Radar returns disappeared, cannot just appear at FL 160. Not when the CB has been pulled out!!!

The rudder CANNOT be deflected to 30 degrees at >Mach 1.0 speed.

So, whoever started these stories, are fishing in the dark. Maybe the guilty party is worried that the truth is coming out, though slowly

[Frangible]

No particular views on the crash sequence but regarding lawyers, if plaintiff litigators go for the airline because that's where the money is, believe me, the plane-makers' lawyers go for the "anything caused this crash but the plane" arguments equally ruthlessly, usually starting with blaming the pilots. The Boeing record on this in litigation is not very edifying. The 737 hardovers all started with blamed pilots, as did the Lauda 767 in Thailand. Long after the mud had stuck, they were eventually exonerated.

Regarding the Pittsburgh 737 rudder hardover crash (or was it the Colorado Springs one) they tried to get entered into the NTSB research the notion that the pilot had suffered a traumatic childhood experience involving his left leg and had suddenly reverted to that memory and jammed the rudder down and kept it there. Sad but true.

I am not saying the suicide theory is wrong, but it is just a theory and a pretty convenient one for certain parties.

..pardon me, meant to say "go for the manufacturer", not " go for the airline" (though they will do that too)_.

[Capt. Erebus]

Crockett.

Are you one of the plaintiffs in the up coming court case in the US against Boeing et al? If so then I'm disappointed.

I have been surprised at your recent comments focusing on the rudder hard-over theory. 5 years ago you were just as focussed on the suicide/murder theory as were most of the pprune contributors.

You are right though, it is worth discussing new "evidence" that may subsequently come to light, but you seem to be clutching for short straws.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly feel for you and others who have lost family and friends in that accident. Duncan Ward was a good friend of mine also. But it has annoyed me to see some of the families bringing action against SilkAir on the pilot interference stance, only to see some of the same families targeting Boeing for a faulty rudder.

Is this some queer form of seeking justice, or are they out to get financial compensation from whoever is next in line?

Just look at the mountain of circumstantial evidence that places the blame with Tsu Way Ming, and indirectly with SilkAir. Don't lose sight of that crockett, but alas you sound as if you have.

[Crockett]

Capt Erebus

I respect your opinion..

5 years ago, the families were saying a lot of things which included the possibilty of Pilot Suicide and Rudder Hardover and a lot of other things, just to keep the subject in the public eye.. The media were looking for a story, we gave it to them.. That is the way it works sadly.. No story...everyone forgets... we used each other...

If I recall, I have never said categorically that I felt it was pilot suicide nor have I said it was rudder hardover...It is all possibilities...That is what I am grasping at..

The court case in the USA may help to shed more light with the ultimate aim being exactly that....more light...more truth...

As a matter of record, I never took legal action against Silk Air, what was the point as the results have shown... No nearer the truth...

I believe those families who took legal action against Silk Air with drew their cases against Boeing by the way..I may be wrong but do not think so..

Not grasping Cpt Erebus....simply committed to finding the truth if ever it comes out...

[Hudson]

Capt. Erebus. Your tone of replies to Crockett are a bit stiff and maybe a trifle harsh. Is that really necessary? I think not.

I had some involvment in the court case in Singapore where six relatives of the dead decided to go it alone on the basis that they wanted certain facts out in the open. None were after money - but just to get closure on an unhappy episode.

Their lawyer's case was that someone on board that aircraft deliberately crashed it. AS the NTSB report stated, the most likely person was the captain. Suicide was never mentioned because a motive is always hard to prove.

These six relatives, as far as I was aware at the time anyway, did not go for a bob each way by having a go at Boeing. The case was lost - for various reasons and those six were up for enormous personal costs.

Other relatives sought to have a crack at Boeing for the uncommanded rudder angle. I thought they would lose that case before it even started. American lawyers thought different it seems.

Like most fatal aircraft accidents where no one survives, in many cases one can never know for sure what caused the aircraft to crash. One can make intelligent guesses just like the cops do in criminal investigations. I for one was astounded at the apparent series of amazing coincidences in the case of MI 185. If I for a moment thought all those things could happen in a row in a hitherto perfectly serviceable aeroplane, then no way would I ever step on board an aircraft again.

[Hachiouji-shi]

Where was the First Officer and what was he doing when the airplane went down?

[Crockett]

Where was the co pilot is a question raised years ago and all sorts of theories but no actual answers.. We belive he was in his seat based on last data available from CVR...

Capt Erebus... Having recently returned from Seattle attending meetings related to this case.. I can assure you, it ain't about the money.. Trust me on that...

I think you might be suprised if you knew what I know.. Alas, I cannot put it on this thread... I wish I could..

[Hudson]

Obviously, on the information available at the time, it is not known who was in the cockpit went the aircraft went down. One scenario was that after the first officer had made the last transmission to ATC with a position report, (the aircraft went terminal about one minute later I think) - that the captain had resumed his seat after having left the cockpit. The CVR indicated his intention to leave the cockpit and the CVR circuit breaker was pulled not long after.

A scenario was that the captain could have asked the first officer to go down to the cabin check on something. This was tried in the simulator. It was then that power to the FDR failed. This can be caused by pulling the two circuit breakers in the same row as the CVR. Pulling the CVR circuit breaker will not trigger a master caution light and can be easily done without the first officer being aware of it. However, pulling the FDR breakers triggers a master caution light.

And if there were two pilots up front, then certainly at least one of them would ask the hard question of what in the hell are you doing pulling the circuit breakers. If one of the pilots was down the back, however, when the other was up front, then of course the chap down the back would not be alerted by a whacking big amber master cautiuon light in front of his eyes.
But alongside all the other "coincidences" it makes a plausible theory. But I stress that it is only a theory.
























knowing

[Tripper]

>>Like most fatal aircraft accidents where no one survives, in many cases one can never know for sure what caused the aircraft to crash. One can make intelligent guesses just like the cops do in criminal investigations.

But for the Transponder being ON, no one would have known what happened to 185

>>I for one was astounded at the apparent series of amazing coincidences in the case of MI 185. If I for a moment thought all those things could happen in a row in a hitherto perfectly serviceable aeroplane

That was a perfectly serviceable aircraft. If 185 had been some other aircraft other that TRF, there could be some doubts raised!!!

Some day the truth will surface!!!

[Hachiouji-shi]

If the co pilot was in his seat, then I think the captain must've hit him with something so hard that he lost awareness...

[Casper]

The "new" data on the DFDR is probably a misreading and the comments will probably be withdrawn by the "responsible" attorneys in the very near future.

The original NTSB comments on the Indonesian report are correct. This aircraft was deliberately crashed, most likely by the captain.

The only part of the aircraft to separate during the dive was a small section of the tailplane. The rudder PCU was recovered and found to have been operating normally.

Both pilots were fully trained and rated "above average" in recovery from unusual attitudes as well as in all other procedures.

The bottom line in this sorry saga is that, had the captain been suspended for counselling after the CVR cb incident (as he should have been instead of simply being demoted from LIP to line captain), this disaster would not have occurred.

As stated earlier, circumstantial evidence of a deliberate act by Tsu WM include:
* Previous CVR CB incident
* Issues between TWM and another Kiwi F/O - Manado & CVR cb
* Location of dive - between Indonesian ATC & Singapore ATC
* TWM's finances - despite the "clean" finding by Singapore Police
* TWM's insurance - active on 19 Dec 1997
* TWM's demotion - never admitted by MI or CAAS until Feb '98
* Thrust setting at impact
* Stab trim setting at impact
* Lack of distress call
* CVR & DFDR cbs tripped

It's all there. Trying to get Lyin' City and Prof. Diran to admit it is something else again.

[Tripper]

Casper has mentioned all that was required .

For those who still harp on Rudder hardover and refer to the Colarado Springs and Pittsburgh accidents, maybe you should look at the exact location of the crash with reference to the point that those aircrafts had the rudder hardover.

MI 185 crashed WITHIN 5 miles from the point it left FL 350, travelling at .74M at that level.

Anyone with basic knowledge of physics would figure out that inertia would carry that miless off. Only a "deliberately flown" manouvre can keep it within 5 miles!!!

[Casper]

You're correct, Tripper.
* Only manual input can achieve the flight path as plotted by Singapore ATC.
* Only manual input can achieve the parameters of height lost, time elapsed and horizontal distance travelled.
* Only manual input can produce the full stab setting.
* Only manual input can produce the thrust setting with deactivation of the autothrottle system.

[Balthazar]

Whilst I fully expect SIA and Silkair to cover up and Indonesia to do as its told (finances permitting), Casper's point's are without dispute and fact.

But, I don't expect those without a vested interest to agree. Remeber, the most obvious answer is often correct.

Crockett, I'm sorry for your loss and have had many friends die flying aeroplanes, but i do believe you do know what really happened. I pray for your closure.

[Crockett]

Balthazar

I do believe you may have "hit the nail on the head " so to speak.. Your comment and I quote " and Indonesia to do as it is told (finances permitting ) " end quote..

You may recall that Indonesia was also negotiating with the International Monetary Fund at the time of the crash for somewhat significant loans and debt refinancing.. Who controls the IMF...??? USA... (Big Business and politics being the same thing in USA).. I think you will understand what I mean..

I think that also would be another reason that perhaps why the Indonesians would not want to publish any findings that may or may not piss someone off..

So assuming you are right Balthazar re Indonesia doing what it was told...I guess the question may be... who had the greater influence over Indonesia ..??.. I think perhaps it may have been Big Old Uncle Sam..and the IMF...

Your guess is as good as mine..!!!!

[Casper]

Crockett,

Please forget the IMF and forget the USA in this disaster. The greatest external influence on the Indonesian investigation and report came from a source much more local - the HQ of the operator. That state could not afford to let be seen in print what EVERY investigator in the case actually knows and really believes -the TRUTH.

There is absolutely NO other probable cause than direct and intended pilot input - by the captain.

It's just a dreadful shame that they will probably get away with it. The purposes of any investigation are to establish causes, NOT apportion blame AND certainly NOT hide anything. Aviation safety and indeed credibility in the area are now less due to this sham of an investigation report.

[Tripper]

Casper

maybe a new definition for SARS could be:

SILKAIR ACCIDENT REPORT SUPPRESSION

[Casper]

Good suggestion BUT it was NO accident!

[Crockett]

Lets wait till October and those involved will have to produce whatever evidence they have in a court of law and let the jury decide.

It ain't perfect..but right now...that is all we have..

[wnt]

Hello Crockett. Firstly my sincere personal sympathies and my respects for your search for the truth.

You are 6 months overdue with your latest stir of the pot, but it is giving you more this time than all the official enquiries did.

You say you know things you can not put on this thread. So, as consultants, do we.

We asked the right questions, of the right people, at the right time, and got all the right answers while they were still available.

As certainly as it is possible for anyone not in the jump seat at the time, we are certain we found out not only "who" but "why". But no one wanted to know.

It was definitely not the 733. The odds against that sequence of failures being mechanical, and happening at exactly the same time as the human failures, are impossible.

It was also not the Singaporean Captain Tsu. There is nothing in the circumstantial evidence that:

(a) does not apply equally to most of us; and

(b) has since been seen as serious enough to ground us all.

For example, most of us in our careers have surely had incidents, reprimands, money problems, and been close to others' accidents. It would be a very rare pilot who never had. Yet what are seen as reasons for blaming Captain Tsu are not valid reasons for grounding the rest of us.

Captain Tsu was an honourable professional pilot who's fatal error was simply to be dead and a convenient scapegoat.

So that leaves the co-pilot and the underlying systems.

It seems accepted that it was the co-pilot's foot on the rudder pedals when full deflection snapped the aircraft into its fatal dive. However he was a keen young pilot like we all once were and was himself the victim of a systems failure whose latent roots led us back to shortly before he was even born. This was literally an accident waiting to happen.

The official investigators all made the same mistake, and wasted all their resources, when they decided (sounds like KLM in Los Rodeos in 1977) that the co-pilot was experienced and well trained and closed off that line of enquiry.

NZ airline standards are high. To join ANZ at that time required an applicant to be ex RNZAF or to have ATPL with 2-3000 hours, most of it multi-engine command.

And Singaporean policy on compliance with ICAO Annex 1 was that pilots were not even eligible for a type rating on a heavy aircraft until they held ATPL.

However, the MI 185 co-pilot, although he had 2500 hours total, only had a CPL/IR with examination credits for ATPL from his basic training, and only had a bare 100 hours, again from his basic training, that was in command by himself at the front of an aircraft, without an instructor or captain beside him.

In this regard, bear in mind that unlike European airline cadetships, NZ pilots generally self-select for training on the basis of enthusiasm, medical, and money, and competitive selection for jobs starts when they are qualified and apply for the airlines. Egalitarianism it is called.

The co-pilot was also assessed for his licence through a devolved process that seemed to worry industry professionals more than it seemed to worry the authorities. The respected industry magazine "Wings" carried a number of reports of examination irregularities culminating in an artical called "Quo Vadis" by a Walter Wagtendonk in, I think, mid 1996.

And while you are looking at those old Wings, and at the NZALPA "Airline Pilot" magazine of the same period, you will also find a lot of references to the CVR.

The NZ Police misused CVR data to criminally prosecute the captain of the Ansett Dash 8 fatal at Palmerson North in 1995.

There was therefore a culture at the time of nonuse of the CVR, and even suspension of the legal requirements. Any NZ pilot of that time, or anyone working closely with then, would therefore be well aware of the disposition towards pulling CVR CBs.

The only mystery about disabling the CVR, is why it ever was a mystery.

Sorry I can't talk more. Can't afford to risk my day job now any more that I could risk it then.

You won't find it all for yourself now, but you still can find enough, if you backtrack and look in the right direction.

Good luck. WTN

[Crockett]

Thanks wnt

Another twist in the tale !!

Actually in an earlier response to Diggler in this thread when the question was asked who was in the cockpit... Maybe the co-pilot alone...Maybe the captain alone...??? I did ask whether the co-pilot was experienced enough to handle an inflight problem of some magnitude alone... I have always assumed he was.... based on all the information I have been privy to and with my limited understanding of what it all means. Your input and opinion is interesting ...

Would be interested to hear any other opinions ..

Thank you

[Tripper]

Any guess on the Nationality of "wnt"!!!!!!!!????

[Anti Skid On]

Sorry WNT, but your first post has to be the most ridiculous I have seen in three years of Pprune membership.

So the B733 may not have been to blame - uncommanded movement of the rudder has been proven in other notable B737 accidents, but not this one. But blaming the Kiwi FO - where do you get that one from? Was the FO the one who was reported as having psychological problems following a failed attempt at gaining a command role with SIA. Likewise, was he the one who was reported to have taken out extensive life insurance on himself just days before the flight? Furthermore, Tsu was reportedly heavily in debt. Whilst the FO (who would have paid a small fortune to get where he was) may have been in a similar situation, the 2500 hours time would have 'unfrozen' any ATPL as far as I am aware.


Then you add this little gem

Any NZ pilot of that time, or anyone working closely with then, would therefore be well aware of the disposition towards pulling CVR CBs.

Please provide the evidence - are you therefore implying that it was the FO who pulled the CB's and dived the aircraft? The evidence regrettably (from what I seen, heard, read, etc - none of us were unfortunate to be there) points to Tsu. The FO had his life before him, not catching him up, not struggling to pay debts.

May I suggest that in your story (and posting) you are not in fact in NZ, but nearer the Mallaca Straits, and that your post is to attempt to deflect attention to a party who cannot reply.

[Casper]

wnt,

There is not one shred of evidence to support your absolutely ridiculous theory.

I suspect that you are trying to draw us out in an attempt to establish our identities.

What absolute, pathetic and despicable crap! They don't call it Lyin City for nothing.

IF, as you claim, you actually are a consultant, then you would know what we all know!

[Tripper]

Maybe , WNT can provide us details of Tsu's debts ( totalling about $3.2 millions) and his Insurance cover of $3.5 millions ( $1.5 million approved on 19th Dec 1997)

Since he knows so much about the Kiwi F/O, I am sure this is a small job.

Also, when was the last time WNT had his EEG done?

[56P]

To WNT

I do not know exactly who you are or what your motives may be but I suspect that you must be one sick person.

I have stayed out of this debate until now but, believe me, I am most interested in anything to do with MI185. I suppose that this post will identify me but, in fairness to the first officer and his family, I feel that I really must answer your most unwarranted and ill informed accusations.

Both the captain and the first officer on MI185 were well trained and both received "above average" ratings at their most recent base checks. Each pilot could have recovered from any jet upset or uncontrollable rudder, yaw damper malfunction etc ON HIS OWN. Each pilot was quite capable of also transmitting a distress call during such recovery ON HIS OWN.

The captain, a former RSAF aerobatic pilot and member of the Black Knights, was especially trained and talented in unusual attitudes.

The first officer, although young and with only some 2 - 3 years of B737 experience, was nontheless a most talented pilot with extremely high standards of manipulation and very sound flight management. Ask any captains who had operated with him!

Any confirmation of the above may be obtained from the pilots' training records which were seen by all appropriate investigators. How do I know the above? I assisted in the training and checking of both pilots and also took part in the investigation.

As I said, WNT, I do not wish to be drawn in to any slanging match or debate in regard to MI185. There has already been enough of that.

I SIMPLY CHALLENGE YOU TO POST ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR MOST UNWARRANTED, UNFAIR AND UNTRUE ACCUSATIONS.

[knackeredII]

wnt, let's just highlight a couple of your points to show that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

And Singaporean policy on compliance with ICAO Annex 1 was that pilots were not even eligible for a type rating on a heavy aircraft until they held ATPL.

This would disqualify almost all First Officers in Singapore and indeed many other airlines around the world. The normal route to ATPL is via the right seat of an airline aircraft, which brings us to the next quote.

However, the MI 185 co-pilot, although he had 2500 hours total, only had a CPL/IR with examination credits for ATPL from his basic training, and only had a bare 100 hours, again from his basic training, that was in command by himself at the front of an aircraft, without an instructor or captain beside him.

You are describing a perfectly normal qualification for Singaporean Airline First Officers. Indeed many will still not have their ATPL subjects with this number of hours. And any pilot in Singapore who joined SIA or Silk as a cadet would only have the command experience you describe, so to suggest this particular FO's qualifications to be somehow substandard is simply being mischievous at best.

Either you are playing on other's ignorance of standard airline practices in order to mislead or, I suspect, you yourself don't understand normal practice well enough to make an educated analysis of the facts.

[Crockett]

Given all of the above discussion... I wonder why the official crash investigation was stopped.. Surely, it is in everyones interest to know what happened, have it published and ensure the problems rectified..

Maybe the cause of the crash (problem) has been rectified so as to prevent in the future, I would like to think so..

Or maybe I am just a little naive..!!

Happy Days !!

[Casper]

Given all of the above discussion... I wonder why the official crash investigation was stopped.. Surely, it is in everyones interest to know what happened, have it published and ensure the problems rectified..
_______________________________________________

Crockett,

I'm sorry to say it but, if you believe the above, you are being incredibly naive.

The "official" crash investigation was conducted by Indonesia but controlled by Singapore. Lyin' City certainly did not want anyone to know what happened and most definitely did not want it published. Can you imagine for one minute that they could or would openly admit that "their boy done wrong?"

Stop looking at the red herrings being thrown up by wnt and others. The truth is staring you in the face. It's also staring them in their collective face and it's to prevent "loss of that collective face" that they have been less than truthful. It's disgraceful!

[Crockett]

Thanks Caspar

Guess that nothing has really changed...

At least some people still talking about it however... that is important...

Back to the drawing board for me...

Cheers..

[HectorusRex]

WNT = What Nonsensical Twaddle:mad:

[Casper]

You've gone quiet, WNT. How about answering 56P?

No, didn't think that you could.

WNT = With No Truth!

[Crockett]

56P ...a question if I may..

Given your stated professional relationship to both pilots...From your posting, obviously in your opinion both pilots were very capable.

Since you would appear to have in depth knowledge of the crash investigation from certain perspectives.. Perhaps you would share with us what your thoughts are on the cause of the crash..

Or would that put you in a difficult position.. If so, I understand..

Must admit...wnt has gone a little shy on us..!!

[Crockett]

Tripper

Re the amounts quoted of Capt Tsu Debts and Insurance amounts.. All the records I have seen do not totally up to those amounts.. Both Debts and Insurance Coverage were significantly less than you state.

I may be wrong of course, but believe you may be incorrect..

[56P]

Crockett,

I believe that the crash was caused by deliberate pilot action and this opinion is formed by the complete lack of alternative possibilities, lack of attempted recovery, lack of distress calls, tripping of recorder circuit breakers etc that we have all read on this thread.

The NTSB comments on the Indonesian report constitute, I believe, an accurate assessment. I also think that this opinion is shared by all other investigators. It's just that some have problems in admitting it.

I also firmly believe that the deliberate pilot inputs were not made by the first officer and this opinion is also shared by the other investigators. Again, this is not included in the official report but it is contained in the NTSB comments.

To the best of my knowledge, this was the first occasion on which the NTSB's comments differed from another state's official findings. That should tell us all something.

I truly hope that the above helps.

[Crockett]

Thank you 56P...Respect your opinion.

Still find it hard to believe... just from a pure human side.

It would take some type of major madman with major psycological problems to do what you suggest and whilst I admit Tsu may have had some issues to contend with...others also experience similar challenges in life and get on with life.. Whether they are a pilot or in some other just as noble profession..

If he was that psycologically disturbed...surely someone would have noticed and grounded him..(if that is the right terminology)...

I remain undecided.. to be honest.. but thank you nonetheless..

[I. M. Esperto]

AW reported that the elevator had a full nose down trim induced at the time of impact, which means that the elevator was attached to the aircraft. I found a lot about the Captain, including the fact that he was a heavy gambler, but I can't find anything about the FO Ward Duncan Maurice .

Why would this new Zealander sit and do nothing if the Captain intentionally dove the aircraft into the ground? The lack of a transmission, at least a May Day is also puzzling.

Considering the number of unwanted full rudder deflections on the B-737, I wouldn't rule out anything in this one.

[Menen]

I.M.Esperto. The stabiliser and the elevator are two different things. The aircraft broke up during the dive. The stabiliser trim jack was located and examination of this component revealed that it was in the full forward electrical trm position. Just before the aircraft went into the dive the FDR recorded the stabiliser trim at the normal cruise postion. It is considered likely that someone deliberately toggled the trim to full forward at some point.

If one of the cockpit crew suddenly went crazy and shoved the aircraft into a dive there is no way the second crew member would have any hope of overpowering the culprit. Things would have happened too violently and too quickly before the second crew member could get his wits about him.

[ferris]

Allegedly the CVR has the Capt. leaving his seat shortly before the event. If you wanted to disable the other pilot, would you do it while sitting, or stand behind him and whack him over the back of the head with something hard?

[Traffic]

The easiest way to disable the co-pilot is to ask him to leave the flight deck and lock the door after him......some NZ pax knows his family and wants to say hello.

There is no evidence I've seen to prove he was on the flight deck and the pax manifest gives credence to the theory.

All the physical evidence points to a pilot induced accident (trajectory profile) and for the limited gene pool (SING INC) to advocate otherwise is in line with their general view that the rest of the world is a lot shorter on grey matter than they are.

As to the view that mentally unstable people shouldn't fly planes. I agree. But they do...especially after a company has invested a heap in proving they can..even if they shouldn't.

Proving the Capt committed suicide in a Singapore Court would be like trying to prove Lee Kwan Yew had some shadey property deals off Orchard Road....impossible.

FWIW

[56P]

Traffic is right. The easiest way to remove the F/O from the scene would be to ask him to check something in the cabin, see a passenger etc ... anything to get him out of the cockpit.

In the ensuing manoeuvre, the aircraft rolled to the right and, when inverted, was pulled through into the dive. No one in the cabin would have been able to remain upright let alone approach and gain access to a locked cockpit door.

Crockett, the human factors people agreed that, after the cvr cb incident, Tsu WM should have been suspended because that premeditated and deliberate action should have proved to management that he was emotionally and psychologically upset and even disturbed.

I agree that such callous disregard for other lives still leaves me dumbfounded and speechless. You must remember, however, that Tsu wanted to cause maximum damage to a company that had caused him to lose a enormous loss of face and prestige. And, that's apart from his personal financial problems which were considerable, despite claims to the contrary.

[Tripper]

Crockett,

if you read through 56P's postings, you would find that he states" both pilots were capable an above average when the last Base check was done. He does not state that TWM is always an above average and capable pilot.

as for his debts and insurance covers, you will never get the exact picture from the place where he lived. But, everyone knew the history. Why haven't you read the statement from 56P when he states that "Tsu Way Ming's debts and insurance cover were considerably high".

There is no truth in stories being floated around about the F/Os capabilities or his part in the crash. I don't think there is any doubt that "If he was in the cockpit" he would have tried to save the aircraft and definitely given a distress call. Was he in the "cockpit" and alive, or was he out of the cockpit, is the only doubt existing

[56P]

It took an above average bit of "stick & rudder" skill to perform the aerobatic act that led to the aircraft's dive. When inverted in the dive, a large and consistent force is required to keep the nose down, even with full stab trim. A high thrust setting adds to the force required as well. Do nothing and, with autothrottle engaged, the aircraft would probably try to recover itself. This manoeuvre was caused by deliberate pilot input. Of that, there is no doubt!

[Capt. Erebus]

Guys, this pre-occupation with the lack of an emergency distress call during the dive is a bit unnecessary. It was fairly common practice, rightly or wrongly, for SilkAir pilots to fly in the cruise with their headsets off and to use the hand mike with the overhead speaker on. Hence following a dive of this magnitude, do you realistically think a call would be able to be made?

Casper

Your comments have been the most sensible and realistic on this thread so far.

WNT

What can i say....you call Capt Tsu Way Ming professional??? He was elevated to the position of Line Instructor Pilot in SilkAir not because of his ability or professionalism, but because of his special relationship with the Flight operations Manager L.Ganapathy. Ganapathy 'owed' Tsu. He was therefore earmarked for high places. In the subsequent investigation, it was discovered that Ganapathy had 'mislaid' the file of Tsu's earlier transgressions. These included the CVR CB incident, the manado debacle, and the low thrust incident out of Changi. Even the Chief Pilot T. Leong was critical of Ganapathy for keeping him on after these incidents.

Tsu wasn't professional.

He was a cowboy who enjoyed cutting corners and getting places fast. He regulary broke SOP's. He lied in the investigation of his Manado stuff up. He lied during the investigation into why he pulled the CVR on another flight.

Despite all of this factual evidence, which was proven in the Singapore courts by the way, SilkAir still kept him on as a captain!!!

That's the disgrace as far as I'm concerned.

[Casper]

Captain Erebus

You may be wrongly blaming the FOM for sitting on the file re Manado, CVR cb incident and the "less than desired thrust" take off. I "think" that the file containing that info was handed to the CAAS with all the other files at the time of the crash and maybe the regulator sat on it. In any event, it was finally produced some two months after the event and THAT act (of withholding it) certainly did nothing to assist the investigation - whoever was responsible for sitting on it. Just Lyin' City SOPs, I guess!

The real problem with MI Flt Ops was their failure to suspend Tsu after the CVR cb incident. If they'd acted then, 103 innocent persons would still be alive. I suppose that it's easy to say that in hindsight but I thought that's why management pilots are paid their salaries.

[Crockett]

Caspar

Just wanted to correct one thing you said.. It was not 103 innocent persons.. One passenger was carrying a 5 month unborn child.. my mathematics says 104 ...

Legal definition of "living being" might disagree with me.. but trust me... it was 104...

Enough said... let justice take its course.. No other way unfortunately...

[Tripper]

Casper,

" less than desired thrust" is a gross understatement.

Tsu Way Ming "firewalled" the thrust levers and still did not get "take-off thrust". He still continued the take off.

So, what did the management do to him: to quote from some of their statements in the court case in singapore--" he arraged for passengers to go to Kunming on other airlines"!!!!!

Maybe that was more important than making sure that the aircraft had enough thrust for the take off !!!

But then Tsu was "an above average pilot"

[Casper]

Crockett,

Please accept my most sincere apology. I was aware of your double loss and my oversight was a thoughtless omission. I'm truly sorry.

Tripper,

"Less than desired thrust" was a bit tongue-in-cheek, I admit. The aircraft would have been reasonably heavy for that take-off and so there would have been more than ample time between checking thrust at 60 kts and the decision time at V1 for both crew members to consider and act on the thrust deficiency. In my humble opinion, this was a most serious incident and yet the only official criticism that Tsu received was for not completing the paperwork for an overweight landing! No mention of the continued take-off with a major thrust deficiency, especially when going to a destination where every bit of FULL thrust would have been needed for take-off there. Strange reaction from management of flight operations.

I guess that he received the "above average" grade for actual aircraft handling in the simulator. Out on the line, of course, his flight management skills (or lack thereof) would have been noticed only by the other crew member.

[Crockett]

Caspar

No apology required...

Was just wanting to put the record straight as far as I see it...

[Tripper]

Casper

"this was the most serious incident">>> took place in the middle of November 1997. The management sat on that without any action except chiding Tsu for an "overweight landing!!!?? "

56P mentions that Tsu " hated the company ".

One month for the hatred to grow and culminate at Palembang on 19th December !!!

Incidently, when you mention " there was ample time between 60 knots and V1 " to recognise that there was insufficient power,

the Boeing procedure requires "set take-off thrust by 60 kts"

[Casper]

Tripper

I am aware of the Boeing procedure in regard to setting of thrust by 60 kts. That is why I made reference to the time available between 60 kts and V1 - more than enough time for the crew to have ACTED on the thrust deficiency that they SHOULD have noticed at 60 kts. In this case, V1 would have been a higher value than that for a shorter sector so the time available was even greater than normal. Were they both asleep during the take-off run??

[Casper]

HEY, WNT, WHERE ARE YOU??

56P scare you off with some actual facts??

[wsherif1]

Gentlemen,

First things first. United 585 at Colorado Springs and USAir 427 in the Pittsburgh area, did not have a rudder hard over.!

The NTSB covered up the actual cause of these accidents by eliminating the ATC Chairman's Factual Report.! It was never published.! THE FINAL CONTROLLER'S`SWORN STATEMENTS, explain what actually happened at Colorado Springs.

In the USAir 427 accident the Medical Examiner stated that, "Both pilot's left legs were broken and both left rudder`pedals were sheared off their supporting structure. The aircraft impaacted the ground in a steep left bank.!

Silk Air MI 185 also reacted to wind shear induced turbulence, either clear air or aircraft wake turbulence and induced an instantaneous pitchover into a vertical dive as a result of erroneous flight`instrument indications, as United 585 and USAir 427 had done previously, along with Egypt Air 990, Northwest 705, a COPA Airlines B737 over Tucuti, Panama, China 611, etc.

Excerpt from a january 21, 1998 letter I received from the NTSB.

"Pilots inadvertent reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself."

Check the nose down stops on the vertical gyros.! They will show strong impact damage just as Northwest 705 did.

The NTSB reads the FDR readouts from the ZERO G LIINE.!!!
The NTSB removed essential evidence from the TWA 800 FDR Readouts.!!! (NO MISSILES.!)

[Menen]

According to the court evidence the low N1 was due to a significant fuel leak at the FCU and started with a problem with starting the engine. That means as soon as TOGA was selected at the beginning of the take off run, the thrust deficiency would have been obvious at 20 knots. There was ample opportunity for the crew to spot this and abort before 60 knots. In the old days it was called Press on Regardless.

[Tripper]

Now, it is called "Press-On-Itis"

>>>Silk Air MI 185 also reacted to wind shear induced turbulence, either clear air or aircraft wake turbulence and induced an instantaneous pitchover into a vertical dive as a result of erroneous flight`instrument indications, as United 585 and USAir 427 had done previously, along with Egypt Air 990, Northwest 705, a COPA Airlines B737 over Tucuti, Panama, China 611, etc.

Excerpt from a january 21, 1998 letter I received from the NTSB.

"Pilots inadvertent reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself."

wsherif1

does it : switch off the CVR CB, DFDR CB, Autopilot, Autothrottle,
move the stab trim to full nose down position, thrust lever to full thrust, MANUALLY HOLD DOWN THE CONTROL COLUMN so that the nose does not pitch up!!!!!!!??

[BarryMonday]

wsherif1 said:

"Silk Air MI 185 also reacted to wind shear induced turbulence, either clear air or aircraft wake turbulence and induced an instantaneous pitchover into a vertical dive as a result of erroneous flight`instrument indications,"

Sorry, but the facts don't support your version and given your proclaimed pedigree in your profile I am very surprised you have posted this nonsense. Had the aircraft experienced a major jet upset due to turbulance they had plenty of altitude and all the experience they needed to sort it out plus make a radio call. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that there was either wake turbulence or meteorological turbulence. The aircraft dived with full throttle and full nose down trim, hardly standard recovery for any kind of problem, least of all turbulance!

[wsherif1]

Wind shear across the openings of the Pitot-Static system sensors induce erroneous flight instrument readings, (See Boeing's AERO Magazine 08, "Erroneous flight instruments") and the pilot reacts to them, NTSB wording, "Inadvertently."

This is only one of many accidents caused by this phenomenon.

[56P]

wsherif1 & wnt

Are you guys for real? Are you, perhaps, one and the same? Are you trying the classic tactic of filling the void with "dis" or "mis" information?

All the possibilities that you mentioned were considered AND DISMISSED by the investigation. By investigation, I refer not only to the "official" report but also to the various inputs from CAAS, NTSB, Boeing, FAA and BASI. Not even Prof. Diran or the CAAS considered the inclusion in his report of such possibilities as you have raised and, believe me, those two sources would have welcomed ANYTHING to divert the focus from the captain!

There was no turbulence in that area at that time, clear or otherwise. There was no fault with the aircraft.

Please stop posting such rubbish.

[wsherif1]

56P:

You wrote,

"Had the aircraft experienced a major jet upset due to turbulance they had plenty of altitude and all the experience they needed to sort it out plus make a radio call. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that there was either wake turbulence or meteorological turbulence. The aircraft dived with full throttle and full nose down trim, hardly standard recovery for any kind of problem, least of all turbulance."

I never stated the aircraft experienced a major jet upset due to turbulance. In a smooth airmass wake turbulence persists for lengthy periods of time, (Dr. AA Wray of NASA affirms.) and is evidenced in a number of previous accidents by thumps and clicks of the horizontal stabilizer trim wheels, reacting to the wind shear forces.

And you wrote,

"They had plenty of altitude and all the experience they needed to sort it out plus make a radio call."

In a pitch over into a vertical dive, (free fall), the instantaneous acceleration, at the rate of G, provides only a matter of seconds before disintegration of the structure.! (Northwest 705 over Miami, FL on 2/12/63 came apart in the air) Both vertical gyros showed severe impact damage on the nose down stops.!

I doubt very much that the crew had any experience in vertical dives in a massive, swept wing, air transport design.

This accident, like a number of others ,was due to PIO, pilots reacting to erroneous flight instrument indications due to wind shear effects on the pitot-static sensors.

Sorry about the two ID's in previous post, I don't know how that happened.


Fraternally





.







(,

[knackeredII]

wsherif1,

I've never read such rubbish as you've written! Surely you don't believe it yourself. 'a pitch over into a vertical dive, (free fall)' 25 years in airlines and I've never heard of such a thing. I'd be terrified of flying if I thought this could happen each time I went flying.

'the instantaneous acceleration, at the rate of G, provides only a matter of seconds before impact' Hmmmm! From 37000' that would break a few records. Ever heard of terminal velocity?

'This accident, like a number of others ,was due to PIO, pilots reacting to erroneous flight instrument indications' You are very quick to blame it on crew negligence given the paucity of information supporting your view.

'due to wind shear effects on the pitot-static sensors.' Again I've never heard of such a thing. Where do you get this stuff from?

For the record, will you please state your aviation qualifications which allow you to come to these unique conclusions based on pure assumptions.

[Tripper]

>>>In a pitch over into a vertical dive, (free fall), the instantaneous acceleration, at the rate of G, provides only a matter of seconds before impact, or disintegration of the structure.!

wsherif 1:

185 did not "freefall"-- IT WAS INTENTIONALLY FOWN DOWN VERTICALLY

185 did not disintegrate either, until,Of course, the impact at Mach 1+ speed

and the impact was not " in a matter of seconds" it was more than 15 seconds

There was "NO" attempt to recover from the "intentional" dive.

don't try to compare what happened to the 737s in Piuttsburgh or Colorado Springs with MI 185. This was a pure and simple "SUICIDE MURDER"

[56P]

wsherif1,

If you check the posts (and I suggest that you do), you'll see that I never made any of the statements that you quote. That's not to say that I agree with them or otherwise - the simple fact is that I did not make them.

If I recall correctly, the Northwest accident that you quote near Miami in 1963 was caused by the aircraft (B720?) penetrating extreme weather.

No such weather was anywhere near MI 185. 9V-TRF was not destroyed by any accident. It was lost due to an intentional and pilot induced manoeuvre.

[Crockett]

Lets see what evidence is produced in court in the USA... Whatever the cause, it is nice to see that there is still an interest in this crash and that there is a wish for the cause to be known and made public..

Personally, I think that all sorts of dirty laundry will come out of it. Not only related to this particular crash.. and that has to be good for aviation safety generally..

[wsherif1]

56P


You said,

"If you check the posts (and I suggest that you do), you'll see that I never made any of the statements that you quote."

I copied and pasted the statements directly from your message.!

"If I recall correctly, the Northwest accident that you quote near Miami in 1963 was caused by the aircraft (B720?) penetrating extreme weather.!

A 720B is an 8 foot shorter B707. The aircraft was pitched up in a strong updraft encounter. The pilot trimmed full nose down stabilizer, along with an abrupt forward pitch control input and pitched the aircraft over into a vertical dive. The aircraft came apart in the air. (Both Vertical Gyro's nose down stops, showed severe impact damage.)

"No such weather was anywhere near MI 185. 9V-TRF was not destroyed by any accident. It was lost due to an intentional and pilot induced manoeuvre."

Radar does not see aircraft wake turbulance.. You are right, the aircraft was lost due to pilot induced manoeuvres. These manoeuvres, however, were triggered by erroneous flight instrument indications, which induced inadvertent flight control inputs by the pilot.

NTSB statement in January 21, 1998 letter.

"Pilot reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself." See EgyptAir 990, United 585 at Colorado Springs, COPA Airlines B737 over Tucuti, Panama etc., etc.

[Tripper]

wsherif1

to quote from your post:
NTSB statement in January 21, 1998 letter.

"Pilot reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself." See EgytAir 990, United 585 at Colorado Springs, etc., etc.

MI 185 and Egyptair 990 had one thing in common
"PILOT SUICIDE"

You seem to find the NTSB quotes correct for all other accidents, while , apparently, you haven't a clue about the NYSB report on Silkair 185.

There were no aircrafts in the vicinity of 185 to create wake turbulence and the weather was ABSOLUTELY clear.

Maybe you should wonder why the "turbulence" forgot to switch off the transponder of 185, but for which it would have been extremely difficult to plot the profile of the aircraft

[Casper]

wsherif1

"These manoeuvres, however, were triggered by erroneous flight instrument indications, which induced inadvertent flight control inputs by the pilot."

Let's see one shred of evidence of your above claim.

Also, I agree with Tripper. Have you even read the NTSB comments on the Diran report?

[wsherif1]

Tripper,

You said,

"You seem to find the NTSB quotes correct for all other accidents, while , apparently, you haven't a clue about the NYSB report on Silkair 185."

I put little credence in NTSB accident reports. They failed to include the ATC Chairman's Factual Report in the United 585 Colorado Springs accident report. (The final controller's sworn statements explained actually what happened.!) They removed essential evidence in the TWA 800 accident Flight Data Recorder Chart. They misread the FDR readout in the United 825 accident over the Pacific, ( 5 broken necks, 6 broken backs and 1 fatality.!) They were reading the chart from the Zero G line! They reported the aircraft had been subjected to a -0.8 G force when the actual G force was 1.8 negative G.!

Casper,

"Let's see one shred of evidence of your above claim."

I had a pitch-up in a B707, in the clear, on top of extreme thunderstorm activity. A strong updraft pitched the aircraft's nose up to 20-30 degree nose high attitude. (The flight engineer exclaimed, "JC Here we go.!") Because we were in the clear, with a visual horizon, we eased the nose back down to the horizon and proceeded on course. Note: There was no zoom in altitude due to our nose high transition, just some mechanical lifting from the updraft. Both pilots were looking out the window and were thus unaffected by any erroneous flight instrument
indications.!

You have probably not read NW Captain Paul Soderlind's Flight Safety Bulletin 3-65 entitled, "Operation in Turbulence" At one time this publication was suggested reading for all pilots by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Paul received 8 awards for his contributions to flight safety. He also developed the Airspeed Bug system and the Turbulence Plot, which NW has used sucessfully for years. Paul died in Dec. 2001. He also authored FSB 8-63 entitled, "Jet Turbulence Penetration."

[Casper]

wsherif1

In which seat in the B707 were you sitting at the time of the incident?

[wsherif1]

Casper

After 8 years in the Carrier Navy and 12 years in the right seat for AAL, I was a senior Co-pilot, (Movement was much slower back in the regulated environment), and shortly there after checked out as Captain on the Electra.

[56P]

I do not wish to debate this issue any further. All I can say is that:

* when one is aware of ALL the company issues involved in this case,
*when one personally knows the personnel concerned and has seen the training and standards demonstrated,
*when one considers the significant location of the crash, manual tripping (yes, manual tripping) of CVR and DFDR circuit breakers, and
* when one considers the pilot input of stab trim and thrust settings, and
* when one considers the lack of distress call and lack of 7700 on the transponder,

there is ONLY one possible cause. Every investigator on the case knows what this cause is - some have trouble admitting it.

Honestly, how does pilot reaction to jet upset or CAT explain any of the above?

[Tripper]

wsherif1

you wrote: I had a pitch-up in a B707, in the clear, on top of extreme thunderstorm activity.

I wonder whether you know the basics of weather flying, if you tried to go over the "top". All the texts on avoiding thunderstorms mention the you should NEVER go over the top. this is definitely lack of airmanship!!!

Looks as though you were a budding pilot NIPPED IN THE BUD, by an NTSB report, and your wings were clipped.

Since you seem to know and quote from NTSB reports, why don't you try reading through some of their reports where they have changed their verdict when their mistakes were pointed out-

maybe you should ask ALPA for the NTSB report where the captain was initially blamed for landing short of the runway during a storm, and the NTSB changed the report when ALPA pointed out that the captain couldn't have done anything as the aircraft was hit by a microburst.

If you take time to read through 56P's postings as well as the pointers mentioned by Casper, and also the COMPLETE NTSB report on the Silkair 185 crash, you will know that you are rambling

[fdr]

56P, not all investigators were unwilling to admit it.
At least one investigator refused to submit to the interference in the investigation.

He now works somewhere else
:mad:

[geoffrey thomas]

I am a bit late onto this post but have been away at the Paris Air Show.
As the person who first broke the story that the accident was caused by intentional pilot action I would like to add some comments.

1. I too was badgered by lawyers who tried to insist that it was rudder hard over and told me I had no idea what I was talking about. This was just after I broke the story in Aviation Week a month or so after the accident.
2. I am one of the very few who has seen the radar plot of the 737 and it is a tight almost vertical descent totally inconsistent with two pilots fighting to regain control. Remember Tsu was the leader of the Singapore Aerobatics team and if anyone could regain control of a rouge aircraft he could. And the high speed of the descent is also totally inconsistent with an aircraft that is tumbling from a rudder hard over.
3. While no investigative body is perfect the NTSB's report on Diran's final report is compelling reading. If you subscribe to mathamatic probability THERE IS JUST NO WAY it can not be anything else but a pilot/human induced accident.
4. David's actions in joining the suit against Boeing I know are motivated at finding the truth becuase it certainly didn't come from Indonesia in the final report.
Best GT

[Tripper]

GT,

some of the ramblings by people who still think it was ANYTHING other than Pilot suicide, makes us wonder if they are real.

they sound like the so called "French" expert who testified in the Singapore court. Didn't he say that " he and his co-pilot got the fright of their life when they were given pressurisation failure in the SIMULATOR"!!!! Whoever has heard of a pressurised simulator

[Kaptin M]

Wasn't there some reputed correlation between the date that MI85 crashed and that of the aerobatic team to which Tsu belonged, Tsu allegedly being the sole survivor of the team's crash?

I feel very much for you, Crockett, as the apparent cause of this crash should have been recognised and removed.
As a pilot who was not in any way connected with the passengers, crew, or company involved, I have had the scenario of this "accident" play through my mind on many occasions, and hold nothing but total contempt for the selfish actions of something less than a human being.

"Closure" would seem to be what you are searching for, Crockett, and from your posts it would appear that you are searching for ANYTHING other than that which has been so poignantly presented as the probable real cause, by those who were closest and privvy to information not available/disclosed for "public consumption", in spite of 1 or 2 individuals' attempts to introduce red herrings.
Unfortunately, I believe that if the closure you seek is dependant upon finding an aircraft malfunction over which the crew had no control, then you will never find it.
But by the same token, I - and I believe that that goes for most all who have posted on this thread - can also understand why you WILL keep searching.
"That which the HEART has held can never be lost."

[wsherif1]

Obviously the majority are convinced this accident was a pilot suicide, along with Egypt Air 990. Don't forget the Royal Maroc ATR 42 in the Morroco area.

It does seem that we have an epidemic of suicidal pilots.

NW 705 was also a pilot induced pitch over into a vertical dive, (The aircraft came apart in the air), The aircraft encountered a pitchup into a nose high attitude, in severe thunderstorm activity and the piot trimmed the stabilizer to a full nose down position. Both vertical gyro's nose down stops indicated severe impact damage from a rapid rotation of the aircraft about its center of gravity.

Read NW Capt. Paul Soderlind's Flight Standard Bulletin FSB 3-65. entitled "Operation in Turbulence" and FSB 8-63 "Jet Turbulence Penetration", to discover how your flight instruments lie to you in turbulence. Paul received 8 awards for his contributations to flight safety. ( He developed the airspeed bug system and the turbulence plot.) Paul died in December 2000.

Until pilots are trained to ignore these erroneous flight instrument indications and rely exclusively on the artificial horizon, in turbulence, we will continue to experience these types of accidents.

In the COPA accident over Tucuti, Panama, when they put the FDR readings thru the computer, the Boeing engineers stated that the aircraft could not have possibly performed these manoevers.!

[Burger Thing]

wsherif1 In Silkair 185's case we are talking about tropical latitudes, Dude. Around the equator we don't have jetstreams and most of the time winds are light easterlies (around 20to 30 knots at FL 350), so SEVERE CAT which could lead to loss of control would be a bit hard to find. :rolleyes:

Sorry, Dude, and it wasn't a standing mountain wave, either... It was murder, if you ask me. :ugh:

[geoffrey thomas]

Kaptin M.
Without searching through my files for exact date...yes you are right it was an anniversary.
The interesting part was that some parties to the investigating team denied it until we, (the media), were able to turn up the Straits Times articles that referred to it. Dianne Brady from the Asian Wall Street Journal broke that element of the story.
Re Clear Air/Thunderstorm: We looked at that for a month or so and were even able to get a satellite image of the weather almost to the hour of the accident but this appeared to show nothing. We understood that weather was not a factor. Besides a rudder upset or a turbulence upset are simply not consistent with the radar descent profile which Diran showed my by accident.
I think in all this debate what struck me were the Indonesian's absolutely pathetic explanations for the CVR and DFDR disconnects, which the NTSB ridiculed .
Remember the Indonesian interim report said human factors were to blame.
Best GT

[Tripper]

GT

you are being polite when you say " human factors"

Diran announced in a press conference in July or August 1999 that it was " Unlawful Human Intervention" that caused the crash. Of course, he changed his story a few years later ( and a few m.. dollars perhaps)

Tsu way Ming was leading a formation flight out of Subic Bay on 19/12/1979. His aircraft developed engine trouble at take off point, and he returned to the bay. The other three flew into a mountain and were killed.
19th December 1997 was an anniversary day!!

[wsherif1]

Burger Thing.

Your quote:

"In Silkair 185's case we are talking about tropical latitudes, Dude. Around the equator we don't have jetstreams and most of the time winds are light easterlies (around 20to 30 knots at FL 350), so SEVERE CAT which could lead to loss of control would be a bit hard to find.

Sorry, Dude, and it wasn't a standing mountain wave, either... It was murder, if you ask me."

In smooth air conditions wake turbulence persists for extended periods of time. (Dr. AA Wray of NASA affirms.) It doesn't take much wind shear across the openings of the pitot-static ports to affect the altimeter. rate of climb and the airspeed indicator.

A smooth air mass, while enjoyable to fly in is, at times, more of a threat than rough air conditions. e.g. TWA 800

[Crockett]

Welcome to the conversation GT..

I hope you will cover the story if and when it goes to court in the USA... You know where I am coming from....

Kaptim M....Your last quote is very nice..Thank you...I will keep searching because I have to... I just do not want it to be forgotten until the truth is truly public...Whatever the cause of the crash and there are obviously a few different opinions....???

Trusting that all who read this understand...It is not about the money... because I can assure you...there ain't gonna be very much anyway...In any event..how caN YOU PUT A $$$$$ value on life anyway.

For those who know me...you know I speak the truth..

[56P]

wsherif1 and others

GT is correct. The flight path as per the radar plots can only be followed by consistent and controlled pilot input. I've done it in the simulator and I found it to be not an easy manoeuvre, despite my 10+ years T & C experience on the type. It's certainly NOT a trajectory caused by structural failure or incorrect pilot reaction to any type of upset. The constraints of height lost Vs time elapsed Vs horizontal distance travelled are plainly and obviously too great. Unless you have seen the plots and tried to fly it, you simply have no idea.

Add to that the manual tripping of the relevant DFDR and CVR CBs and lack of distress call with no 7700 on the Tx as well as the other latent factors in this case and the real situation emerges.

Perhaps, you might obtain a clearer picture of this whole tragic scenario by viewing (if you haven't already done so) a copy of the "Assignment" documentary on the subject. The info presented on that program by GT and others was as accurate as you can get - you'll have to take my word for that!

[wsherif1]

Tripper & others,

In a previous post I said,

Until pilots are trained to ignore these erroneous flight instrument indications and rely exclusively on the artificial horizon, in turbulence, we will continue to experience these same types of PIO acciidents!

Now it is CHINA AIRLINES FLIGHT 611.!!! And so it continues.

[Tripper]

wsherif1

read the COMPLETE NTSB report

THERE WAS NO TURBULENCE OR WX. IN THAT REGION

THE CVR STOPPED RECORDING WELL BEFORE THE POINT 185 LEFT FL 350

THE DFDR STOPPED A GOOD MINUTE AND A HALF BEFORE 185 LEFT FL 350

THERE WAS NO PITCH UP

read the other postings by 56P and Casper. This aircraft was deliberately flown into the ground ( or should I say bottom of the river)

[Wiley]

wsherif1, with the greatest respect, in illustrating your undoubted theoretical knowledge of what you write, you are merely showing your total practical ignorance of the same subject. You come across as a lawyer – and there is no implied insult in that; in fact, quite the opposite.

Like any good lawyer, you seem to have studied your brief exhaustively, searching though textbooks, (or more likely, the Internet), for (selective) evidence to support your client’s case. Your findings would quite likely ‘blow a jury out of the water’, impressing them no end and quite possibly swaying them to find in your client’s favour. However, those same tactics simply don’t cut any ice with this audience, who know the subject in which you profess to be an expert intimately.

Here’s something you don’t appear to know – (and one which I assume you’d be able to confirm through Google in about five minutes) – pilots are trained to follow the attitude indicator, (or ‘artificial horizon’, as you quaintly call it), and not the performance instruments, from their very first lesson in instrument flight. As an ex IF instructor, I can assure you that the importance of not following performance instruments, particularly in turbulence, is stressed from Day One.

If you’ve been employed by Singapore Airlines or one of their subsidiaries to swing the spotlight of blame away from the captain in this terrible business, I can only suggest that you’ll earn your money to far greater effect if you concentrate in making your highly selective expert opinions to people who can’t see through them in an instant, as any professional pilot can.

If I’m totally incorrect in my suspicions of your professional background, could I suggest that you try what quite a few of the people who’ve written in on this subject have done? Get yourself in a simulator, (it doesn’t have to be a B737 – virtually any commercial passenger jet sim would suffice). Leave the motion off, (or you’ll probably damage the hydraulic stops) – and try to put the sim into the situation you so expertly describe by mishandling it due to faulty performance instrument readings. (Performance instruments, just in case you’re not aware of the fact, are the airspeed, altitude and vertical speed indicator whose erroneous readouts you blame for the pilot’s/pilots’ mishandling of MI185.)

Hit your stop watch as you start the exercise. You might be surprised how long it takes an ‘out of control’ jet to ‘plummet’ 35,000 feet – or seven miles vertically down – even a ‘totally out of control’ jet, even if it is 50 or 100 knots about its ‘red line’ speed.

Also ask the sim tech to give you a printout of the path your cyber jet traces over the cyber sky as you attempt to follow the erroneous instruments. It will quite likely be pretty erratic – but I can guarantee it won’t be vertically down unless you push the two funny little rocker switches on the yoke fully forward and hold them fully forward for something like ten or twelve seconds and then push the yoke forward as hard as you can all the way down until you hit the cyber earth.

And believe me, thanks to some physical laws called aerodynamics, it won’t be easy holding the cyber aircraft in that very unusual attitude, particularly if you leave the thrust levers fully forward as you attempt to carry out this extraordinary manoeuvre.

After you’ve completed this exercise, you might then give some thought to the mathematical probabilities of the CVR and the DFR circuit breakers both tripping of their own accord a minute or two before the aircraft entered the turbulence that caused the performance instruments’ erroneous readouts. Also the fact that, if you are correct in your surmise about this turbulence, why commercial aircraft aren’t falling out of the sky daily due to it.

[wsherif1]

Wiley,

Your comment.

"Also the fact that, if you are correct in your surmise about this turbulence, why commercial aircraft aren’t falling out of the sky daily due to it."

Not daily, but more often then we should accept.

TWA 800, (breakup from wake turbulence, prior to explosion), EgyptAir 990, (not a suicide), United 585, (Not a rudder problem), USAir 427, (Not a rudder problem), NW 705, (PIO out of weather turbulence) COPA 185, (PIO), China Fight 611, PIO out of wake turbulence, Royal Air Maroc ATR 42 PIO (Erroneous flight instrument Indications.) Eastern DC8 (PIO false instrument readings Captain reversed engines to recover from dive), Eastern DC8 (PIO, same F/O year later!), United 826, PIO Clear air turbulence, (5 broken necks, 6 broken backs, 1 fatality) etc., etc.

No books, just personal experience.

[Tripper]

wsherif1,

though your postings say that you are from San Diego,CA but your responses seem to come when it is past midnight in that part of the world. I wonder if there is a San Diego near Malacca straits!!?

[Wiley]

No books, just personal experience.From that comment, can I assume that you are telling us that I was wrong in thinking that you are not a professional aviator, wsherif1? If that’s the case, I’m surprised you didn’t pick the rest of my post to pieces with the same diligence as you took in dissecting my last paragraph, for I make some assertions that are completely at odds with instrument flying training as you appear to think it is conducted. Until pilots are trained to ignore these erroneous flight instrument indications and rely exclusively on the artificial horizon…

I’d also like some evidence re your novel (and rather startling) conclusions on EgyptAir 990 and the Royal Air Maroc ATR42 ‘accidents’. The rest of the world seems to think that both of those crashes were also pilot suicides.

Geoffrey Thomas, here’s something you might like to pursue. On the subject of EgyptAir 990, it has always surprised me that no journalist looked again at that tragedy with the 20/20 hindsight that Sept 11th 2001 has given us all.

The Egyptians piously assured the world that the FO could not possibly have committed suicide as suicide went against Islamic teachings. September the 11th 2001 and countless Palestinian suicide bombers before and since the EgyptAir tragedy would seem to put paid to that theory pretty convincingly, but few seem to question the Egyptian claim.

Outside Egypt, most analysts, (but not wsherif1, it would seem), seem pretty convinced by the overwhelming evidence that the FO did indeed purposely destroy the aircraft and kill all on board. Is it possible that the First Officer was made ‘an offer he couldn’t refuse’ by Al Qaeda or some similar shadowy organisation, threatening his family with death if that aircraft arrived at its destination? The IRA used very similar tactics on occasion to some effect in N.I., forcing unwilling drivers to ram police and army checkpoints with bomb-laden cars while they held the drivers’ families hostage.

Anyone coming up with this theory prior to Sept 11th 2001 would have been branded a crazy conspiracy theorist. I don’t think too many would find it so hard to believe now.

And sorry, mate, but in listing all the accidents you did in your last post, you still seem to me to be someone who’s learnt all you know about this very involved subject from books rather than from hands-on experience. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be making the assertions you did about the need for re-training in instrument flight techniques. “Power + Attitude = Performance” is a sign that was displayed prominently on my instructor’s cubicle wall and later on my cubicle wall when I was instructing – and I think you’ll find the same would apply for about 90% of instrument flying instructors over the last sixty years.

What the books and websites you’re reading may really be saying is that perhaps some pilots today - particularly those who go into large airliners with around 200 hours total time after graduating from airline cadet schemes – may be relying far to much on automatics in their day to day operations, to the extent that some may be losing the skills and instrument flying techniques they may be called upon to use at a moment’s notice in a situation like those you are quoting with gay abandon.

But the fact remains that this is totally off the subject of this thread – MI 185 could not have manoeuvered anywhere near the profile it did after leaving its cruising altitude had a pilot, be he inexperienced or not, been attempting to regain control after somehow losing said control for whatever reason.

It may come as a surprise to some that probably one of the most effective ways to recover from an unusual attitude, if you are high enough to suffer a substantial height loss without hitting a cumulo granitis cloud, is to do absolutely nothing. The aircraft is trimmed for the speed you were at when encountering the upset and it will seek to recover to that same speed, flying more or less straight and level – and not almost 90 degrees straight down and supersonic as MI 185 did.

[wsherif1]

Wiley,

Your comment,

"Outside Egypt, most analysts, (but not wsherif1, it would seem), seem pretty convinced by the overwhelming evidence that the FO did indeed purposely destroy the aircraft and kill all on board."

Your overwhelming evidence, once again, is an illustration of the NTSB's incompetence, or deliberate coverup of the true facts. The NTSB's statement that the pilots were fighting for control of the aircraft evidenced by the elevators being split, with the co-pilot
holding down pressure on the right elevator and the captain holding up pressure on the left control, is not true!

The FDR readout clearly shows that the elevators were perfectly matched until the aircraft reaches 0.99 Mach! The controls are now subject to buffeting and the aircraft is byond recovery.

The thumps and the clicks of the stabilizer trim system, reacting to the wake turbulence of the many aircraft in the area, as depicted on the track plots, is practically ignored.

There is an uncommanded roll and the co-pilot exclaims, "Control It." prior to his first prayer.

There are many sounds recorded on the CVR indicating the amount of wake turbulence i n the area.

Again we have a pilot instinctively reacting to erroneous flight instrument indications, due to wind shear in wake turbulence!

[7x7]

Great debating technique, wsherif1 (or should that be “wsherif1-la”?), but I notice you’re carefully avoiding Wiley’s question about MI185’s near vertical descent.

Please explain how the 35,000’ tropical ‘wind shear’ did that.

[norodnik]

Any ideas as to when Digital Cameras will finally make it onto Commercial Aircraft.

I know the majority of pilots are against, just as when CVR's were first introduced. But really, the time and technology has come to make flying safer, at very little cost.

It will also stop the conspiracy thoerists, or stop the people who cause the things that the conspiracy theorists believe.

If we had a tail mounted camera and a cockpit camera, all would have been revealed. Even if they were turned off, we could at least have seen the pilots turning them off.

[wsherif1]

7X7

I will explain what happened to NW 705 which is the same phenomenon that affected Silk Air MI 185

NW 705 encountered severe weather turbulence in thunderstorm activity. The aircraft pitched up in an updraft to about a 30 degree nose high attitude The pilot applied forward pitch control to lower the nose, however he was still in the updraft and the aircraft was slow in reacting to the control input. The pilot then trimmed the stabilizer full nose down, to the stops. When the aircraft exited the updraft and returned to tne normal relative wind direction the aircraft reacted to the full nose down stabilizer position and the forward pitch control input and pitched over into a vertical dive. The acceleration at the rate of G was so rapid that the aircraft exceeded the velocity at which a recovery could be made and the aircraft came apart in the air.!

I grant Silk Air was not in severe activity but any erroneous flight instrument indications will affect the pilots instinctive reactions!

The NTSB says that, "A pilots inadvertent reaction to turbulence can cause more problems than the jolt of turbulence itself."

[Tripper]

wsherif1

>>>>The acceleration at the rate of G was so rapid that the aircraft exceeded the velocity at which a recovery could be made and the aircraft came apart in the air.!


Silkair 185 did not come apart in the air. It was flown into the ground manually and it was nothing to do with "erroneous flight instruments"

[Crockett]

Tripper

I may be wrong but I believe both wing tips about 3 to 4 feet sections and parts of the tail/rudder did come apart from the aircraft before it hit the ground. They were found about 4 kilometers from the main crash site if I recall correctly..

Will have to check my copy of the crash investigation report when I get home tonight..

[Tripper]

Crockett,

what you are refering to, are parts which separated due to speed exceeding structural limits of the aircraft. It was not due to reasons mentioned by wsherif1. He is just describing things which never happened to 185 and I think he knows nothing about flying

[Crockett]

Tripper

Was not suggesting one way or another why or when it happened.. just that parts did come apart from the main body of the aircraft during the somewhat rapid descent.. We do not know for sure how much of the aircraft came apart during the descent as only +/- 70% of the total aircraft weight was ever recovered from the crash site.. Who the hell knows what happened to the other +/- 30%..

Maybe it was carried away by the musi river, maybe fell elsewhere and never found away from the crash site, maybe taken by the villagers who lived right next to the crash site.. Who knows..???

Sure some of it must have been taken by them since all the luggage disapeared aswell... Not one suitcase, not one bag, not one wallet found. In fact, not one body found either....which is a bit strange since they (The villagers) seemed to find a lot of credit cards...(which they later tried to sell back to us when we visited the crash site by the way)... Who can blame them I guess..

Guess what I am getting at..not all the wreckage was found..so we do not know when the missing +/- 30 % separated from the main body of the aircraft.. or at least I do not and have not read anything to suggest otherwise.. Wish I did know..

It might provide some answers or proof or whatever you want to call it..

[cargo boy]

It's becoming fairly obvious to most of us that wsherif1 has very little idea about that which he purports to be an expert on. His single issue campaign that most pilot induced crashes/suicides over the last 20 years or so are in fact wake turbulence or wx induced turbulence upsets that were not recovered shows that he is more of a loony conspiracy theorist with the NTSB out to get him. I would worry more about wsherif1 ending up on the top of a water tower with a rifle and a high power scope!

It's one thing to theorise but to make statements wsherif1 as wsherif1 has, with the refusal to even acknowledge other possibilities and at the same time making obvious errors in his presentation just shows to those of us who are indeed real pilots that he is an enthusiast with a conspiracy theory. Too much spare time which he probably uses to read accident reports and a natural fear that 'they're coming to get him' have led to him assuming that his authoratitive style will be accepted without query on here.

Unfotunately, people like Crockett, who lost close family and are still tragically trying to get some kind of closure on this terrible crash have to suffer the silly theories of an enthusiastic but single issue conspiracy theorist. Take it from the majority of normal pilots, wsherif1 has not provided any credentials to back up his expertise which he spouts on about and is therefore discredited in our eyes, just as the Indonesian investigation team were.

[Globaliser]

cargo boy: [wsherif1] is an enthusiast with a conspiracy theoryDon't you mean 'an "enthusiast" with a conspiracy theory'? He sounds like the sort that gives most real enthusiasts a bad name.

[wsherif1]

Cargo Boy,

Your comment,

"Take it from the majority of normal pilots, wsherif1 has not provided any credentials to back up his expertise which he spouts on about."

Wsherif1,
My credentials are posted on the forum. Check them out.

The following information is quoted from NWA Captain Paul Soderlind's, "Flight Standards Bulletin" 3-65. Paul was NWA Chief Pilot-Technical. He was awarded 8 commendations for his contributatins to air safty. He developed the Airspeed Bug System, and along with the NWA Chief meterorologist, the "Turbulence Plot." NWA used the Plot sucessfully for many years. He also authored FSB 8-63, "Jet Turbulence Penetration". Paul died December 2000.

Control Cues:

Of the five sources of pitch information, three often lie to you in turbulence. Unless this phenomena is understood, you may make a PUSH control input when a PUll is required. If reversed control inputs are made, loss of control in turbulence becomes a stronger possibility.

Though it seems a ridiculous over simplification and really not necessary to state, to fly safely in turbulence you must keep the airplane level. This requires control of pitch and roll, and of the two, pitch control problems predominate. Upsets in pitch, both small and large, are more common than in roll. It is interesting--and enlightening--to study why this may be.

Only one indicator gives roll infoemation, and it tells the truth, Not so with pitch indications, and the problem may be that you have too many!

When pitch attitude changes, five cockpit indications respond, thus tell you something about pitch attitude.
These are:

- The attitude indicator.
- The airspeed indicator.
- The altimeter.
- The vertical speed indicator
- Load factor ("seat-of-the-pants") changes.

Of these, only the attitude indicator directly indicates pitch. While the others respond to pitch changes, they do not and cannot indicate pitch. In drafts, the latter four will lie to you in one form or another, if they are interpreted as indications of pitch. The degree to which the information is false depends, among other things, on the direction from which the drafts come. So many variables are involved that the pattern of false information is not repeatable and thus cannot be learned. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM HERE IS USING, OR BEING INFLUENCED BY, "PITCH" INDICATORS THAT DO NOT INDICATE PITCH.

posted 2nd July 2003 07:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tripper to Crockett,


"what you are refering to, are parts which separated due to the speed exceeding structural limits of the aircraft. It was not due to reasons mentioned by wsherif1"

My statement, wsherif1.

The acceleration at the rate of G was so rapid that the aircraft exceeded the velocity at which a recovery could be made and the aircraft came apart in the air.!

Tripper,

" He is just describing things which never happened to 185 and I think he knows nothing about flying."

wsherif1's comment,

Flew the Navy Douglas SBD, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, F8F Bearcat, AD, F9F Panther Jet, accrued 75 traps on straight deck Aircraft Carriers. Flew AAL's Convair 240, DC6, DC7, and was Rated on the Electra, B707, B727, Convair 990, DC10, retired off the B747, and enjoyed every minute.

Just trying to save lives!

[wsherif1]

Wiley,

Your comment,

"The aircraft is trimmed for the speed you were at when encountering the upset and it will seek to recover to that same speed, flying more or less straight and level " WRONG!!!

YOU DO NOT ENCOUNTER AN UPSET.!!! You do encounter an updraft, aircraft wake or weather turbulence.!!! The pilot reacts to the wind shear effects on the flight instruments and is the cause of the upset! PIO!

[56P]

wsherif 1,

9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT, repeat NOT, break apart in the air.

Why have you not addressed the power failures to the CVR & DFDR? Why do you not address all the latent factors in this case?

[Tripper]

wsherif1

i like the "Just trying to save lives!" bit.

From your list it appears that you are also a trained aerobatic pilot defending the captain of 185 who took everyone on board with him.

try reading through the postings and the NTSB report, instead of rambling

[wsherif1]

56P

Your comment,

9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT, repeat NOT, break apart in the air.

Please read Crokett's reply to Tripper on this subject.

[56P]

wsherif1,

I say again: 9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT break up in the air.

With respect, Crockett was not a member of the investigation. I was.

[Casper]

Hey wsherif1

How many free bowls of laksa are you getting for this?

[wsherif1]

56P

Your comments,

I say again: 9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT break up in the air.

With respect, Crockett was not a member of the investigation. I was.

How do you explain the muliple and varius aircraft parts discovered in the area??

[56P]

wsherif1

"How do you explain the muliple and varius aircraft parts discovered in the area??"

That question of yours really does demonstrate your ignorance in regard to this crash. Please read the earlier posts and, if all else fails, please try the actual report. The latter document may be deficient in many areas in what it does NOT state BUT it actually does contain some items of interest, especially in regard to wreckage and flight control components that were recovered. Only one small part of the aircraft separated from the main body in the dive, testament to the structural integrity of the aircraft at speeds way in excess of its normal envelope.

[Hudson]

MI 185. False instrument indications in CAVOK causing it to crash? The aircraft had an EFIS flight instrument panel on both sides of the cockpit - plus a standby ADI, ASI and altimeter. Very reliable flight instruments - much more so than non-EFIS.

Silk Air said the captain was a brilliant aerobatic pilot - leader of the military aerobatic team. Surely with all these superb qualifications he could recover from any known inverted position in CAVOK - if his EFIS instruments were erroneous or not. On the other hand, too, he would have the skills needed to deliberately place the 737 into an inverted attitude if he chose to do so...don't you agree?

[Tripper]

wsherif1 wrote
"Flew the Navy Douglas SBD, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, F8F Bearcat, AD, F9F Panther Jet, accrued 75 traps on straight deck Aircraft Carriers.

Flew AAL's Convair 240, DC6, DC7, and

was Rated on the Electra, B707, B727, Convair 990, DC10, retired off the B747

there is a difference between "flew" and "rated" isn't it??

I wonder if he has ever seen the EFIS cockpit!!!

[Casper]

You're right, Tripper. When you look at what he's "flown" and what he's "rated on," there really is a story there. I suspect that he probably knows all about steam propulsion and gas lighting!

Wiley, Tripper, Hudson, 56P and others have all offered extremely plausible explanations, ones that are shared in nearly all quarters. wsherif1, on the other hand, clings blindly to the pilot reaction to jet upset / turbulence scenario and continually refuses to address any of the other factors unique to this case; viz DFDR, CVR, demotion, insurance etc etc. He even keeps referring to the loss of a NW B720 near Miami, an accident caused by penetration of severe thunderstorm activity! Knowledge of history, however, is no substitute for actual experience.

At least, in this case, he has contributed to maintaining this issue in the pprune headlines, a situation probably most unwelcome in the areas separated by the Malacca Straits.

[wsherif1]

Hudson,

Your comment,

MI 185. False instrument indications in CAVOK causing it to crash? The aircraft had an EFIS flight instrument panel on both sides of the cockpit - plus a standby ADI, ASI and altimeter. Very reliable flight instruments - much more so than non-EFIS.

The pitot-static sensors are the same holes, no hi-tech here.

When the NTSB put the results of the COPA Accident FDR readouts through the computer the readings were so radical that the Boeing engineers claimed that the maneouvers were impossible for the aircraft to have performed.!

[Casper]

wsherif1

You're still avoiding the real issues and quoting irrelevant (to this case) info.

[geoffrey thomas]

Distorting some of the debate on this crash and a few others are some people who do not want the sucide theory to win out becuase they feel it will fuel a public push for video cameras in the cockpit.
I do not feel there should be videos but many pilots fear, with justification, that some politician will react and legislate.
Although one could always find a way to turn the video camera off.
GT

[56P]

GT

Any possibility of getting the "Assignment" documentary shown (somehow) to an international audience?

[Kaptin M]

wsherif1, with each post you make, it becomes more apparent that either you are:
(i) NOT a pilot..perhaps a close relative of the Chinese captain of MI 185??...or a legal counsel, trying to feel your way??,
or,
(ii) a pilot who retired some 20 or more years ago, and who is not familiar with glass cockpit instruments. Your comment, "{Very reliable flight instruments - much more so than non-EFIS.}The pitot-static sensors are the same holes, no hi-tech here.", underscores your apparent total lack of knowledge of EFIS equipped aircraft vs the old "suck and blow" type!!

You appear to be trying to throw too many "red herrings" into this post, to deliberately confuse/subvert those who are NOT professional pilots.
But keep 'em coming, because the depth of knowledge by some of the posters here runs several hundred fathoms over the constant reference you invariably hark back to.....is this the SOLE evidence upon which you hope to build your case?
If so, I shall be MORE than happy to help in cannon-balling its relevance to MI 185!

GT...no need to turn them off - a bit of sticking plaster should do!!

[Techman]

It wasn't wsherif1 who said "Very reliable flight instruments - much more so than non-EFIS."

[VR-HFX]

wsherif1

You do not have to be an electronics expert to work out why the FDR and CVR ceased operating. Quite simply they were switched off prior to the aerobatics display.

As to impact damage to the gyro stops, I would have thought hitting the ground/swamp/water at Mach1+ might well make your assertion irrefutable!

Where do I get a computer with pitot-static sensors that runs FS2003? I sure would like one of those for Xmas.

Paul Soderlind must be turning in his grave.

Clarification:

If the above appears to break the train of the thread it is because wsherif1's post to which the above refers has subsequently been deleted.

[SaturnV]

wsherif1 flew the Douglas SBD, the Dauntless dive bomber, which entered service with the US Navy in 1939, played a prominent role in the battle of Midway (1942), and its last major engagement was the Battle of the Philippine Sea (1944), being replaced in the last years of World War II by the Helldiver. The US Marine Corps used it until the end of the war (August 1945), but not off carriers. So someone who flew the SBD presumably did so about 60 years ago..

[VR-HFX]

SaturnV

Aaaaarrrgghhh.... the Dauntless dive bomber..a perfect description of the selfish suicide and mass murder we are discussing.

[Tripper]

>>>wsherif1 flew the Douglas SBD, the Dauntless dive bomber, which entered service with the US Navy in 1939, played a prominent role in the battle of Midway (1942), and its last major engagement was the Battle of the Philippine Sea (1944), being replaced in the last years of World War II by the Helldiver. The US Marine Corps used it until the end of the war (August 1945), but not off carriers. So someone who flew the SBD presumably did so about 60 years ago..

"The pitot-static sensors are the same holes, no hi-tech here."

This explains why the "Zero" s of the Japanese Air Force were crashing into the Yank ships during the war. Maybe, wsherif1 should mail them all his postings and the Paul Soderlind report he keeps refering to. The skies over the Pacific must have been full of CAT when the Zero's were flying around

[Casper]

wsherif1 may be correct as there IS a link here. The waters from the Musi River flow into the Java Sea, then through the Straits of Malacca to the South China Sea and through the Sulu Sea to the Pacific Ocean. Common ground (water) at last!

[wsherif1]

Tripper,

I flew the SBD for 12 hours after finishing basic flight training in Pensacola. The Navy had one available at Corry Field and the thinking was, to permit the student pilots to experience flight time in a heavier aircraft prior to advanced training in the F4U.

[geoffrey thomas]

Back to the Silk Air Final Report....of all the things that struck me was the extraordinary explanation that the Indonesians gave for the CVR cut off....
While the report said that no cause of the CVR stoppage could be concluded it suggestted that "a break in the wiring" was a possibility.
The NTSB's unprecedented 49 page dismissal of the Indonesian report debunks the "break in wiring" theory.
The "break in wiring" theory is so lame that many have suggested that it was Prof Diran's way of protesting that his report was being tampered with.
Food for thought!
GT

[Lee]

Quote:
>>>wsherif1 wrote
"Flew the Navy Douglas SBD, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, F8F Bearcat, AD, F9F Panther Jet, accrued 75 traps on straight deck Aircraft Carriers.

Flew AAL's Convair 240, DC6, DC7, and

was Rated on the Electra, B707, B727, Convair 990, DC10, retired off the B747<<<


Please help me out here, isn't the F4 a McDonald Douglas Phantom jet, not a Corsair? Not sure if there is an F4 with a 'U' variant too.

[Tripper]

maybe the flight computer games he plays must have the wrong configuration!!!

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Lee

<<<
Please help me out here, isn't the F4U a McDonald Douglas Phantom jet, not a Corsair?
>>>

No, I guess this is the Vought F4U Corsair. Before the 1950s the US Navy had a different nomenclature / type-numbering system for its aircraft from the USAF. The system was unified under the DoD at some point, maybe the mid/late 1950s, so we now have common C-, F-, A- etc., type designators.

[Lee]

Golf Charlie Charlie,

Thanks for the clarification.

[wsherif1]

7x7

Your comment,

"I notice you’re carefully avoiding Wiley’s question about MI185’s near vertical descent." Please explain how the 35,000’ tropical ‘wind shear’ did that.

In the United 585 accident over Colorado Springs the ATC controller stated, "The aircraft seemed to pitch up, just prior to the push over into a vertical dive." "The aircraft never rolled, it went straight in." The NWA 705 accident resulted from the pilots trimming the stabilizer full nose down, when the aircraft pitched up from a strong, weather induced up draft. Both aircraft ended up in a "near vertical descent."

56P,

Your comment,

"9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT, repeat NOT, break apart in the air."

Information on this forum indicates that only 70% of the structure was ever recovered and that parts of the aircraft left the structure prior to ground impact.

[Tripper]

wsherif1,

185 did NOT pitch up. It just rolled to the side and was flown into a near vertical dive, manually.

Why don't you go through the FULL report, including the NTSB one which you dislike so much, before making all these stupid comments.

185 crash was not due to any of the problems that you keep refering to. IT WAS A PURE AND SIMPLE CASE OF PILOT SUICIDE MURDER

[geoffrey thomas]

ONE of the resaons that only 70% of the structure was ever recovered was because the 737 crashed into the Musi River. WHAT is extremely interesting is that the US Navy that had salvage equipment in the area offered to help BUT that offer was declined. Again I wonder why.
GT

[56P]

wsherif1,

GT is quite correct. The aircraft crashed into the Musi River which is about 20' deep at the point of impact. The CVR was located under 27' of mud UNDER the bottom of the river! When the speed of impact and the approx 10-15 kts tide are considered, 70% was a very respectable figure.

By the way, that 70% included all the flight control components and all were found to be operating normally at the point of impact.

The ONLY part of the aircraft to separate prior to impact was a small (18 kg weight) piece of the horizontal stabiliser that was found on the ground 4500 met from the impact reference point. Considering the fact that the speed of the aircraft was way in excess of its normal envelope at this point in its trajectory, it's testament to the integrity of the aircraft that the rest of it held together.

This crash was NOT similar to those at Colorado Springs, Pittsburgh or your pet favourite B720 one near Miami. Did the CVRs and DFDRs in those events experience power failures prior to impact or EVEN in the cruise?

This one was a deliberate and premeditated act. Read (objectively) the full report, NTSB comments and the related factors in this case and you should be able to understand why ALL other possible causes can be excluded.

Why do you suppose that some former plaintiffs have already withdrawn from the case against Boeing?

[fdr]

Wsherif1:

The Colorado B737-200 UA585 flight data shows unequvocably that the aircraft rolled inverted early on in the upset.

Eye witness reports are best taken with caution, even from qualified observers.

[wsherif1]

FDR,

Your Comment,

"The Colorado B737-200 UA585 flight data shows unequvocably that the aircraft rolled inverted early on in the upset.

Eye witness reports are best taken with caution, even from qualified observers."

Have you personally seen the FDR readout?

The NTSB has covered up evidence in previous reports! e.g. In the United 585 accident they neglected to mention the sworn statements of the final controller who handled the flight, which were in the ATC Chairman's Factual report! These statements were backed up by the other controller on duty, as well as the exclamation of the co-pilot at the instant of the occurrence. (The ATC Chairman's Factual Report has never been published, or included in the NTSB's final report!)

The NTSB removed essential evidence from the FDR readout chart, in the TWA 800 investigation! The NTSB made false statements in the EgyptAir 990 report, as well as the USAir 427 accident! The NTSB reads the FDR Charts from the ZERO G Line!!!
United 826 Incident, (I have a copy of the FDR readout.) The NTSB claimed the aircraft had experienced a force of -0.8G. The actual force was -1.8G! (5 broken necks 6 broken backs and one fatality!) The NTSB claimed the passengers had been subjected to a force approaching ZERO G!!!

The NTSB is covering up the actual reason for these accidents to keep from alarming the flying public. meanwhile the accidents continue to occur!

You must treat any report from the NTSB with a high level of skepticism.

[fdr]

wsherif1:

yes.

additionally I have reconstructed the flightpath without the fdr, based on kinematics, including requisite organic forces and external forces.

the aircraft rolled.


You are not a lone voice of concern on investigation veracity, and that is good.


regards,

[geoffrey thomas]

wsherif1:

Perhaps you can enlighten us to "WHAT accidents continue to occur"!

GT

[wsherif1]

geoffrey thomas,

Your comment,

"Perhaps you can enlighten us to what accidents continue to occur"!

TWA 800, EgyptAir 990, United 826, AA 587 etc., etc.

[Traffic]

GT

I assume the etc etc refers to the four on 9/11.

If I were you I would give up on this one and had for Steve's or the OBH for a coldie!!

Cheers

[wsherif1]

FDR,

Your comment,

"yes.

additionally I have reconstructed the flightpath without the fdr, based on kinematics, including requisite organic forces and external forces.

the aircraft rolled."

Evidently you missed the nose high transition just prior to the dive
maneuver. The NTSB recognized it, but they dismissed this indication saying it was not accompanied by an increase in G forces.

A NOSE HIGH TRANSITION DUE TO WIND SHEAR OR UP-DRAFTS
IN TURRBULENCE, IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY AN INCREASE IN G
FORCES!

THE AIRCRAFT WAS IN A MOUNTAIN WAVE ACTIVITY AREA. THE CO-PILOT EXCLAIMED, "Oh GOD!, Flip"! SHE DID NOT SAY ROLL !

The most qualified eye witness, the final ATC controller, in his sworn statements in the ATC Factual Report said,
"The AIRCRAFT DID NOT ROLL, IT WENT STRAIGHT IN."

The NTSB did not even mention this evidence in their final report!!!

WHY NOT??????

[56P]

There was NO "strong mountain wave activity" or any other turbulence anywhere near MI 185.

The CVRs and FDRs continued to operate normally at Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh.

[Kaptin M]

It would appear ot me ,wsherif1, that you either
(a) possess only a VERY limited knowledge of meteorology in general, and aviation-related met phenomena specifically, or,
(b) that you deliberately and consistently attempt to cloud the Silk Air MI 185 issue.

The Colorado Springs UA585 accident occurred at "low level" as a result of low level mechanical weather factors, and not something that would occur at 35,000' in tropical latitudes.
Furthermore, because of the (relatively) low level at which UA585 encountered this upset, it was almost impossible for a recovery to be effected.
IF a similar scenario were to happen at FL350, then even a very average pilot would have no problem recovering - recovery from unusual attitudes is part of every airline pilot's endorsement.

Compare apples with apples, wsherif1.

BTW, you forgot to mention Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie, Scotland) in your list of "accidents that continue to occur". :rolleyes:

[geoffrey thomas]

wsherif1

You say....."The NTSB is covering up the actual reason for these accidents to keep from alarming the flying public. meanwhile the accidents continue to occur!"

I would have thought that the lay media does a super job of alarming the public without any help from safety investigators. In fact when the NTSB or CAA etc reports come out years later the accident is long forgotten.

And have you an explanation for the fact that US Navy salvage assistance was turned down for MI 185...was it "mountain wave" or "a wave of deception" or a "wave of relief that the truth would lay buried in mud forever"????

GT

[wsherif1]

Kaptain M,

Your comment,

"IF a similar scenario were to happen at FL350, then even a very average pilot would have no problem recovering - recovery from unusual attitudes is part of every airline pilot's endorsement."

You cannot compare a recovery from an unusual attitude in a flight training situation with an attempted recovery from an aircraft upset. This is a first time occurrence for most pilots, and the instantaneous nature of the operation triggers instantaneous, inadvertent, (NTSB wording), flight control responses.

I had no intention of comparing the weather conditions of United 585 with SilkAir MI 185. However, If you read the United 585 report you will notice the many references to the Rotor probabilites that exist in the COS area.

GT,

Your commemt,

"And have you an explanation for the fact that US Navy salvage assistance was turned down for MI 185...was it "mountain wave" or "a wave of deception" or a "wave of relief that the truth would lay buried in mud forever"????

Of course, It was a wave of relief, on the NTSB's part, that the truth would lay buried in mud forever!!!

[56P]

wsherif1

"You cannot compare a recovery from an unusual attitude in a flight training situation with an attempted recovery from an aircraft upset. "

What absolute rubbish in the case of MI 185! In that situation, both pilots were trained in and demonstrated high standards in jet upsets. Believe me! AND the captain was a very experienced jet aerobatic pilot. In your opinion, what would have been likely to cause a jet upset in MI 185's case anyway? There was no jetstream, no CAT and no sig wx at the time. The only jet upset was deliberately pilot induced!

Soryy, your arguments just don't hold water, except for the variety as murky as that in the Musi River.

You still haven't answered my earlier questions re an explanation for the "failures" of the CVR and DFDR in the case of MI 185 PLUS the lack of a distress call PLUS the failure to squawk 7700 - plenty of time for those items from FL 350.

[wsherif1]

posted 14th July 2003 21:04


Kaptain M,

Your comment,

"It would appear to me, wsherif1, that you either
(a) possess only a VERY limited knowledge of meteorology in general, and aviation-related met phenomena specifically, or,
(b) that you deliberately and consistently attempt to cloud the Silk Air MI 185 issue."

After over 30,000 hours of Navy and Airline flight time and a weather induced pitch up in a Boeing 707, due to strong updraft conditions on top of thunderstorm activity, I must have absorbed something other than sweat.

In any safety investigation of aircraft accidents there will be many differences of opion on what the evidence signifies. The Internatioal Pilots Union happenes to disagree with the NTSB's opinion and their methods.

If you have read some of my posts you are aware of my opinon of the NTSB's competency! This opinion is based on actual facts, represented by FDR Chart readouts and statements by some of their senior investigators.

56P

Your comments,

What absolute rubbish in the case of MI 185! In that situation, both pilots were trained in and demonstrated high standards in jet upsets. Believe me! AND the captain was a very experienced jet aerobatic pilot. In your opinion, what would have been likely to cause a jet upset in MI 185's case anyway? There was no jetstream, no CAT and no sig wx at the time. The only jet upset was deliberately pilot induced!

Remember United 826? There was no CAT reported then either.
(5 broken necks, 6 broken backs and 1 fatality)!

wsherif1

[56P]

wsherif1

Was United 826 very near the equator?

AND the CVR & DFDR power failures??

[Casper]

You guys are just wasting time arguing with wsherif1. He's obviously either got an axe to grind with all NTSB opinions or he's getting free laksa from Lyin City. Either way, he's completely wrong in this case.

[wsherif1]

posted 14th July 2003 23:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted 14th July 2003 21:04


Kaptain M,

Your comment,

"It would appear to me, wsherif1, that you either
(a) possess only a VERY limited knowledge of meteorology in general, and aviation-related met phenomena specifically, or,
(b) that you deliberately and consistently attempt to cloud the Silk Air MI 185 issue."

After over 30,000 hours of Navy and Airline flight time and a weather induced pitch up in a Boeing 707, due to strong updraft conditions on top of thunderstorm activity, I must have absorbed something other than sweat.

In any safety investigation of aircraft accidents there will be many differences of opion on what the evidence signifies. The Internatioal Pilots Union happenes to disagree with the NTSB's opinion and their methods.

If you have read some of my posts you are aware of my opinon of the NTSB's competency! This opinion is based on actual facts, represented by FDR Chart readouts and statements by some of their senior investigators.

wsherif1

56P

Your comments,

"What absolute rubbish in the case of MI 185! In that situation, both pilots were trained in and demonstrated high standards in jet upsets. Believe me! AND the captain was a very experienced jet aerobatic pilot. In your opinion, what would have been likely to cause a jet upset in MI 185's case anyway?"

Actually? How many Jet Upsets did they recover from???

I do believe that the pilots had been trained in recoveries from unusual attitudes, but I do not believe they were trained in aircraft upset recoveries.

The probable cause of the MI 185 accident was the same as many others, PIO, as a result of aircraft nose attitude transitions along with erroneous flight instrument indications. due to wind shear across the pitot-static sensors. e.g. United 585, USAir 427, EgyptAir 990, United 826, China 611, COPA 185, Royal Air Maroc, etc.

When the NTSB put the FDR readout through the computer, in the COPA accident, the aircraft attitudes were so radical that the Boeing engineers said it was impossible for the aircraft to have accomplished these maneuvers!

[56P]

wsherif1

No further comment from me on this issue. You're terminal and your second last paragraph confirms it!

Edited by 56P

[geoffrey thomas]

I am out-of-here as well. The logic of his arguments reflect the same logic in the final report!
GT

[Casper]

Professor Wsherif1 Diran??

[Kaptin M]

The probable cause of the MI 185 accident was... along with erroneous flight instrument indications. due to wind shear across the pitot-static sensors
Would you care to specify precisely WHICH flight instruments you refer to, wsherif1.

Further, for someone who claims to have accumulated 30,000 hours, I (who have only 1/2 your experience) would have thought that YOU would have realised that (especially) in VMC conditions with unobstructed outside reference - as was the case on the day of the MI 185 crash - one pilot, let alone two, are not going to allow an aircraft to continue for a prolonged period in a situation of rapid height loss and speed increase (the wind noise alone must have been excessively loud) because of "erroneous flight instruments".

I await your reply.

[Casper]

Kaptin M

You're wasting your time with wsherif1. He's in "Laksa Land."

[Ignition Override]

wSherif1 and Pprune Gang: Excuse me for jumping in and asking some questions down below. This is a fascinating debate, and my heart still goes out to Crockett (and the rest), who lost his wife and unborn child in this nightmare, based on what I remember many months ago.

There have often been serious questions raised about some NTSB reports and possible strange omissions. Never mind the FBI agents onboard the first boats to go to the TWA 800 crash scene (long before 9/11), what the military helicopter pilots saw...and mysterious events at the storage center for the crash debris and residue on some aircraft seats. There were also major questions about the Canadian Trans. Boards' various rulings on the Arrow Air DC-8 crash at Gander, Canada; but the controversies over these or other various details are NOT really my main point here.

The possibility that such Transportation Boards for these two nations might exclude or disregard any major facts while arriving at primary causes for aircraft accidents also causes me to wonder about the function of similar Boards of Investigation, especially those in nations which are certainly not a democracy, or any such Board which attempts to operate under a steel-fisted dictatorship. I would be much less convinced by conclusions published by experts working (appointed/re-appointed by?) under such regimes.

One subjective problem in this debate could be the very uncomfortable notion that a regular airline pilot could be (especially before 9/11) so despondent that he could even contemplate bringing down a plane with other people on it, as with the Egyptair flight. I would rather not believe that this were possible-but it is NOT impossible. Did it also happen on the JAL or ANA DC-8 many years ago at ANC? Could the repulsive concept be the motivation for any element(s) in this debate? Could cash be an incentive?

I know one thing-assuming that the Silk Air 737's cruise flight was suddenly upset by either a wingtip vortex or other outside forces, any pilot who is highly skilled and fairly current in aerobatics should be able to fairly quickly recover control of a transport aircraft, and maybe without losing 20,000' (as long as he is not in the lav or too involved with deciphering strange abbreviated NOTAMS or petty arrival and dept notes in Jepps on noise abatement...). And if the rudder actuator suffered a major control problem, as might have been the case with the USAir 737 as with the Eastwinds' (correct name?) 737 over South Carolina (the crew survived to talk about it...) it probably would not have gone straight down. Since suicide/mass murder (no matter how repulsive an idea), in my opinion, explains many of the facts, has the airline there done any covert or overt evaluations of the mental conditions of its pilot staff? :hmm:

[Casper]

Ignition Override

"so despondent that he could even contemplate bringing down a plane with other people on it"

Never forget that this particular individual did not want to kill just himself. He wanted to cause maximum damage to the company. * He was a former golden boy - a local.
* He had been demoted - massive "loss of face."
* His insurance policy had just been activated.
* He had had previous "incidents" with NZ pilots.

He forgot the transponder and failed to realize that the stab trim setting and the deactivation of the auto-throttle system would identify pilot input. Likewise, pulling the CVR & DFDR CBs cast further light on deliberate action. Even the location of the crash is significant, as are the lack of mayday call and lack of code 7700 on the transponder.

It's all there. He should, of course, have been suspended after the infamous CVR CB incident. Then, the crash and loss of innocent lives simply could not have happened.

[geoffrey thomas]

Ignition Override: It was a JAl DC-8-61 into Haneda. Pilot ended up surving and was committed I think.

Kaptin M....We actually obtained the sat pics for the time/day and its was basically clear

GT

[Traffic]

Geoff

You are correct. From recall it was 1982 or 1983. Capt Katagiri at the ripe old age of 38 decided it was all too much and tried, unsuccessfully, to kill himself. Although he failed, he managed to kill about 23 other people.

Remarkably similar, now that the subject is raised, to the current debate.

Katagiri returned straight back into the LHS of a JAL DC8 after being on sick leave for three months (read mental illness). One check ride and he was let loose on the line. First trip back he acted strangely on the way down to Fukuoka, The F/O and the F/E, both older then Katagiri, did nothing. He called his mother that evening from the hotel in Fukuoka and said he couldn't hack it anymore.

He then jumped back in the LHS the next day and proceeded to try and kill himself. Of course JAL tried to hush it up but as it all happened about 500m from the piano keys, that proved impossible.

For those with suicidal tendencies, an aircraft is a spellbinding environment that leaves tall buildings and railway platforms for dead.

I am sure wsherif1 might have a different explanation which I await with interest.

[wsherif1]

Traffic,

Your comment,

"I am sure wsherif1 might have a different explanation which I await with interest."

I have no knowledge of the accident you refer to.

Three pilot suicides in a relatively short period of time. Not plausible!

Recent information may suggest that the CVR, FDR were not turned offf!!! In the MI 185 accident!!!

wsherif1

[JW411]

wsherif1:

I have been reading your outpourings with ever and ever increasing incredulity and despite the fact that I probably know more about standing wave than you will ever learn, I have so far managed to tell myself to stay out of this idiotic argument.

However, I would like to pick you up on one of your latest stupid utterance:

"3 pilot suicides in a relatively short period of time. Not plausible."

A well-known UK airline, which is very highly respected, had no less than 5 pilots commit suicide in one year (about 20 years ago). Fortunately they all did it away from the aeroplanes that they normally flew.

I knew two of them personally.

Suicide is much more common than you realise. In fact, I reckon you know as much about what makes people tick as you do about what makes aeroplanes tick.

[56P]

wsherif1

I know that I previously said that I'm out of this debate but your following claim should not go unchallenged. It's another cheap attempt at deception such as that published recently in "The New Paper," a daily rag issued in that fine example of democracy, the Republic of Singapore.

Your claim:
"Recent information may suggest that the CVR, FDR were not turned offf!!! In the MI 185 accident!!!"

Please advise the source of your above claim. IF it came from the "New Paper" which, in turn, came from the plaintiffs' attorneys, then it's completely incorrect and you can expect a retraction in the near future.

I can assure you that the power supplies to both CVR & DFDR failed prior to the aircraft leaving 35000' and, in the case of the CVR, tests confirmed that this loss of power was not due to a power surge or an overheat. In neither case was there a power failure to the bus that supplied power to each recorder. Are you even aware that the captain had deliberately pulled the CVR CB on an earlier occasion, also with a NZ first officer?

It may well be in your interests to become familiar with the JAL crash (not accident), similar ones in Morocco and Botswana, and, of course, Egyptair and SilkAir. By the way, are you aware that Egyptair has finally accepted legal responsibility for the B767 crash?

I do not know about other cases that you quote but you have been quite incorrect in your claims regarding this one.

[wsherif1]

JW411,

Your comments,

"A well-known UK airline, which is very highly respected, had no less than 5 pilots commit suicide in one year (about 20 years ago). Fortunately they all did it away from the aeroplanes that they normally flew."

Of course I was referring to supposed pilot suicides via aircraft!
SilkAir MI 185, EgyptAir 990, Royal Air Maroc ATR 42.

[56P]

wsherif1

"I note, recently Info. has been discovered that casts doubt on previous info. that the FDR and CVR were turned off!!!"

Please refer to my post.

[Kaptin M]

wsherif1 said, "The probable cause of the MI 185 accident was... along with erroneous flight instrument indications. due to wind shear across the pitot-static sensors.

Again, wsherif1 - would you care to specify precisely which instrument(s) you are referring to, please.

[Casper]

wsherif1

Sometimes I sits and thinks
And othertimes I JUST SITS!

Keep it up, lad. At least it's keeping the spotlight on the subject and THAT is important!

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Not than I am taking sides on this, but there was also the case of the Air Botswana ATR-42 pilot suicide in October 1999.

[geoffrey thomas]

JAL DC-8-61: It was indeed a suicide attempt....everyone agreed on that. The pilots fought to regain control and luckily for those who survived it was the sea approach to Haneda.
GT.

[lambert]

either wsherif1 is bonkers or he cant understand what is being written by others. He must be a "laksa" man

next , he may say that eye witnesses saw MI 185 pitch up and roll!!!!

[geoffrey thomas]

Re The JAL suicide attempt. Apparently the pilot's wife even warned the airline that her husband was suicidal.
GT

[GIMPOSH]

Wsherif1

I am a military trained pilot (though clearly not as old or bold as you are), as was the AC in this case. Given my training was in a different country than this case, Right from the very beginning of IF phase I was trained in the phenomenon you so eloquently cut and paste here. I have even had the misfortune of experiencing it in flight in an aircraft with significant -G issues (teetering head RW type). I would imagine any pilot with significant IF experience (especially one with a formation / display aerobatics background) would be well aware of what I consider fairly common instrument errors. Aware enough to be able to sort it out in 20000' feet or so on a CAVOK day.
As someone else put it Power + Attitude = performance. Full power + Windscreen full of green does not equal recovery from an Unusual Attitude.

Now lets assume for a minute that you are a military pilot (benefit of the doubt) with a few log books full of experience can you honestly say that 2 experienced pilots (one of who was used to being upside down and recovering from UA's) sat there and let it happen? without even making an impact on the aircrafts trajectory? Maybe they were too busy trying to work out what those circuit breakers did?

[wsherif1]

Gymposh,

Your comment,

"Can you honestly say that 2 experienced pilots (one of who was used to being upside down and recovering from UA's) sat there and let it happen? without even making an impact on the aircrafts trajectory?"

Yes, We are talking about a MASSIVE aircraft structure in a vertical dive, after the upset, (in a free fall, no lift, no drag). Accelerating at the rate of G instantaneously, the aircraft rapidly reaches velocities precluding a safe recovery. e.g., NWA 705, EgyptAir 990, COPA 185, all broke up in the air. Yes I know, you will tell me theywere all pilot suicides.

As NWA Captain Paul Soderlind says in his FSB 3-63, "When flying in turbulence you must keep the aircraft level!!!

Paul was Chief Pilot-Technical for NWA and received 8 awards for his contributations to air safety. He developed the Airspeed Bug System and the Turbulence Plot. He died in December, 2000.

I put in 8 years in Naval Carrier Operations, (F6F, F4U, F8F)


Fraternally

[ferris]

Why wont any of you listen to wsherif1?

As NWA Captain Paul Soderlind says in his FSB 3-63, "When flying in turbulence, immediately disarm the DFDR. The very next action must be to disarm the CVR. In the next chapter we will move on to power and stab trim settings.......!!!

Paul was Chief Pilot-Technical for NWA and received 8 awards for his contributations to air safety. He developed the Airspeed Bug System and the Turbulence Plot. He died in December, 2000.

I can't understand the continuing debate on this. Why go on about it? Haven't you heard about NWA Captain Paul Soderlind? (Paul was Chief Pilot-Technical for NWA and received 8 awards for his contributations to air safety. He developed the Airspeed Bug System and the Turbulence Plot. He died in December, 2000.)

I think some people need to take off their blinkers, and look at

all the factors involved.

ps. Do you think if I mention Mr Soderlind's qualifications a few more times, it will strengthen my argument?

[Tripper]

As NWA Captain Paul Soderlind says in his FSB 3-63, "When flying in turbulence you must keep the aircraft level!!!

unfortunately, he did not say that " the captain's head should have been level"

why else would he "switch off" DFDR and CVR CBs, the autopilot, the A/T, and then push the thrust levers full forward, stab trim full nose down. Maybe, if he had his head level, he would have remembered to switch off the transponder as well!!!

wsherif1, give us a break. In one of your earlier postings, you mentioned " just trying to save a few lives". Do that and shut up.
the captain of 185 did just the opposite

[GIMPOSH]

WTF??????????????? Um did I miss something in the last 15 years????????


"Yes, We are talking about a MASSIVE aircraft structure in a vertical dive, after the upset, (in a free fall, no lift, no drag). Accelerating at the rate of G instantaneously, the aircraft rapidly reaches velocities precluding a safe recovery. "


We are talking about a MASSIVE aircraft structure

They all still handle the same (at least all the controls work the same) before the upset as they did after (even the sim ones)

No Lift

There were plenty of V Square’s going over the wings and the report (which I took the time to read) said the wings were still attached to the fuselage. In a vertical dive the AoA should be something less than that which produces a full stall. Perhaps you meant no vertical component of lift??

No Drag

??????? Quick someone tell NASA hell better phone Boeing first though they may have come up with a way to save millions in fuel bills and can reduce the cost of building ACFT. Do you even understand the concept of drag? If the ACFT was accelerating does drag not go up by a factor of 3?


Accelerating at the rate of G instantaneously


So is it accelerating or does it get there instantaneously??

The aircraft rapidly reaches velocities precluding a safe recovery.

I agree!! A "safe" recovery but that does not stop the crew from trying!!! or did the missing CVR transcript go like this!

P1 Oh well vertical dive nothing we can do now you pull the breakers I will start the stopwatch.

P2 OK and don't forget to make sure the XPDR is on, damn everything was going so well too wish there was something we could do. You know I remember Paul Soderlind said something about this wish I could remember what it was. Oh not to matter.


By thew way my job really is about saving lives.

[Casper]

Re wsherif1

Was he ever anything other than a smokescreen? And a pretty poor one at that.

One positive point, however, was that he DID bring out all the reactions and that managed to keep this whole disgraceful cover-up in pprune headlines. Thanks, wsherif1.

[Kaptin M]

Thanks also to Danny and the rest of the PPRuNe moderators who have allowed this topic to continue in its entirity.

The findings of probale cause(s) of the crash of MI 185 - a B737 scheduled flight operated by Singapore Airlines subsidiary Silk Air - have clearly been subverted in the light of evidence that has never been made public by the companies.
Possibly ONLY for commercial reasons - GREED.

Some of the contributors to this thread have an intimate knowledge of the FACTUAL findings (no I'm not one of those) and they have presented them here for public exposure. Additionally, there is almost no amount of uncertainty amongst the local Singaporean Silk Air flight and cabin crews about the cause of the crash.
Tsu's behaviour did not go unnoticed.

The cover-up does nothing to promote Singapore's reputation of being an open society, but instead promotes the Lyin' City (a bastardisation of The Lion City) tag, and puts those who try to conceal the truth in the same category as the Chinese who lied and denied the SARS outbreak in China, until it was no longer able to be contained.

[wsherif1]

I was in a Boeing 707 at 37,000 feet, in the clear above thunderstorm activity. First updraft, I knocked off the auto-pilot. Second updraft, aircraft pitched up 25 to 35 degrees. Resultant relative wind from strong updraft and aircraft's velocity increased the angle of attack and the lift, moving the center of lift forward on the swept wing, pulling the nose up. Because of the relative wind direction little or no increase in aircraft load factor, therefore little loss of kinetic energy! Aircraft continued on projected flight path, in this attitude, with no iminent stall threat. Both pilots' looking out the windows at a visual horizon were not affected by flight instrument readings. Eased the nose back down to the visual horizon and continued on course.

NWA 705 pitchup. Boeing 720B (8 feet shorter than a 707, thus more susceptible to a pitchup (shorter moment arm). Aircraft pitched up to about 35 degrees. Pilot applied forward pitch control with little effect, (strong updraft). Trimmed the horizontal stabilizer full nose down. When the aircraft exited the updraft and returned to normal relative wind conditions, the aircraft pitched over into a vertical dive. The aircraft came apart in the air.
Subsequent examination of the gyros showed severe impact damage to the nose down stops, from the rapid rotation of the aircraft about its center of gravity. (lateral axis.)

[56P]

Hear! Hear! Thank you, Danny, and the other moderators.

This may well prove to be one of the few venues where the truth has been told in this tragic case, one of which Lyin' City and the puppet investigator should be absolutely ashamed.

The "official" investigation has done absolutely nothing for aviation safety, except to illustrate what NOT to do! At least, however, the rest of the world knows. The price of face - tragic!

[White Knight]

You can't let it go can you ?

Silk Air was a suicide mission - or was it your theory of "windshear" across the pitot tubes and static ports ?

Goodnight and goodbye.

[Tripper]

wsherif1 wrote: I was in a Boeing 707 at 37,000 feet, in the clear above thunderstorm activity. First updraft, I knocked off the auto-pilot. Second updraft, aircraft pitched up 25 to 35 degrees.

I wonder where he learnt his weather flying!!? service ceiling of a 707 is 37000ft. BASIC airmanship requires that " YOU NEVER FLY OVER A THUNDERSTORM ", especially if you are at your service ceiling.

I suppose 30000 hours means nothing , if your basics are wrong!!

[56P]

Weather (and that includes thunderstorm activity, turbulence and CAT) was NOT a factor in the case of MI185.

[Ignition Override]

Casper: When you said on page 13 that the infamous Silk Air Captain's insurance had been activated, what was that all about?

As for his massive gambling debts, had his creditors begun to garnish (legally remove) money from his paychecks?

I suppose that the airline does not have volunteer line pilots who have training to resolve personality conflicts (i.e. "Professional Standards") or those who can investigate other problems at an early stage.

[amos2]

...and let's not forget the crash axe!

[wsherif1]

Tripper.

It may have been 33,000 or 35,000 feet, it was a long time ago. Any way we were well on top.

What I am trying to say is, there is no requirement to react to an aircraft pitchup, which may be accompanied by a false indication of a rapid increase in altitude along with the rate of climb against the stop, and a rapid decrease in airspeed, by shoving the nose over into a vertical dive!

Excerpt from an NTSB letter dated January 21, 1998'

Pilot reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself.

[Casper]

Ignition Override

A large insurance policy taken out by Tsu WM became active (available - current) on the morning of 19 Dec 1997, the day of the crash.

I'm not aware of any deductions from his pay for debts and I doubt if any were made.

No, the company had no provision for such counselling or assistance. The only opportunity that the company had to make any input into Tsu's problems occurred after he had deliberately tripped the CVR cb. On that occasion, he was demoted from a line instructor pilot to a line captain. Had he been suspended (as many claim he should have), the crash could not have occurred.

wsherif1
As already stated by 56P, the weather was definitely not a factor in this crash so please stop raving on about a jet upset. A jet upset did happen BUT it was pilot initiated and actioned!

[wsherif1]

Casper,


Your comment,

"As already stated by 56P, the weather was definitely not a factor in this crash so please stop raving on about a jet upset."

A jet upset can not only be initiated by weather-induced- turbulence but also aircraft-wake-turbulence, or clear-air-turbulence. I encountered severe aircraft-wake-turbulence behind another Boeing 707, 45 miles in trail! (Dr. A.A. Wray of NASA affirms, in smooth air, aircraft wake turbulence can persist for extended periods of time.)


Your comment,

"A jet upset did happen BUT it was pilot initiated and actioned"!

ALL JET AIRCRAFT UPSETS ARE PILOT INITIATED!!!

Unusual attitude transitions are initiated by weather or aircraft-wake-turbulence. The Upset is the, after the fact, occurrence!!!

[Casper]

wsherif1

You don't get it, do you? Not only was weather NOT a factor, there was no other aircraft at the same level in that area and nor had one transited that area at that level.

Sorry, you are totally incorrect on this one. How about the CVR & DFDR????

[wsherif1]

Casper,

Your comment,

"Not only was weather NOT a factor, there was no other aircraft at the same level in that area and nor had one transited that area at that level."

You cannot see CAT nor does it register on radar etc.

There was no indication of any turbulence in the United 826 incident either. (five broken necks, 6 broken backs, and one fatality!)

I encountered severe aircraft wake turbulence 45 miles behind another B 707.

There is no way you can say that there was no weather, or other condition, at that time, at that altitude, on that particular track, with any assurance of accuracy.

I have no idea what happened to the FDR /CVR.

[Danny]

wsherif1 There is no way you can say that there was no weather, or other condition, at that time, at that altitude, on that particular track, with any assurance of accuracy.Yes you can based on the weather forecasts and aftercasts and pireps or lack of them. At the same time you definitely can't say that there was any weather or other condition at that time, at that altitude, on that particular track. Based on your explanations it is almost definite that you have no assurance of accuracy.

All the evidence so far makes your theory the most feeble and based on the logic principle of 'Occams Razor' (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html) you are advised to stop with your "I'm in step and you are all out of step" argument.

Based on your logic (or lack of it) I can equally argue ad infinitum that "I encountered severe aircraft wake turbulence 45 miles behind another B 707." is a lie and you have no proof that it wasn't actually CAT you were experiencing! :rolleyes:


The terminology you use such as "...windshear across the pitot tubes..." immediately dismisses you as any form of expert and brings you to the level of just someone with a theory... one that the majority of us on here disagree with becuase you can't back it up with anything except a broken record repetition that if you repeat it enough times someone might belive it! :*

No wonder you don't trust the NTSB or other agencies accident reports. I mean, why should they take into consideration anything but your own singular theory? "I have no idea what happened to the FDR /CVR." is akin to saying that you don't care as long as your pet theory is the only one that can be true. I wouldn't mind but you provide no credentials to back up your theory other than as a line pilot who is almost certainly already retired and unfamiliar with the dramatic changes in technology in todays jets.

[Crockett]

Thank you all for your input and obvious interest in this subject.. I am happy to see that the Silk Air crash has not been forgotten..

One day the truth of what happened will be recognised..

[wsherif1]

Danny,

Your comment,

"No wonder you don't trust the NTSB or other agencies accident reports."

When the NTSB removes essential evidence from the TWA 800 FDR Chart, and fails to include the ATC Chairman's Factual Report in the United 585 final report, while misreading the United 826 incident FDR Chart, you begin to wonder whether it is incompetence deliberate cover-ups! The NTSB also made false statements in the EgyptAir 990 report!

If you would like to see proofs of these statements forward me a fax no. and I will be happy to send the charts and missing report excerpts along.

Your comment,

"The terminology you use such as "...windshear across the pitot tubes..." immediately dismisses you as any form of expert and brings you to the level of just someone with a theory... one that the majority of us on here disagree with becuase you can't back it up with anything except a broken record repetition that if you repeat it enough times someone might belive it!"

If you would read excerpts from NWA Capt. Paul Soderlind's Flight Standards Bulletin 3-65 regarding erroneous flight instrument indications, (on this forum), and also Boeing Publication "Aero 08", which covers the same subject, it should be enlightning.

Because of my unique experience, encountering a strong updraft
induced pitch-up, in the clear, above thunderstorm activity, I am aware of what actually happens in a pitch-up. I am trying to pass along some information to those who have not had this happen to them, yet!

As the NTSB says, "Piot reaction to turbulence can be more of a problem then the jolt of turbulence itself."

[training wheels]

If you would read excerpts from NWA Capt. Paul Soderlind's Flight Standards Bulletin 3-65 regarding erroneous flight instrument indications, (on this forum), and also Boeing Publication "Aero 08", which covers the same subject, it should be enlightning. .. mods, please delete all posts from wsherif1, as they are irrelevant to MI185 .. this was an excellent thread until this raving lunatic came on board.

[wsherif1]

Training Wheels,

Just remember when your aircraft pitches up and the altimeter is indicating a 3,000 feet per minute climb with the rate of climb needle pegged up and the airspeed dropping off rapidly, do not, I say again, do not shove the nose over!!!

[sean1]

ignore this joker wsherif1, now he sounds like he is tring to convince himself of his Twilight Zone theory.

[56P]

I agree with Danny & Training Wheels. wsherif1 is a basket case but, as stated previously, we all owe him one for maintaining the currency of this subject. By responding to his wild and irrevelant claims, we have all contributed to keeping the topic in the pprune headlines. The "powers that be" in MI & SQ monitor this website and they'd certainly like to see the subject disappear so - thank you, wsherif1!

[lomapaseo]

I, like others have grown tired of wsherif1 blind crusade.

But for sake of better understanding perhaps 56P you could help me understand what you think the benefit to safety would be by keeping this subject on the board in front of us all.

[56P]

lomapaseo

If you are aware of this particular tragedy and all the latent factors surrounding and contributing to it, you will see just what a sham the "official" report as presented by Prof. Diran is.

For the first time in history, the NTSB issued some 50 pages of "comments" (read disagreement with) on this report by another official state.

Despite the inane ravings by wherif1, this crash was DELIBERATELY PLANNED AND EXECUTED.

It is a public disgrace that Singapore and Indonesia, in the latter's official report, would not admit what the rest of the world's investigators into this incident actually believe.

The "price of face" remains the biggest threat to aviation safety in "some parts" of the world and every potential passenger is entitled to be aware of that risk. This statement is NOT intended to be of any racist nature - it is a realistic one with the simple aim of increasing awareness.

[Tripper]

wsherif1 sounds like the dog on the "His Master's Voice" phonographs of the forties!!!!

may be , we should all thank him for the needle that is stuck on the old 78 RPM record.

>>>>>Capt. Paul Soderlind's Flight Standards Bulletin 3-65 regarding erroneous flight instrument indications, (on this forum), and also Boeing Publication "Aero 08"

keep the topic alive, wsherif1. You will never get a visa to enter the land of MI 185