That dodgy 737 rudder again
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That dodgy 737 rudder again
Seems the jury didn't agree the Silkair captain was to blame. It will be interesting to read the full transcript of the court case.
$20m to air crash family
10.07.2004
By STUART DYE and agencies
The family of a New Zealand man killed in an air crash are understood to have been awarded more than $20 million in a surprise decision by a US court.
Kenneth Wilson, whose family lived on the North Shore, was on his way home from a mining job in Indonesia in 1997 when his SilkAir flight nose-dived, killing all 104 passengers and crew.
A US court has awarded US$43.6 million ($67.25 million) to be shared between the relatives of Mr Wilson and two other people who died in the jet crash.
Mr Wilson's widow, Tanse Wilson, is understood to be on her way home from the US where she has been following the case for two months.
A Los Angeles Superior Court jury found that defects in the Boeing 737's rudder control system caused the accident.
The US National Transportation Safety Board had said the pilot deliberately crashed the plane, but the Los Angeles jury rejected that finding.
It ordered Parker Hannifin, the rudder's manufacturer and the biggest maker of hydraulic equipment in the world, to pay damages to the families of three of the victims.
The decision is expected to lead to compensation claims by the families of 30 other victims who have also filed lawsuits in Los Angeles.
A further 40 cases are pending in a federal court in Seattle, though a spokesman for Parker Hannifin said the Cleveland-based company was "incredulous" at the decision and would appeal.
The father of another New Zealander killed in the crash said he was "astounded" by the payout.
Derek Ward, father of the plane's co-pilot, 23-year-old Duncan, said the verdict was hard to believe.
"We firmly believe the conclusion of the NTSB was correct so to hear this verdict is astounding.
"This can only be a face-saving exercise to prevent Singapore having to admit that one of their people did this."
The flight flipped at 10,500m and plunged into a Sumatran river on December 19, 1997.
$20m to air crash family
10.07.2004
By STUART DYE and agencies
The family of a New Zealand man killed in an air crash are understood to have been awarded more than $20 million in a surprise decision by a US court.
Kenneth Wilson, whose family lived on the North Shore, was on his way home from a mining job in Indonesia in 1997 when his SilkAir flight nose-dived, killing all 104 passengers and crew.
A US court has awarded US$43.6 million ($67.25 million) to be shared between the relatives of Mr Wilson and two other people who died in the jet crash.
Mr Wilson's widow, Tanse Wilson, is understood to be on her way home from the US where she has been following the case for two months.
A Los Angeles Superior Court jury found that defects in the Boeing 737's rudder control system caused the accident.
The US National Transportation Safety Board had said the pilot deliberately crashed the plane, but the Los Angeles jury rejected that finding.
It ordered Parker Hannifin, the rudder's manufacturer and the biggest maker of hydraulic equipment in the world, to pay damages to the families of three of the victims.
The decision is expected to lead to compensation claims by the families of 30 other victims who have also filed lawsuits in Los Angeles.
A further 40 cases are pending in a federal court in Seattle, though a spokesman for Parker Hannifin said the Cleveland-based company was "incredulous" at the decision and would appeal.
The father of another New Zealander killed in the crash said he was "astounded" by the payout.
Derek Ward, father of the plane's co-pilot, 23-year-old Duncan, said the verdict was hard to believe.
"We firmly believe the conclusion of the NTSB was correct so to hear this verdict is astounding.
"This can only be a face-saving exercise to prevent Singapore having to admit that one of their people did this."
The flight flipped at 10,500m and plunged into a Sumatran river on December 19, 1997.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmm, interesting that, just as interesting is the sitting pretty bit at the end of this silkair 737 report !
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Break...htm#notsuicide
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Break...htm#notsuicide
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
????
The NTSB, which comes across as a rather competent agency, has found that the most likely cause of the accident was actions taken by the skipper, i.e. suicide. Yet an LA court, which supposedly has very little in the way of technical knowledge re. aircraft, finds that the rudder (PCU?) is at fault at thus awards multi-million compensation. Was this a court with a layman jury, getting emotionally carried away?
How on earth did they reach that conclusions, other than of course Parker Hannifin are liable in a US court whereas Silk Air presumeably is not.
This one smells ....
How on earth did they reach that conclusions, other than of course Parker Hannifin are liable in a US court whereas Silk Air presumeably is not.
This one smells ....
My own and not biased opinion, in no way detrimental or derisory to any concerned.
1/ Japanese BOEING 747, faulty repair of pressure bulkhead, maybe no connection but Mr B at fault?
2/ SilkAir BOEING 737, loss of control? Pilot blamed for suicide? wasn't there a heated discussion about tailplane rivets missing, Mr B saying no, but then backtracking saying there were some missing, but not enough to cause the accident.
3/Egyptair BOEING 767, MR B also in this accident said initially that the elevator disruption (oppsite directional forces) could not be caused by pilot input, then didn't they back track and say that the break/shearpin could snap and cause the opposing deflection.
The rudder story has been around for somewhile, and possibly looks to be resurfacing.
Several colleagues of mine know some ex Mr B technical staff that had been approached by lawyers over the silkair case, they declined to testify due to a confidentiality clause or something like that, MR B made them sign it on termination of working contract. My own personal view is something isn't adding up, but I have no iidea on what that could be.
1/ Japanese BOEING 747, faulty repair of pressure bulkhead, maybe no connection but Mr B at fault?
2/ SilkAir BOEING 737, loss of control? Pilot blamed for suicide? wasn't there a heated discussion about tailplane rivets missing, Mr B saying no, but then backtracking saying there were some missing, but not enough to cause the accident.
3/Egyptair BOEING 767, MR B also in this accident said initially that the elevator disruption (oppsite directional forces) could not be caused by pilot input, then didn't they back track and say that the break/shearpin could snap and cause the opposing deflection.
The rudder story has been around for somewhile, and possibly looks to be resurfacing.
Several colleagues of mine know some ex Mr B technical staff that had been approached by lawyers over the silkair case, they declined to testify due to a confidentiality clause or something like that, MR B made them sign it on termination of working contract. My own personal view is something isn't adding up, but I have no iidea on what that could be.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slingsby I wouldn't be too hasty there. I seem to remember M. Airbus having a problem with one of his products (an A300) leaving New York in November 2001.
The point here is that the court disregarded the findings of the experts. Just because one aircraft had a particular problem, it doesn't mean that another had the same problem. Who can tell the difference? The NTSB (or AAIB, etc.). I'd put money money with the impartial experts rather than those who have something to gain or lose from the court proceedings.
Cheers,
LP
The point here is that the court disregarded the findings of the experts. Just because one aircraft had a particular problem, it doesn't mean that another had the same problem. Who can tell the difference? The NTSB (or AAIB, etc.). I'd put money money with the impartial experts rather than those who have something to gain or lose from the court proceedings.
Cheers,
LP
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree...there is some sort of conspiracy going on here. There's no way the pilot commited suicide. All that insurance policy stuff was just coincidence. And the FDR/CVR just failed at the most unfortunate time. Maybe parker hanifan put in an electronic link between the rudder pcu and the FDR/CVR in case they had another rudder failure.
Parker hanifan are originally a memphis company with ownership rights on graceland and who have been linked to chasing elvis to kill him off so they could stake their claim. The real truth is that parker hanifan have a remote control in their head office and can down any 737 with the push of a button. So if you're sitting beside elvis on a 737 get off straight away. Yeah....what the fcuk would the NTSB know about accidents!!!
I'd like to tell you what they did to JFK....but I have to go now...there are MIB after me!!
Parker hanifan are originally a memphis company with ownership rights on graceland and who have been linked to chasing elvis to kill him off so they could stake their claim. The real truth is that parker hanifan have a remote control in their head office and can down any 737 with the push of a button. So if you're sitting beside elvis on a 737 get off straight away. Yeah....what the fcuk would the NTSB know about accidents!!!
I'd like to tell you what they did to JFK....but I have to go now...there are MIB after me!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only in the world of American tort law and legal greed.
The press accounts mention that not only is Parker Hannifin going to appeal this jury verdict, but seek remedying legislation as well.
What is bizarre, and something that could truly only happen in the United States, is why a jury in a Los Angeles Superior Court got to hear and decide the case in the first place.
This was an airplane accident in a foreign country, involving a foreign airline on a flight neither departing from nor arriving in the United States. None of the plaintiffs (all foreign nationals) were apparently a resident of Los Angeles, or California, nor does it appear that their final destination was Los Angeles. Neither Boeing, SilkAir, nor Parker Hannifin are a California corporation. The plane, a Boeing 737, was not manufactured in Southern California. Parker does make aerospace control systems at a facility in Irvine, California, but Irvine is in Orange County, not Los Angeles County.
So, on what basis, is jurisdiction given to a lower level state court: the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles?
I can only guess that lawyers in the California bar somehow get the state legislature to enact a law allowing cases to be tried in California superior courts on the flimsiest of jurisdictional grounds, and thus enabling these lawyers to collect handsome fees when they win.
To illustrate the potential ramifications of this case, take a future example of an Airbus 380, operated by Singapore Airlines on a flight from Singapore to London. Enroute, there is an in-flight emergency, and the plane diverets to Bombay and lands. The slides are deployed, and there are somel fatalities and serious injuries in the course of the evacuation. None of the passengers who die or are seriously injured are residents or citizens of the United States, nor were they traveling to the United States, or ticketed in the United States. However, the slides were made by Goodyear, a U.S. corporation.
So unhappy with the $100,000 Warsaw limit, families of the deceased contact lawyers in Los Angeles, asking them to file a tort claim in the Superior Court of Los Angeles seeking much more in the way of monetary damages. (Truth be told, the lawyers will likely make the initial contacts.)
Airbus, Singapore Airlines, and Goodyear are to be the defendants. alleging failures to properly design, manufacture, install, and/or operate the slides. As Los Angeles juries are known for their generosity in such claims, and Americans supposedly dislike the French anyway, each victim is given $60 million US as compernsation. Think I'm joking????
What is bizarre, and something that could truly only happen in the United States, is why a jury in a Los Angeles Superior Court got to hear and decide the case in the first place.
This was an airplane accident in a foreign country, involving a foreign airline on a flight neither departing from nor arriving in the United States. None of the plaintiffs (all foreign nationals) were apparently a resident of Los Angeles, or California, nor does it appear that their final destination was Los Angeles. Neither Boeing, SilkAir, nor Parker Hannifin are a California corporation. The plane, a Boeing 737, was not manufactured in Southern California. Parker does make aerospace control systems at a facility in Irvine, California, but Irvine is in Orange County, not Los Angeles County.
So, on what basis, is jurisdiction given to a lower level state court: the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles?
I can only guess that lawyers in the California bar somehow get the state legislature to enact a law allowing cases to be tried in California superior courts on the flimsiest of jurisdictional grounds, and thus enabling these lawyers to collect handsome fees when they win.
To illustrate the potential ramifications of this case, take a future example of an Airbus 380, operated by Singapore Airlines on a flight from Singapore to London. Enroute, there is an in-flight emergency, and the plane diverets to Bombay and lands. The slides are deployed, and there are somel fatalities and serious injuries in the course of the evacuation. None of the passengers who die or are seriously injured are residents or citizens of the United States, nor were they traveling to the United States, or ticketed in the United States. However, the slides were made by Goodyear, a U.S. corporation.
So unhappy with the $100,000 Warsaw limit, families of the deceased contact lawyers in Los Angeles, asking them to file a tort claim in the Superior Court of Los Angeles seeking much more in the way of monetary damages. (Truth be told, the lawyers will likely make the initial contacts.)
Airbus, Singapore Airlines, and Goodyear are to be the defendants. alleging failures to properly design, manufacture, install, and/or operate the slides. As Los Angeles juries are known for their generosity in such claims, and Americans supposedly dislike the French anyway, each victim is given $60 million US as compernsation. Think I'm joking????
ZbV
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB has been know to be wrong before. UAL B747 popping the fw cargo door while leaving Hawaii comes to my mind first. Improper closing (Blaming the ramper) instead of mechanical fault was concluded to be the case. It took NTSB years to reverse it's decision.
However, I do not believe that the suicide theory to be wrong.
JJ
However, I do not believe that the suicide theory to be wrong.
JJ
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to incompetence
In the subject quote, incompetence may be a large overstatement.
However, as an ex-mil pilot with a subsequent aerospace engineering career, my world view is that boards default to the assumption that the pilot is at fault.
Only after they find incontrovertible evidence of a mechanical problem do they change that default.
I have not heard strong evidence supporting the suicide theory, but have heard evidence that the 737 rudder actuating system has design flaws.
Given that Boeing have taken action to modify the design, perhaps it is best to leave the SilkAir mishap and monitor for future recurrence of suspicious rudder actions.
However, as an ex-mil pilot with a subsequent aerospace engineering career, my world view is that boards default to the assumption that the pilot is at fault.
Only after they find incontrovertible evidence of a mechanical problem do they change that default.
I have not heard strong evidence supporting the suicide theory, but have heard evidence that the 737 rudder actuating system has design flaws.
Given that Boeing have taken action to modify the design, perhaps it is best to leave the SilkAir mishap and monitor for future recurrence of suspicious rudder actions.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Los Angeles County jury's verdict was solely against Parker Hannifin. Boeing and SilkAir were found blameless. Thus the jury decided that Boeing's design of the 737's rudder did not contribute in any manner to this accident, nor did SilkAir's maintenance and/or operation of the airplane. The jury concluded that the accident was caused by Parker Hannifin allegedly manufacturing a control device which contained small pieces of metal that subsequently interfered with the safe and proper operation of the device and the airplane itself.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhere, I forget where (flight Editorial?), I read that Boeing has quiely backed off the suicide theory. The NTSB, whilst generally rather competent, from time to time gets a proverbial bee in its bonnet and gets things wrong. When it does so, it tends to be most reluctant to reverse course.
Pilot suicides are a good example of this syndrome - lots of early negative leaking/publicity and then quiet dropping of the argument.
Anyone remember the TWA B727 that got itself into a "death dive" because the pilots were supposedly extending flaps at 37,000'? It is now clear that they did not do so and that the NTSB simply stuck with its original "theory" as to why something "impossible" had to have been caused by the crew. Of course it turns out that the "impossible" was only highly improbable and several cases were later identified (L.E. flap partial deployment). To this day the NTSB will not concede that the original leaking of their "theory" was inappropriate or that the event was due to anything other than pilot error.
Pilot suicides are a good example of this syndrome - lots of early negative leaking/publicity and then quiet dropping of the argument.
Anyone remember the TWA B727 that got itself into a "death dive" because the pilots were supposedly extending flaps at 37,000'? It is now clear that they did not do so and that the NTSB simply stuck with its original "theory" as to why something "impossible" had to have been caused by the crew. Of course it turns out that the "impossible" was only highly improbable and several cases were later identified (L.E. flap partial deployment). To this day the NTSB will not concede that the original leaking of their "theory" was inappropriate or that the event was due to anything other than pilot error.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper, you don't even have to call me cynical - simply stating something don't count for nothing. For example, at the time of the TWA incident described above many "insider" versions of what the crew - supposedly - did were in common circulation. But they had one souce - a "briefing" by a confused NTSB investigator who "leaked" his hypothesis. That equals an opinion, not a fact.
What secret knowledge can you possibly have that would not benefit from being put in print? Can it stand up to examination or not?
What secret knowledge can you possibly have that would not benefit from being put in print? Can it stand up to examination or not?
