Silkair Crash, Court Case Decision.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Silkair Crash, Court Case Decision.
Woomera, I know this is NOT strictly Australia or New Zealand, but is of interest locally........
(QUOTE)
Families lose suit over SilkAir crash in Indonesia
High Court rules plaintiffs - from S'pore, Malaysia, US and Britain - failed to prove pilot deliberately caused plane to crash
By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT
THE High Court yesterday dismissed a lawsuit against SilkAir by families of six of the 104 people killed when Flight MI 185 crashed in Indonesia four years ago.
No proof found Capt Tsu turned off "black boxes".
Justice Tan Lee Meng ruled yesterday that they had failed to prove the pilot deliberately caused the Boeing 737 to crash into the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997, on a flight from Jakarta to Singapore.
The families who had sued SilkAir, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, will also have to pay costs.
During the 15-day trial here, their lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo sketched a scenario of an aircraft being purposely put into a nosedive.
Justice Tan noted in a 132-page written ruling that their action ''rested on circumstantial evidence'' and it was not easy to prove their case because there was so little evidence.
The plaintiffs - parents, children and spouses of those killed in the crash - were from Singapore, Malaysia, the United States and Britain.
Mr Khoo said Capt Tsu had deliberately turned off both the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder, to hide any sign that he made the plane crash.
But Justice Tan said in his ruling that it was not proven that the devices, often referred to as ''black boxes'', were disconnected on purpose. They could have stopped recording because of electrical failure.
He said there was also no evidence that the electrical device that controlled the plane's descent, called the stabiliser trim, was set for a nosedive.
Mr Khoo had argued that the plane's pilot, Captain Tsu Way Ming, and its first officer, Duncan Ward, could have put the plane on full throttle, causing it to nosedive at high speed.
But the judge agreed with SilkAir's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, that it was possible the engines were on high power because the pilots were trying to recover from the plane's ''unusually'' high altitude of 35,000 feet and not because they were trying to down it.
The judge questioned the accuracy of the projected flight trajectory of the plane's nosediving from its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet to 19,500 feet and a set of corrected radar data on which it was based.
He accepted the evidence of one of SilkAir's expert witnesses, Professor Denis Howe, who said that from that data, the plane would have been travelling faster than the speed of sound, which is beyond the capabilities of a Boeing 737.
The judge said there was no evidence that Capt Tsu or First Officer Ward had intended to commit suicide or murder.
He noted that from the conversation recorded before the voice recorder became disabled, the two men had been chatting ''without any hint of tension or any sign that something ominous was to unfold a few minutes later''.
He rejected the United States National Transport Safety Board's view that the pilot purposely caused the plane to crash, although he acknowledged that the board was ''very experienced in aircraft accident investigation''.
''It is not infallible and it has altered its conclusions on the cause of some, albeit a limited number, of air crashes in the light of subsequent evidence, which showed that its original conclusions were wrong,'' he said.
Mr Thomas Oey, 39, a lecturer at a Baptist seminary, who lost his mother Berenice Braislin Oey, 71, and brother Jonathan Edward Oey, 39, in the crash, told The Straits Times: ''I'm disappointed. But I felt we needed to do right by bringing this lawsuit. It was a matter of public interest to know the truth behind the cause of the crash.''
Dr Roy Joseph, who lost his brother John in the crash, said: ''It would be a great shame and grave injustice to the families of those who perished... if SilkAir, the airline industry and civil-aviation authorities used the judgment to blind themselves to the numerous lessons to be learnt from the incident.''
When asked if the families would appeal, Mr Khoo said they would have to study the judgment first.
SilkAir said yesterday that, like everyone else, it had hoped to find the truth and understand what caused the crash. It said: ''Unfortunately, the official investigators and, now, the High Court, have been unable to come to a conclusion.''
(QUOTE)
Families lose suit over SilkAir crash in Indonesia
High Court rules plaintiffs - from S'pore, Malaysia, US and Britain - failed to prove pilot deliberately caused plane to crash
By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT
THE High Court yesterday dismissed a lawsuit against SilkAir by families of six of the 104 people killed when Flight MI 185 crashed in Indonesia four years ago.
No proof found Capt Tsu turned off "black boxes".
Justice Tan Lee Meng ruled yesterday that they had failed to prove the pilot deliberately caused the Boeing 737 to crash into the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997, on a flight from Jakarta to Singapore.
The families who had sued SilkAir, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, will also have to pay costs.
During the 15-day trial here, their lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo sketched a scenario of an aircraft being purposely put into a nosedive.
Justice Tan noted in a 132-page written ruling that their action ''rested on circumstantial evidence'' and it was not easy to prove their case because there was so little evidence.
The plaintiffs - parents, children and spouses of those killed in the crash - were from Singapore, Malaysia, the United States and Britain.
Mr Khoo said Capt Tsu had deliberately turned off both the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder, to hide any sign that he made the plane crash.
But Justice Tan said in his ruling that it was not proven that the devices, often referred to as ''black boxes'', were disconnected on purpose. They could have stopped recording because of electrical failure.
He said there was also no evidence that the electrical device that controlled the plane's descent, called the stabiliser trim, was set for a nosedive.
Mr Khoo had argued that the plane's pilot, Captain Tsu Way Ming, and its first officer, Duncan Ward, could have put the plane on full throttle, causing it to nosedive at high speed.
But the judge agreed with SilkAir's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, that it was possible the engines were on high power because the pilots were trying to recover from the plane's ''unusually'' high altitude of 35,000 feet and not because they were trying to down it.
The judge questioned the accuracy of the projected flight trajectory of the plane's nosediving from its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet to 19,500 feet and a set of corrected radar data on which it was based.
He accepted the evidence of one of SilkAir's expert witnesses, Professor Denis Howe, who said that from that data, the plane would have been travelling faster than the speed of sound, which is beyond the capabilities of a Boeing 737.
The judge said there was no evidence that Capt Tsu or First Officer Ward had intended to commit suicide or murder.
He noted that from the conversation recorded before the voice recorder became disabled, the two men had been chatting ''without any hint of tension or any sign that something ominous was to unfold a few minutes later''.
He rejected the United States National Transport Safety Board's view that the pilot purposely caused the plane to crash, although he acknowledged that the board was ''very experienced in aircraft accident investigation''.
''It is not infallible and it has altered its conclusions on the cause of some, albeit a limited number, of air crashes in the light of subsequent evidence, which showed that its original conclusions were wrong,'' he said.
Mr Thomas Oey, 39, a lecturer at a Baptist seminary, who lost his mother Berenice Braislin Oey, 71, and brother Jonathan Edward Oey, 39, in the crash, told The Straits Times: ''I'm disappointed. But I felt we needed to do right by bringing this lawsuit. It was a matter of public interest to know the truth behind the cause of the crash.''
Dr Roy Joseph, who lost his brother John in the crash, said: ''It would be a great shame and grave injustice to the families of those who perished... if SilkAir, the airline industry and civil-aviation authorities used the judgment to blind themselves to the numerous lessons to be learnt from the incident.''
When asked if the families would appeal, Mr Khoo said they would have to study the judgment first.
SilkAir said yesterday that, like everyone else, it had hoped to find the truth and understand what caused the crash. It said: ''Unfortunately, the official investigators and, now, the High Court, have been unable to come to a conclusion.''
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: back in europe
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sad day for the families and friends.
FS
fartsock
I understand that you may have strong feelings in regard to this event.
We do however have to be mindful of the propensity of some to move quickly to protect their "reputations".
You are of course entitled to make whatever case you wish but we will not be part of anything that might cause this to become so.
Perhaps you might wish to recast your thoughts in a more appropriate manner.
Woomera
[ 25 October 2001: Message edited by: Woomera ]
FS
fartsock
I understand that you may have strong feelings in regard to this event.
We do however have to be mindful of the propensity of some to move quickly to protect their "reputations".
You are of course entitled to make whatever case you wish but we will not be part of anything that might cause this to become so.
Perhaps you might wish to recast your thoughts in a more appropriate manner.
Woomera
[ 25 October 2001: Message edited by: Woomera ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pilot 'had been planning dad's birthday'
IF CAPTAIN Tsu Way Ming, the pilot of MI 185, had wanted to commit suicide, he would not have chosen to do it two days before his father's birthday, said Justice Tan Lee Meng.
No evidence he downed plane, says Justice Tan.
He noted that the pilot, who gave up an air-force career to spend more time with his family, had been planning his father's birthday celebrations at the time of the crash.
Capt Tsu had financial and work-related problems, he said in his written judgment, but these were 'not serious enough to push him to take his own life and the lives of so many other persons'.
'Even if it is assumed for one moment that he wanted to commit suicide, it is unlikely that he would choose to distress his aged father by killing himself and so many other people just two days before his father's birthday celebrations,' he said.
Dismissing the lawsuit against SilkAir by the families of six crash victims, Justice Tan found that there was no evidence that Capt Tsu had deliberately downed the plane or recklessly taken it into a steep dive.
He also said there was no evidence the crash had been caused by mechanical failure or a sudden drop in cabin pressure.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, who represented the families, pointed out in the trial that, before the crash, Capt Tsu had twice committed reckless acts. Once, he made controversial S-turns prior to landing; the other time, he took off when one of the plane's engines did not have enough power.
But Justice Tan said yesterday that whatever 'inappropriate acts' the pilot might have committed in the past, 'he has never been accused of taking passengers on board an aircraft for a joyride or on a frolic of his own'.
Mr Khoo had said that competent pilots such as Capt Tsu and his first officer would have executed an emergency descent without difficulty unless they acted recklessly and caused the plane to crash.
Justice Tan disagreed. He noted that one of SilkAir's expert witnesses had said that while an emergency descent might be easy to execute 'from a textbook', it was different when a pilot faced a real threat to the aircraft.
The judge then concluded that there was no proof of recklessness or evidence that the crash was caused by the 'wilful misconduct' of Capt Tsu or his co-pilot.
Mr Philip Bass, a solicitor with Beaumont & Son which is representing SilkAir's insurers in a US lawsuit against Boeing, told The Straits Times that US courts 'will not be legally bound' by yesterday's decision although the judgment 'will be taken into consideration'.
This is the first lawsuit resulting from the crash to come to court. More than 20 others are pending in New York, California, Ohio and Delaware, in the US, against Boeing.
IF CAPTAIN Tsu Way Ming, the pilot of MI 185, had wanted to commit suicide, he would not have chosen to do it two days before his father's birthday, said Justice Tan Lee Meng.
No evidence he downed plane, says Justice Tan.
He noted that the pilot, who gave up an air-force career to spend more time with his family, had been planning his father's birthday celebrations at the time of the crash.
Capt Tsu had financial and work-related problems, he said in his written judgment, but these were 'not serious enough to push him to take his own life and the lives of so many other persons'.
'Even if it is assumed for one moment that he wanted to commit suicide, it is unlikely that he would choose to distress his aged father by killing himself and so many other people just two days before his father's birthday celebrations,' he said.
Dismissing the lawsuit against SilkAir by the families of six crash victims, Justice Tan found that there was no evidence that Capt Tsu had deliberately downed the plane or recklessly taken it into a steep dive.
He also said there was no evidence the crash had been caused by mechanical failure or a sudden drop in cabin pressure.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, who represented the families, pointed out in the trial that, before the crash, Capt Tsu had twice committed reckless acts. Once, he made controversial S-turns prior to landing; the other time, he took off when one of the plane's engines did not have enough power.
But Justice Tan said yesterday that whatever 'inappropriate acts' the pilot might have committed in the past, 'he has never been accused of taking passengers on board an aircraft for a joyride or on a frolic of his own'.
Mr Khoo had said that competent pilots such as Capt Tsu and his first officer would have executed an emergency descent without difficulty unless they acted recklessly and caused the plane to crash.
Justice Tan disagreed. He noted that one of SilkAir's expert witnesses had said that while an emergency descent might be easy to execute 'from a textbook', it was different when a pilot faced a real threat to the aircraft.
The judge then concluded that there was no proof of recklessness or evidence that the crash was caused by the 'wilful misconduct' of Capt Tsu or his co-pilot.
Mr Philip Bass, a solicitor with Beaumont & Son which is representing SilkAir's insurers in a US lawsuit against Boeing, told The Straits Times that US courts 'will not be legally bound' by yesterday's decision although the judgment 'will be taken into consideration'.
This is the first lawsuit resulting from the crash to come to court. More than 20 others are pending in New York, California, Ohio and Delaware, in the US, against Boeing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This case was essentially about evidence offered by opposing expert witnesses on what could cause a Boeing 737 to dive at full power, speed brakes in, without any warning, no radio calls, into the deck from 35,000 ft in daylight and fine weather. At impact the stabilizer trim was found at full electrical forward position. Yet only a few minutes earlier the FDR (before it was mysteriously disabled) recorded the stab trim at normal cruise position.
The expert witnesses for the plaintiffs included two highly experienced B737 captains.
The two expert witnesses for the defendants were a French retired test pilot who had never flown in command of a B737 and a British Professor of Aeronautics who had never held a pilots licence. In essence, the judge believed everything said by the latter two gentlemen and the evidence by the B737 captains was brushed aside.
I mean, would YOU seriously go to full power in a near vertical dive in order to pull out of a near 35,000 fpm on a clear day? The Professor claimed he would and the retired French test pilot agreed with him. And so did the judge, apparently.
You can draw your own conclusions.....
[ 25 October 2001: Message edited by: Hudson ]
The expert witnesses for the plaintiffs included two highly experienced B737 captains.
The two expert witnesses for the defendants were a French retired test pilot who had never flown in command of a B737 and a British Professor of Aeronautics who had never held a pilots licence. In essence, the judge believed everything said by the latter two gentlemen and the evidence by the B737 captains was brushed aside.
I mean, would YOU seriously go to full power in a near vertical dive in order to pull out of a near 35,000 fpm on a clear day? The Professor claimed he would and the retired French test pilot agreed with him. And so did the judge, apparently.
You can draw your own conclusions.....
[ 25 October 2001: Message edited by: Hudson ]
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson
The really scary bit, is that they think the rest of the world is stupid. They crave first world approbation but present behaviour that you would expect from some busted a&se, tin pot third world country.
They can and must do better than that if they want to be taken seriously and continue to be allowed to play with the big kids, it's time someone there woke up and smelt the coffee.
The really scary bit, is that they think the rest of the world is stupid. They crave first world approbation but present behaviour that you would expect from some busted a&se, tin pot third world country.
They can and must do better than that if they want to be taken seriously and continue to be allowed to play with the big kids, it's time someone there woke up and smelt the coffee.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: NZ/UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard somewhere that Tsu had something against kiwi pilots (Duncan being one of them). I also heard that it was because they were the only ones that had the b@lls to speak up about his incompetence. Is there any truth to this?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: back in europe
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Woomera, I don't want to see any litigation against Danny or yourself either. My apologies
I would just say that for those of us with a connection to aviation and business in general in that part of the world, the judgement was entirely anticipated.
I suspect my concepts of 'the rule of law' and others in singapore may differ.
I would just say that for those of us with a connection to aviation and business in general in that part of the world, the judgement was entirely anticipated.
I suspect my concepts of 'the rule of law' and others in singapore may differ.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've closely read the report posted by Lame, and have to agree with most replies here. Since the power to the CVR and FDR are supplied by a CB, a current-sensitive device, which other circuits were disabled by the surge of power which tripped these?
Why did the judge regard FL350 as an "unusually high altitude"? I have the B737-300 performance chart in front of me, and it clearly states a typical cruise altitude of 35,000ft.
Stab trim is not, as far as I understand it, used to CONTROL descent, but to apply pitch control for level flight at ANY altitude. How many reasons can there be for full nose-down trim at cruise altitude?
Did the judge merely question the validity of the radar data, or dismiss it out-of-hand? What was the basis for his rejection?
Since the performance chart shows a typical cruise Alt/Speed as "FL350 @M0.745", is it impossible to achieve supersonic speed in a full nose-down attitude under full power? I can imagine it, although I couldn't achieve it in the sim, the overspeed clacker was deafening! (Don't tell the boss!)
To reject the views of a body as experienced as the NTSB is, to my mind, incredibly arrogant, and appears to be based on the flimsiest of excuses for obvious reasons.
Like Gaunty, I feel that more questions are raised than answered, and I feel for the families and friends of those lost in the disaster. It is a disgrace that the lives of aircraft crews and passengers can be so cavalierly dismissed in the cause of what appears to be expediency. I sincerely hope this is not the end of the matter, although I don't hold out much hope of an early or happier resolution.
Can anyone clear up any errors I may have made, or points I have missed?
Kind regards to all,
TheNightOwl.
Why did the judge regard FL350 as an "unusually high altitude"? I have the B737-300 performance chart in front of me, and it clearly states a typical cruise altitude of 35,000ft.
Stab trim is not, as far as I understand it, used to CONTROL descent, but to apply pitch control for level flight at ANY altitude. How many reasons can there be for full nose-down trim at cruise altitude?
Did the judge merely question the validity of the radar data, or dismiss it out-of-hand? What was the basis for his rejection?
Since the performance chart shows a typical cruise Alt/Speed as "FL350 @M0.745", is it impossible to achieve supersonic speed in a full nose-down attitude under full power? I can imagine it, although I couldn't achieve it in the sim, the overspeed clacker was deafening! (Don't tell the boss!)
To reject the views of a body as experienced as the NTSB is, to my mind, incredibly arrogant, and appears to be based on the flimsiest of excuses for obvious reasons.
Like Gaunty, I feel that more questions are raised than answered, and I feel for the families and friends of those lost in the disaster. It is a disgrace that the lives of aircraft crews and passengers can be so cavalierly dismissed in the cause of what appears to be expediency. I sincerely hope this is not the end of the matter, although I don't hold out much hope of an early or happier resolution.
Can anyone clear up any errors I may have made, or points I have missed?
Kind regards to all,
TheNightOwl.
