Silk Air MI 185 - Court commences in Singapore
Guest
Posts: n/a
Crockett
Truth.....Singapore Court... yeah right.
Is that the same Court that works for the Singapore Govt handing down multi million judgements against anyone who dares to become an opposition candidate in any election or indulge in political debate.
Truth.....Singapore Court... yeah right.
Is that the same Court that works for the Singapore Govt handing down multi million judgements against anyone who dares to become an opposition candidate in any election or indulge in political debate.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whalecapt, if you do a search with the username Crockett you should get up most of this story.
A family member of Crockett's died in the Silk Air crash, and Crockett and many other relatives have been persuing the truth about that crash ever since.
Crockett hope this will not turn out to be yet another disappointment for you! Best wishes for some truth to come out......
------------------
Singularly Simple Person........
A family member of Crockett's died in the Silk Air crash, and Crockett and many other relatives have been persuing the truth about that crash ever since.
Crockett hope this will not turn out to be yet another disappointment for you! Best wishes for some truth to come out......
------------------
Singularly Simple Person........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Best of luck Crocket, though I feel more than sceptical that yet again the Singapore government and SilkAir will continue to insult everyone's intelligence and try to pull the wool over our eyes. We're not fooled that easily.
Any chance of getting the NTSB's "alternative" findings into a court case????
Regards to anyone caught in this farce of justice, and to those who are content to let things rest as they are......wake up!!
Any chance of getting the NTSB's "alternative" findings into a court case????
Regards to anyone caught in this farce of justice, and to those who are content to let things rest as they are......wake up!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Strange as it may seem...or not...!!
Personally, I do not think that anything new will come out of the cases being handled in Singapore Courts of law...
All it does is to keep the subject alive.. I think the USA court cases re SilkAir MI 185 will shed more light on the matter and will become a matter for public record..which at the day is the most important thing.. Only then will Aviation Safety be enhanced further, I hope..
All I wish is that the truth, whatever it is, be recognised and that those who so tragically died, did not totally die in vain.
Personally, I do not think that anything new will come out of the cases being handled in Singapore Courts of law...
All it does is to keep the subject alive.. I think the USA court cases re SilkAir MI 185 will shed more light on the matter and will become a matter for public record..which at the day is the most important thing.. Only then will Aviation Safety be enhanced further, I hope..
All I wish is that the truth, whatever it is, be recognised and that those who so tragically died, did not totally die in vain.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Families sue SilkAir for MI185 crash
By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT
SINGAPORE -- The families of six people who died in the SilkAir flight MI185 crash will go to court next week to prove their case against the airline.
They are suing the SilkAir for damages for the crash in Palembang, Indonesia on Dec 19 1997.
The trial, scheduled to last 10 days, is expected to begin in the High Court on Monday. It will be heard before Justice Tan Lee Meng.
Relatives of the six -- Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Lee Eng Seng, 51; John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35 -- are represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo and Ms Josephine Low.
The families are hoping to prove that the crash was caused by the plane's crew and international experts will be called to testify that mechanical failure could not have caused the crash which killed all 97 passengers and the seven crew.
If they win their case, the claim limit of US$75,000 of the Warsaw Convention, which SilkAir is governed by, will no longer apply.
SilkAir is represented by lawyer Lok Vi Ming.
On Dec 19 1997, the plane plunged 10,670 m into the Palembang river less than an hour after it left Jakarta.
A 200-page crash investigation report last December could not make a definite conclusion as to what went on in the last few moments of the Singapore-bound plane. (28 June 07:13PM -- Singapore Time)
3 July 2001
SilkAir negligent, six families claim
Relatives say MI185 crash was the result of 'wilful misconduct' by the airline, employees or a crew member
By Karen Wong
THE families of six victims of the MI 185 crash suing SilkAir for negligence are having their day in court - three-and-a-half years after the tragedy.
Yesterday, on the first day of the hearing, High Court No. 19 was packed with over 40 people, comprising relatives of the six victims, lawyers, members of the press and curious members of the public.
The relatives of the victims are alleging that the crash which killed 104 people after the plane plunged into the Musi River, in Palembang, Indonesia, was the result of ''wilful misconduct'' on the airline's part, or on the part of its employees, or that the airline, or a crew member, had been negligent.
SilkAir's case is that there was no evidence that the pilot, co-pilot or any crew member had either suicidal tendencies or a motive to cause the Dec 19, 1997 crash.
It also claims that the crash was not the result of wilful misconduct or default by either the airline or its cockpit crew. Nor was it done recklessly or with intent to cause damage.
The families are trying to prove wilful misconduct, so that they can get unrestricted damages from the Singapore Airlines subsidiary.
Most of the 85 families who lost relatives in the tragedy have already accepted compensation of between US$140,000 (S$252,000) and US$200,000 per victim. This bars them from taking further legal action against the airline.
Those now suing SilkAir are relatives of the late Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51, a Singaporean; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45, a Singaporean; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.
Last December, an Indonesian crash investigation report could not find evidence for any possible cause of the crash. But American aviation experts later said the pilot was to blame.
And it is the US National Transportation Safety Board's comments to the Indonesian probe team, that the plaintiffs are now relying on.
Opening the plaintiffs' case, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo said that the investigations showed that no plane-related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident.
He also said that the plane's flight profile before it crashed, was consistent with the possibility that plane was responding to flight control inputs from either the pilot or co-pilot in the cockpit.
Mr Khoo urged the court to find an inference that the pilot or co-pilot switched off both the voice recorder and flight data recorder and caused the crash.
Mr Khoo also asked the court to find that SilkAir had ''wilfully misconducted itself'', or wilfully turned a blind eye to the fact that Captain Tsu Way Ming had previously breached safety procedures.
He also claimed that by allowing Capt Tsu, a pilot with disciplinary problems, to take control of the MI 185, SilkAir had known that damage would probably result.
The hearing continues today.
Pilot key witness in SilkAir lawsuit
A pilot who has flown with Captain Tsu Way Ming will testify for the families of six people who died in the 1997 MI 185 crash at Palembang, Indonesia
By Karen Wong
THE key witness in the SilkAir lawsuit, Captain Lawrence Dittmer, is due to take the stand today.
Capt Dittmer, a pilot with the airline, has been subpoenaed to testify for the families of six people who died in the 1997 crash at Palembang, Indonesia.
Yesterday was the first day of the hearing which has been scheduled for the next 15 days.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, who is assisted by Ms Josephine Low and Mr Andy Chiok, is the lawyer for relatives of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.
Mr Lok Vi Ming and his assistants, Mr Ng Hwee Chong and Ms Joanna Foong, are acting forSilkAir.
According to court documents, Capt Dittmer was flying with the late Captain Tsu Way Ming on two of the occasions during which the latter breached safety regulations.
The first of those incidents was on March 3, 1997, when Capt Dittmer was Capt Tsu's co-pilot on a flight to Manado, Indonesia.
Capt Tsu had attempted to land while cruising at a speed and altitude which were excessive under the circumstances.
On June 24, 1997, less than a month after the disciplinary inquiry into the Manado incident, Capt Tsu and Capt Dittmer were scheduled to fly together again.
The two men were apparently at loggerheads and had a tense discussion in the cockpit about the Manado incident before the plane was due to depart from Changi Airport.
Capt Tsu then turned off the cockpit voice recorder, and proposed to fly the plane without it so he could retain the contents of the discussion.
But after a short stand-off, he changed his mind, the voice recorder was switched on again, and the flight went ahead.
Experts will be called to testify for both sides of the court case.
Mr MacArthur Job, who has been working as a senior inspector of air safety for the Australian Department of Civil Aviation since 1967, will testify for the relatives of the victims.
He has assessed hundreds of air-accident investigations involving both Australian and overseas-registered aircraft.
He is apparently going to testify that the accident can be explained by intentional pilot action.
The second expert witness for the plaintiffs' case is Captain John Laming, who is an air-crash consultant with about 23,300 hours of flying experience.
He will apparently testify that it was someone on the flight deck who had activated the electrical stabiliser trim control and full engine power, which forced the plane into such a steep dive.
For the airline, Professor Denis Howe, an Emeritus Professor at the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield University in Britain, will testify that the change of the stabiliser trim position alone would not have resulted in the plane's fast descent.
Captain Robert Galan, a test pilot, will say that the simulation tests used by Capt Laming cannot be relied upon as proof.
And, Dr Tan Chue Tin, a psychiatrist, will testify to the pilots' states of mind, and conclude that it was unlikely that Capt Tsu had committed suicide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIAL WITNESSES
THE trial's star witness may be Captain Lawrence Dittmer, a pilot with the airline, who was flying with the late Captain Tsu Way Ming on two occasions when the latter breached safety regulations.
Another witness for the victims' families is Mr MacArthur Job, who has been working as a senior inspector of air safety for the Australian Department of Civil Aviation since 1967.
The second expert witness for the plaintiffs' case is Captain John Laming, who is an air-crash consultant with about 23,300 hours of flying experience.
The airline's expert witnesses are Professor Denis Howe, an Emeritus Professor at the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield University in Britain; Captain Robert Galan, a test pilot; and Dr Tan Chue Tin, a psychiatrist.
By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT
SINGAPORE -- The families of six people who died in the SilkAir flight MI185 crash will go to court next week to prove their case against the airline.
They are suing the SilkAir for damages for the crash in Palembang, Indonesia on Dec 19 1997.
The trial, scheduled to last 10 days, is expected to begin in the High Court on Monday. It will be heard before Justice Tan Lee Meng.
Relatives of the six -- Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Lee Eng Seng, 51; John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35 -- are represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo and Ms Josephine Low.
The families are hoping to prove that the crash was caused by the plane's crew and international experts will be called to testify that mechanical failure could not have caused the crash which killed all 97 passengers and the seven crew.
If they win their case, the claim limit of US$75,000 of the Warsaw Convention, which SilkAir is governed by, will no longer apply.
SilkAir is represented by lawyer Lok Vi Ming.
On Dec 19 1997, the plane plunged 10,670 m into the Palembang river less than an hour after it left Jakarta.
A 200-page crash investigation report last December could not make a definite conclusion as to what went on in the last few moments of the Singapore-bound plane. (28 June 07:13PM -- Singapore Time)
3 July 2001
SilkAir negligent, six families claim
Relatives say MI185 crash was the result of 'wilful misconduct' by the airline, employees or a crew member
By Karen Wong
THE families of six victims of the MI 185 crash suing SilkAir for negligence are having their day in court - three-and-a-half years after the tragedy.
Yesterday, on the first day of the hearing, High Court No. 19 was packed with over 40 people, comprising relatives of the six victims, lawyers, members of the press and curious members of the public.
The relatives of the victims are alleging that the crash which killed 104 people after the plane plunged into the Musi River, in Palembang, Indonesia, was the result of ''wilful misconduct'' on the airline's part, or on the part of its employees, or that the airline, or a crew member, had been negligent.
SilkAir's case is that there was no evidence that the pilot, co-pilot or any crew member had either suicidal tendencies or a motive to cause the Dec 19, 1997 crash.
It also claims that the crash was not the result of wilful misconduct or default by either the airline or its cockpit crew. Nor was it done recklessly or with intent to cause damage.
The families are trying to prove wilful misconduct, so that they can get unrestricted damages from the Singapore Airlines subsidiary.
Most of the 85 families who lost relatives in the tragedy have already accepted compensation of between US$140,000 (S$252,000) and US$200,000 per victim. This bars them from taking further legal action against the airline.
Those now suing SilkAir are relatives of the late Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51, a Singaporean; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45, a Singaporean; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.
Last December, an Indonesian crash investigation report could not find evidence for any possible cause of the crash. But American aviation experts later said the pilot was to blame.
And it is the US National Transportation Safety Board's comments to the Indonesian probe team, that the plaintiffs are now relying on.
Opening the plaintiffs' case, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo said that the investigations showed that no plane-related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident.
He also said that the plane's flight profile before it crashed, was consistent with the possibility that plane was responding to flight control inputs from either the pilot or co-pilot in the cockpit.
Mr Khoo urged the court to find an inference that the pilot or co-pilot switched off both the voice recorder and flight data recorder and caused the crash.
Mr Khoo also asked the court to find that SilkAir had ''wilfully misconducted itself'', or wilfully turned a blind eye to the fact that Captain Tsu Way Ming had previously breached safety procedures.
He also claimed that by allowing Capt Tsu, a pilot with disciplinary problems, to take control of the MI 185, SilkAir had known that damage would probably result.
The hearing continues today.
Pilot key witness in SilkAir lawsuit
A pilot who has flown with Captain Tsu Way Ming will testify for the families of six people who died in the 1997 MI 185 crash at Palembang, Indonesia
By Karen Wong
THE key witness in the SilkAir lawsuit, Captain Lawrence Dittmer, is due to take the stand today.
Capt Dittmer, a pilot with the airline, has been subpoenaed to testify for the families of six people who died in the 1997 crash at Palembang, Indonesia.
Yesterday was the first day of the hearing which has been scheduled for the next 15 days.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, who is assisted by Ms Josephine Low and Mr Andy Chiok, is the lawyer for relatives of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.
Mr Lok Vi Ming and his assistants, Mr Ng Hwee Chong and Ms Joanna Foong, are acting forSilkAir.
According to court documents, Capt Dittmer was flying with the late Captain Tsu Way Ming on two of the occasions during which the latter breached safety regulations.
The first of those incidents was on March 3, 1997, when Capt Dittmer was Capt Tsu's co-pilot on a flight to Manado, Indonesia.
Capt Tsu had attempted to land while cruising at a speed and altitude which were excessive under the circumstances.
On June 24, 1997, less than a month after the disciplinary inquiry into the Manado incident, Capt Tsu and Capt Dittmer were scheduled to fly together again.
The two men were apparently at loggerheads and had a tense discussion in the cockpit about the Manado incident before the plane was due to depart from Changi Airport.
Capt Tsu then turned off the cockpit voice recorder, and proposed to fly the plane without it so he could retain the contents of the discussion.
But after a short stand-off, he changed his mind, the voice recorder was switched on again, and the flight went ahead.
Experts will be called to testify for both sides of the court case.
Mr MacArthur Job, who has been working as a senior inspector of air safety for the Australian Department of Civil Aviation since 1967, will testify for the relatives of the victims.
He has assessed hundreds of air-accident investigations involving both Australian and overseas-registered aircraft.
He is apparently going to testify that the accident can be explained by intentional pilot action.
The second expert witness for the plaintiffs' case is Captain John Laming, who is an air-crash consultant with about 23,300 hours of flying experience.
He will apparently testify that it was someone on the flight deck who had activated the electrical stabiliser trim control and full engine power, which forced the plane into such a steep dive.
For the airline, Professor Denis Howe, an Emeritus Professor at the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield University in Britain, will testify that the change of the stabiliser trim position alone would not have resulted in the plane's fast descent.
Captain Robert Galan, a test pilot, will say that the simulation tests used by Capt Laming cannot be relied upon as proof.
And, Dr Tan Chue Tin, a psychiatrist, will testify to the pilots' states of mind, and conclude that it was unlikely that Capt Tsu had committed suicide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIAL WITNESSES
THE trial's star witness may be Captain Lawrence Dittmer, a pilot with the airline, who was flying with the late Captain Tsu Way Ming on two occasions when the latter breached safety regulations.
Another witness for the victims' families is Mr MacArthur Job, who has been working as a senior inspector of air safety for the Australian Department of Civil Aviation since 1967.
The second expert witness for the plaintiffs' case is Captain John Laming, who is an air-crash consultant with about 23,300 hours of flying experience.
The airline's expert witnesses are Professor Denis Howe, an Emeritus Professor at the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield University in Britain; Captain Robert Galan, a test pilot; and Dr Tan Chue Tin, a psychiatrist.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My guess is that the outcome or ruling will be...The Plaintiff has not been able to prove without reasonable doubt that the Pilot Did It..
Given Capt Tsu's history, I question why he was flying MI 185 or any other aircraft for that matter, but all evidence available does not actually prove 100% he did it.. That is the problem. Unless there is other evidence not yet made public..
Anyway, it brings the accident to the attention of the public eye again and reminds them that this case is not yet over. One day, the truth will prevail and aviation safety enhanced... I hope..
Given Capt Tsu's history, I question why he was flying MI 185 or any other aircraft for that matter, but all evidence available does not actually prove 100% he did it.. That is the problem. Unless there is other evidence not yet made public..
Anyway, it brings the accident to the attention of the public eye again and reminds them that this case is not yet over. One day, the truth will prevail and aviation safety enhanced... I hope..
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good luck anyway Crocks. And yeh if something can be learnt from this tragedy that saves lives in the future, then those who died wouldnt have been in vain. But I doubt any court in Singapore has the ability to realise that. Its all money, politics, and face-saving to them.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"The families of six SilkAir crash victims suing the airline are not out to prove that pilot-suicide caused the plane to crash near Palembang, Indonesia, on Dec 19, 1997.
They want to show instead that the tragedy was probably caused by the cockpit crew - either Captain Tsu Way Ming or co- pilot Duncan Ward.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, representing 15 family members of the victims suing SilkAir, told Justice Tan Lee Meng yesterday: 'It was never part of our case that Captain Tsu Way Ming had committed suicide and Your Honour is not required to make a finding of fact on suicide.'
The plaintiffs hoped that if the court found that the crash was probably caused by some 'input' from the cockpit, it would serve to warn all airlines of the need to monitor pilot performance more closely, monitor breach of safety procedures by pilots more carefully and take remedial action against them more seriously, in the interest of the safety of air travellers."
Hence, Michael Khoo is avoiding the topic on suicide.
They want to show instead that the tragedy was probably caused by the cockpit crew - either Captain Tsu Way Ming or co- pilot Duncan Ward.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, representing 15 family members of the victims suing SilkAir, told Justice Tan Lee Meng yesterday: 'It was never part of our case that Captain Tsu Way Ming had committed suicide and Your Honour is not required to make a finding of fact on suicide.'
The plaintiffs hoped that if the court found that the crash was probably caused by some 'input' from the cockpit, it would serve to warn all airlines of the need to monitor pilot performance more closely, monitor breach of safety procedures by pilots more carefully and take remedial action against them more seriously, in the interest of the safety of air travellers."
Hence, Michael Khoo is avoiding the topic on suicide.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Latest News - Singapore
03 July 03:31PM -- Singapore Time
SilkAir pilot not fit to fly, says lawyer
SINGAPORE -- The pilot of a SilkAir plane that crashed in a sudden nose dive in 1997, killing 104 people, should not have been allowed to fly the aircraft, given his past disciplinary problems, lawyers said in court on Tuesday.
Mr Khoo charged that SilkAir 'wilfully turned a blind eye' to the fact that Capt Tsu Way Ming, the pilot of the plane, had a history of flouting safety procedures.
On the second morning of the trial to hear a lawsuit against the airline, lawyer Michael Khoo said that SilkAir captain Tsu Way Ming caused the crash deliberately by 'willful misconduct' or 'default'.
Mr Khoo charged that SilkAir 'willfully turned a blind eye to the fact that Capt Tsu had committed prior breaches of the proper safety procedures and/or regulations' of SilkAir.
He was 'not a fit and proper person to take control of SilkAir flight MI 185,' asserted Mr Khoo.
SilkAir flight MI185, a Boeing 737-300 en route from Jakarta to Singapore, nose dived 10,670 m into a river on the Indonesian island of Sumatra on Dec 19, 1997, killing everyone aboard.
It was the first and only crash for SilkAir, the regional arm of national carrier Singapore Airlines.
In its final report released last year, the Indonesian-led investigation team said there was not enough evidence to determine the cause of the crash. But the investigators said the plane's controls were in a nose-down setting. They also said that the 'black box' cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were switched off moments before the plane went into a dive.
A separate report from the US National Transportation Safety Board argued that the plane could not have acted as it did without deliberate action from the pilot.
On Tuesday, Mr Khoo cited two prior breaches of regulations by Capt Tsu: On March 3, 1997, he was flying a SilkAir flight into Manado, Indonesia, when he tried to land while the plane was going too fast and was still too high.
His co-pilot on that flight, New Zealander Lawrence Dittmer, intervened and persuaded Capt Tsu to make another approach to land the plane.
First Officer Dittmer, who is the star witness for the plaintiffs, was due to take the witness stand later on Tuesday.
In a second incident on June 24, 1997, Capt Tsu and First Officer Dittmer were again flying together. The two men were still at 'loggerheads' over the Manado incident and had 'a tense discussion' about it in the cockpit before leaving Singapore's Changi airport, said Mr Khoo.
Capt Tsu turned off the cockpit voice recorder, or blackbox, because he wanted to keep secret the conversation he had with First Officer Dittmer about the Manado incident. The New Zealander refused to fly with the recorder deactivated because it is against the rules, so Capt Tsu turned it back on again. Capt Tsu was demoted to a lower rank for turning off the blackbox recorder, Mr Khoo said.
The lawyer added that the pilot 'received no psychological assessment following any of these incidents'.
SilkAir has not presented its defence in court. However, a copy of the defence submission to be made to the court, obtained from its lawyer, shows that SilkAir's lawyers will deny that the crash was caused or contributed to by any negligence or breach of duty on its part or of its employees.
'Both pilots were properly trained, licensed and qualified to conduct the flight,' SilkAir said in the court document.
'There was no evidence found to indicate that the performance of either pilot was adversely affected by any medical or physiological condition.'
The other pilot on board the ill-fated flight was Mr Duncan Ward.
The plaintiffs are six families from Singapore, Malaysia, the United States and Britain, and include parents, children and spouses of those killed in the crash.
Other relatives have opted not to sue the airline, accepting its offer of about US$200,000 in compensation for each crash victim, Singapore Airlines spokesman S. Supramaniam said. -- AP
On the Net:
Links to news reports on the crash of SilkAir MI 185
Internet memorial to the victims of MI 185
(July 4, 2001 Wed)
Pilot 'flouted air safety rules'
Families not trying to prove SilkAir pilot committed suicide, but star witness describes scary experiences
By Karen Wong
THE families of six SilkAir crash victims suing the airline are not out to prove that pilot-suicide caused the plane to crash near Palembang, Indonesia, on Dec 19, 1997.
'The plane was going left and right, left and right. It was very disturbing... I was scared.'
-- Co-pilot Lawrence Dittmer, describing an unusual landing manoeuvre by Capt Tsu in Manado, Indonesia (Picture by Enrique Soriano)
They want to show instead that the tragedy was probably caused by the cockpit crew - either Captain Tsu Way Ming or co- pilot Duncan Ward.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, representing 15 family members of the victims suing SilkAir, told Justice Tan Lee Meng yesterday: 'It was never part of our case that Captain Tsu Way Ming had committed suicide and Your Honour is not required to make a finding of fact on suicide.'
The plaintiffs hoped that if the court found that the crash was probably caused by some 'input' from the cockpit, it would serve to warn all airlines of the need to monitor pilot performance more closely, monitor breach of safety procedures by pilots more carefully and take remedial action against them more seriously, in the interest of the safety of air travellers.
After Mr Khoo summed up his case, all the action in the packed courtroom focused on the plaintiffs' key witness, First Officer Lawrence Dittmer, a pilot with SilkAir.
Mr Dittmer, who has about seven years of flying experience, said he was First Officer Ward's best friend.
He told the court that just months before the tragedy, he flew with Captain Tsu twice and the captain had breached safety procedures.
The first incident happened in Manado, Indonesia, in March 1997, when their aircraft was too high to make a landing.
Capt Tsu chose to perform an unusual manoeuvre, which put the aircraft through a 'violent roll'.
'If the passengers were anything like me, they would have been scared. I was scared,' said Mr Dittmer.
Three months later, when he flew with Capt Tsu again, the latter was agitated over rumours that he had almost crashed the plane in Manado.
Mr Dittmer said he was shocked when the captain pulled out the circuit breaker of the cockpit voice recorder.
'I was surprised, then angry. I had never seen it in my life before,' he said.
'I really had no hesitation voicing out what I thought. I said I wasn't happy with the procedure and that he had to do something about it.'
The plaintiffs claim that the airline knew, or should have known, that Captain Tsu's history of non-compliance with safety procedures, made him unfit to be in charge of the fateful flight.
Mr Khoo, assisted by Ms Josephine Low and Mr Andy Chiok, is representing the family members of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.
Yesterday was the second day of the hearing in which the five families are suing the airline in the High Court for 'wilful misconduct' or negligence.
They are seeking unrestricted damages from the airline, on the basis that the MI 185 crash was the result of 'wilful misconduct', or a default, by the airline, or its crew members who were in control of the aircraft at the time of the tragedy.
SilkAir, represented by Mr Lok Vi Ming, Mr Ng Hwee Chong and Ms Joanna Foong, claims that the crash was not the result of wilful misconduct or default by either the airline or its cockpit crew.
The hearing continues today.
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
I was angry
CO-PILOT Lawrence Dittmer was first 'surprised', and then 'angry', when Captain Tsu Way Ming wanted to carry on with a flight, even though he had switched off the cockpit voice recorder.
This incident took place on June 24, 1997, when the pair were piloting a flight from Singapore to Jakarta.
Mr Dittmer said that while the two of them were walking to the plane in Singapore, Capt Tsu voiced his frustration about rumours he had been hearing about his professional ability.
'He was upset when he got onto the aircraft,' he said.
After they made some preparations for the flight, Capt Tsu brought up the Manado incident, which happened about three months earlier.
He said that the captain asked him: 'Have you heard rumours that I nearly crashed the plane?'
Mr Dittmer replied: 'There were rumours.
'I really didn't know where they had come from, but they seemed to be incorrect.'
He then told the court that Capt Tsu relaxed a bit after he had assuredhim that he did not spread those rumours.
But, said Mr Dittmer, just before the plane taxied out to the runway, Capt Tsu reached behind for a manual and, subsequently, pulled the circuit breaker for the cockpit voice recorder.
Mr Dittmer said: 'I was surprised, then angry. I had never seen it in my life before.
'I really had no hesitation voicing what I thought. I said I wasn't happy with the procedure and that he had to do something about it.'
Capt Tsu had apparently wanted to retain their exchange and give it to the management.
He was also going to continue the flight without the recorder operating. But his co-pilot refused to do that.
The recorder tape is only 30 minutes long and continuously re-records.
Capt Tsu then suggested that they head back to the gate so that theycould download the tape, before departing.
Clearance to return to the gate was obtained, and Mr Dittmer said they were returning for a 'technical reason'.
But Capt Tsu later changed his mind.
He reset the circuit breaker and the flight carried on.
He later told Mr Dittmer that he was just 'testing' him.
As a result of this incident, Capt Tsu was demoted from his position as a line instructor pilot.
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
I was scared
First Officer Lawrence Dittmer, a pilot with SilkAir, told a packed courtroom during the SilkAir lawsuit yesterday about the two occasions he had flown with Captain Tsu Way Ming, when safety rules were breached
DESPITE being a trained pilot, First Officer Lawrence Dittmer said he was scared when the plane made what felt like a violent roll as Captain Tsu Way Ming, who was the pilot on the ill-fated SilkAir aircraft on Dec 19, 1997, tried to manoeuvre the aircraft for a landing.
This was on March 3, 1997, when Capt Tsu and Mr Dittmer were piloting a flight to Manado, he recounted.
As the plane was descending, he said, they decided not to land on the proposed runway, but on another one, due to the weather conditions.
But the aircraft was 'too high, still too fast and it wasn't stabilised' for a safe landing, he said.
Then, Capt Tsu opted to perform an 'S-bend manoeuvre', to lose some altitude, which surprised Mr Dittmer. 'It was the first and last time I had encountered it.'
Using a model aircraft to demonstrate the plane's movements, he said:
'It felt like a violent roll. All I remember was that the plane was going left and right, left and right. It was very disturbing.
'If the passengers were anything like me, they would have been scared. I was scared.'
The manoeuvre did not get the plane into position and the aircraft still had to 'go around'. And to do that, the plane needed to climb and it needed more power. But not enough power was applied initially, and Mr Dittmer said he had to call 'Speed, speed, speed', and he helped push the thrust levers forward.
While this was happening, no announcements were made to the cabin crew or to the passengers. Later, some of the cabin crew said they felt 'sick', and that some of the passengers had asked about what happened in the approach.
'On our arrival back in Singapore, I mentioned that a 'go-around' is reportable, and Capt Tsu said that he would deal with it and see management about it.
'He said to me: 'Not to worry, I will deal with it.' It's the captain who signs the report, and it wasn't our responsibility. Based on that, I had no reason to distrust him.'
Later, Capt Tsu did not report the case, and it was another captain who did.
What SilkAir inquiry found
IN A letter dated July 3, 1997, that was sent to Capt Tsu (right), SilkAir said that in the first incident at Manado Airport, it was concerned with his ''failure to take appropriate measures early enough to prevent the aircraft from ending up in a position...that resulted in a go-around''.
SilkAir told him it took ''a serious view of his subsequent non-disclosure of the go-around which should have, in the company's interests, been reported noting the circumstances leading up to it''.
It added that it was ''cautioning'' him on his failure to act appropriately in that situation.
Regarding the second incident, SilkAir said that it found his conduct ''unbecoming of a commander'', when he caused equipment essential for the flight to be made ''unserviceable'', and that could have compromised the company's position.
''Having taken all other factors into account, the company has decided in this case to remove you from the position of line instructor pilot with immediate effect. ''The company also reprimands you for your actions which reflect poor judgment on your part.''
03 July 03:31PM -- Singapore Time
SilkAir pilot not fit to fly, says lawyer
SINGAPORE -- The pilot of a SilkAir plane that crashed in a sudden nose dive in 1997, killing 104 people, should not have been allowed to fly the aircraft, given his past disciplinary problems, lawyers said in court on Tuesday.
Mr Khoo charged that SilkAir 'wilfully turned a blind eye' to the fact that Capt Tsu Way Ming, the pilot of the plane, had a history of flouting safety procedures.
On the second morning of the trial to hear a lawsuit against the airline, lawyer Michael Khoo said that SilkAir captain Tsu Way Ming caused the crash deliberately by 'willful misconduct' or 'default'.
Mr Khoo charged that SilkAir 'willfully turned a blind eye to the fact that Capt Tsu had committed prior breaches of the proper safety procedures and/or regulations' of SilkAir.
He was 'not a fit and proper person to take control of SilkAir flight MI 185,' asserted Mr Khoo.
SilkAir flight MI185, a Boeing 737-300 en route from Jakarta to Singapore, nose dived 10,670 m into a river on the Indonesian island of Sumatra on Dec 19, 1997, killing everyone aboard.
It was the first and only crash for SilkAir, the regional arm of national carrier Singapore Airlines.
In its final report released last year, the Indonesian-led investigation team said there was not enough evidence to determine the cause of the crash. But the investigators said the plane's controls were in a nose-down setting. They also said that the 'black box' cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were switched off moments before the plane went into a dive.
A separate report from the US National Transportation Safety Board argued that the plane could not have acted as it did without deliberate action from the pilot.
On Tuesday, Mr Khoo cited two prior breaches of regulations by Capt Tsu: On March 3, 1997, he was flying a SilkAir flight into Manado, Indonesia, when he tried to land while the plane was going too fast and was still too high.
His co-pilot on that flight, New Zealander Lawrence Dittmer, intervened and persuaded Capt Tsu to make another approach to land the plane.
First Officer Dittmer, who is the star witness for the plaintiffs, was due to take the witness stand later on Tuesday.
In a second incident on June 24, 1997, Capt Tsu and First Officer Dittmer were again flying together. The two men were still at 'loggerheads' over the Manado incident and had 'a tense discussion' about it in the cockpit before leaving Singapore's Changi airport, said Mr Khoo.
Capt Tsu turned off the cockpit voice recorder, or blackbox, because he wanted to keep secret the conversation he had with First Officer Dittmer about the Manado incident. The New Zealander refused to fly with the recorder deactivated because it is against the rules, so Capt Tsu turned it back on again. Capt Tsu was demoted to a lower rank for turning off the blackbox recorder, Mr Khoo said.
The lawyer added that the pilot 'received no psychological assessment following any of these incidents'.
SilkAir has not presented its defence in court. However, a copy of the defence submission to be made to the court, obtained from its lawyer, shows that SilkAir's lawyers will deny that the crash was caused or contributed to by any negligence or breach of duty on its part or of its employees.
'Both pilots were properly trained, licensed and qualified to conduct the flight,' SilkAir said in the court document.
'There was no evidence found to indicate that the performance of either pilot was adversely affected by any medical or physiological condition.'
The other pilot on board the ill-fated flight was Mr Duncan Ward.
The plaintiffs are six families from Singapore, Malaysia, the United States and Britain, and include parents, children and spouses of those killed in the crash.
Other relatives have opted not to sue the airline, accepting its offer of about US$200,000 in compensation for each crash victim, Singapore Airlines spokesman S. Supramaniam said. -- AP
On the Net:
Links to news reports on the crash of SilkAir MI 185
Internet memorial to the victims of MI 185
(July 4, 2001 Wed)
Pilot 'flouted air safety rules'
Families not trying to prove SilkAir pilot committed suicide, but star witness describes scary experiences
By Karen Wong
THE families of six SilkAir crash victims suing the airline are not out to prove that pilot-suicide caused the plane to crash near Palembang, Indonesia, on Dec 19, 1997.
'The plane was going left and right, left and right. It was very disturbing... I was scared.'
-- Co-pilot Lawrence Dittmer, describing an unusual landing manoeuvre by Capt Tsu in Manado, Indonesia (Picture by Enrique Soriano)
They want to show instead that the tragedy was probably caused by the cockpit crew - either Captain Tsu Way Ming or co- pilot Duncan Ward.
Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, representing 15 family members of the victims suing SilkAir, told Justice Tan Lee Meng yesterday: 'It was never part of our case that Captain Tsu Way Ming had committed suicide and Your Honour is not required to make a finding of fact on suicide.'
The plaintiffs hoped that if the court found that the crash was probably caused by some 'input' from the cockpit, it would serve to warn all airlines of the need to monitor pilot performance more closely, monitor breach of safety procedures by pilots more carefully and take remedial action against them more seriously, in the interest of the safety of air travellers.
After Mr Khoo summed up his case, all the action in the packed courtroom focused on the plaintiffs' key witness, First Officer Lawrence Dittmer, a pilot with SilkAir.
Mr Dittmer, who has about seven years of flying experience, said he was First Officer Ward's best friend.
He told the court that just months before the tragedy, he flew with Captain Tsu twice and the captain had breached safety procedures.
The first incident happened in Manado, Indonesia, in March 1997, when their aircraft was too high to make a landing.
Capt Tsu chose to perform an unusual manoeuvre, which put the aircraft through a 'violent roll'.
'If the passengers were anything like me, they would have been scared. I was scared,' said Mr Dittmer.
Three months later, when he flew with Capt Tsu again, the latter was agitated over rumours that he had almost crashed the plane in Manado.
Mr Dittmer said he was shocked when the captain pulled out the circuit breaker of the cockpit voice recorder.
'I was surprised, then angry. I had never seen it in my life before,' he said.
'I really had no hesitation voicing out what I thought. I said I wasn't happy with the procedure and that he had to do something about it.'
The plaintiffs claim that the airline knew, or should have known, that Captain Tsu's history of non-compliance with safety procedures, made him unfit to be in charge of the fateful flight.
Mr Khoo, assisted by Ms Josephine Low and Mr Andy Chiok, is representing the family members of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, 56; Mr Jonathan Edward Oey, 39; Madam Berenice Braislin Oey, 71; Mr Lee Eng Seng, 51; Mr John Joseph Parappuram, 45; and Madam Judith Pang Swee Gan, 35.
Yesterday was the second day of the hearing in which the five families are suing the airline in the High Court for 'wilful misconduct' or negligence.
They are seeking unrestricted damages from the airline, on the basis that the MI 185 crash was the result of 'wilful misconduct', or a default, by the airline, or its crew members who were in control of the aircraft at the time of the tragedy.
SilkAir, represented by Mr Lok Vi Ming, Mr Ng Hwee Chong and Ms Joanna Foong, claims that the crash was not the result of wilful misconduct or default by either the airline or its cockpit crew.
The hearing continues today.
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
I was angry
CO-PILOT Lawrence Dittmer was first 'surprised', and then 'angry', when Captain Tsu Way Ming wanted to carry on with a flight, even though he had switched off the cockpit voice recorder.
This incident took place on June 24, 1997, when the pair were piloting a flight from Singapore to Jakarta.
Mr Dittmer said that while the two of them were walking to the plane in Singapore, Capt Tsu voiced his frustration about rumours he had been hearing about his professional ability.
'He was upset when he got onto the aircraft,' he said.
After they made some preparations for the flight, Capt Tsu brought up the Manado incident, which happened about three months earlier.
He said that the captain asked him: 'Have you heard rumours that I nearly crashed the plane?'
Mr Dittmer replied: 'There were rumours.
'I really didn't know where they had come from, but they seemed to be incorrect.'
He then told the court that Capt Tsu relaxed a bit after he had assuredhim that he did not spread those rumours.
But, said Mr Dittmer, just before the plane taxied out to the runway, Capt Tsu reached behind for a manual and, subsequently, pulled the circuit breaker for the cockpit voice recorder.
Mr Dittmer said: 'I was surprised, then angry. I had never seen it in my life before.
'I really had no hesitation voicing what I thought. I said I wasn't happy with the procedure and that he had to do something about it.'
Capt Tsu had apparently wanted to retain their exchange and give it to the management.
He was also going to continue the flight without the recorder operating. But his co-pilot refused to do that.
The recorder tape is only 30 minutes long and continuously re-records.
Capt Tsu then suggested that they head back to the gate so that theycould download the tape, before departing.
Clearance to return to the gate was obtained, and Mr Dittmer said they were returning for a 'technical reason'.
But Capt Tsu later changed his mind.
He reset the circuit breaker and the flight carried on.
He later told Mr Dittmer that he was just 'testing' him.
As a result of this incident, Capt Tsu was demoted from his position as a line instructor pilot.
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
I was scared
First Officer Lawrence Dittmer, a pilot with SilkAir, told a packed courtroom during the SilkAir lawsuit yesterday about the two occasions he had flown with Captain Tsu Way Ming, when safety rules were breached
DESPITE being a trained pilot, First Officer Lawrence Dittmer said he was scared when the plane made what felt like a violent roll as Captain Tsu Way Ming, who was the pilot on the ill-fated SilkAir aircraft on Dec 19, 1997, tried to manoeuvre the aircraft for a landing.
This was on March 3, 1997, when Capt Tsu and Mr Dittmer were piloting a flight to Manado, he recounted.
As the plane was descending, he said, they decided not to land on the proposed runway, but on another one, due to the weather conditions.
But the aircraft was 'too high, still too fast and it wasn't stabilised' for a safe landing, he said.
Then, Capt Tsu opted to perform an 'S-bend manoeuvre', to lose some altitude, which surprised Mr Dittmer. 'It was the first and last time I had encountered it.'
Using a model aircraft to demonstrate the plane's movements, he said:
'It felt like a violent roll. All I remember was that the plane was going left and right, left and right. It was very disturbing.
'If the passengers were anything like me, they would have been scared. I was scared.'
The manoeuvre did not get the plane into position and the aircraft still had to 'go around'. And to do that, the plane needed to climb and it needed more power. But not enough power was applied initially, and Mr Dittmer said he had to call 'Speed, speed, speed', and he helped push the thrust levers forward.
While this was happening, no announcements were made to the cabin crew or to the passengers. Later, some of the cabin crew said they felt 'sick', and that some of the passengers had asked about what happened in the approach.
'On our arrival back in Singapore, I mentioned that a 'go-around' is reportable, and Capt Tsu said that he would deal with it and see management about it.
'He said to me: 'Not to worry, I will deal with it.' It's the captain who signs the report, and it wasn't our responsibility. Based on that, I had no reason to distrust him.'
Later, Capt Tsu did not report the case, and it was another captain who did.
What SilkAir inquiry found
IN A letter dated July 3, 1997, that was sent to Capt Tsu (right), SilkAir said that in the first incident at Manado Airport, it was concerned with his ''failure to take appropriate measures early enough to prevent the aircraft from ending up in a position...that resulted in a go-around''.
SilkAir told him it took ''a serious view of his subsequent non-disclosure of the go-around which should have, in the company's interests, been reported noting the circumstances leading up to it''.
It added that it was ''cautioning'' him on his failure to act appropriately in that situation.
Regarding the second incident, SilkAir said that it found his conduct ''unbecoming of a commander'', when he caused equipment essential for the flight to be made ''unserviceable'', and that could have compromised the company's position.
''Having taken all other factors into account, the company has decided in this case to remove you from the position of line instructor pilot with immediate effect. ''The company also reprimands you for your actions which reflect poor judgment on your part.''
Guest
Posts: n/a
I draw attention to the line in Loners post above:
''failure to take appropriate measures early enough to prevent the aircraft from ending up in a position...that resulted in a go-around''.
Think about the safety implication of that.
SIA punishes pilots who do the safest thing and perform a go around when it is a pilot-induced error that caused the go-around in the first place. I should know because I was there for just over 2 years. Tsu was most likely a victim of this unsafe intimidatory policy.
If the pilot is one the Co likes and does not cause pilot-error induced go-arounds often, he only gets "councelled".
''failure to take appropriate measures early enough to prevent the aircraft from ending up in a position...that resulted in a go-around''.
Think about the safety implication of that.
SIA punishes pilots who do the safest thing and perform a go around when it is a pilot-induced error that caused the go-around in the first place. I should know because I was there for just over 2 years. Tsu was most likely a victim of this unsafe intimidatory policy.
If the pilot is one the Co likes and does not cause pilot-error induced go-arounds often, he only gets "councelled".
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sky Drifter...
You are probably correct... Unfortunately, all the facts that have come out so far came out years ago..there has been no new facts as far as I can see..presented by the plaintiffs..
I am sure the airline when they start their defence will have sufficent experts with opinions themselves to argue their case, sufficent to satisfy the Singapore Courts..most probably..
Who knows...??? anyway, it is good to have it out in the public eye...whatever the result...
Best wishes to the families involved...
You are probably correct... Unfortunately, all the facts that have come out so far came out years ago..there has been no new facts as far as I can see..presented by the plaintiffs..
I am sure the airline when they start their defence will have sufficent experts with opinions themselves to argue their case, sufficent to satisfy the Singapore Courts..most probably..
Who knows...??? anyway, it is good to have it out in the public eye...whatever the result...
Best wishes to the families involved...
Guest
Posts: n/a
July 5, 2001 THUR (Straits Times)
Co-pilot queried for not reporting captain
By Karen Wong
THE key witness in the SilkAir lawsuit was yesterday asked why he failed to tell the airline's management about Captain Tsu Way Ming's erratic behaviour.
First Officer Lawrence Dittmer was also cross-examined about why he had waited until the court proceedings, four years later, to talk about certain incidents.
Mr Dittmer is employed by SilkAir but was subpoenaed to testify for the families of six people who died in the Dec 19, 1997 crash, and who are now suing the airline for damages.
He was asked why he failed to tell SilkAir that Capt Tsu assured him he would inform management of an incident in which he missed the first landing approach at Manado airport in Indonesia, then did not.
Mr Dittmer said this was implied in his report, which was filed after management learned about the Manado incident. In it, he said he accepted responsibility for not checking whether Capt Tsu had informed management about the matter.
He also said that he later spoke to management about Capt Tsu's assurance.
Lawyer Lok Vi Ming said: 'You had not told anyone until yesterday, that Captain Tsu had told you he would take care of it.'
Mr Dittmer said: 'That's not true. I had informed management that Captain Tsu had told me in the cockpit that he would inform management.'
Mr Lok: 'Do you have any documents to show this?'
Mr Dittmer: 'No.'
The first officer was co-piloting the plane with Capt Tsu on two of the occasions when the latter breached safety procedures, in the months before the MI 185 crash which killed all 104 people on board.
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
Evidence 'showed probable cause'
Expert witness says investigators had enough evidence to support theory that 1997 crash was not accidental
By Karen Wong
THE Indonesian-led investigation team had enough evidence to conclude that someone in the cockpit probably caused SilkAir Flight MI 185 to crash into the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997, an Australian aviation expert told the High Court yesterday.
Captain John Laming, an expert witness for the families of six people killed in the tragedy, was testifying about the report, which gave an 'inconclusive' finding as to the cause of the Boeing 737 crash in Palembang, Indonesia.
The report, by the Indonesian National Transport Safety Committee, was released last December after a three-year investigation into the crash, which killed all 104 people on board.
Capt Laming, 67, debunked the 'inconclusive' part of the report, saying: 'I have my doubts about that. I think there was enough evidence to come up with the most probable cause.'
In his three-page report to the court, he said it would have needed someone in the cockpit to hold down the controls, set the electrical stabiliser trim control to full forward and engage full engine power to force the aircraft into the steep dive experienced by MI 185.
He said: 'With these actions held for a number of seconds, and no attempt taken to recover, the aircraft would eventually reach the point of no return and break up.'
Capt Laming is one of the three aviation experts testifying for the families who are suing SilkAir for 'wilful misconduct or default'. He has served in the Royal Australian Air Force as a pilot, aircraft accident investigator and a flight safety officer.
Now a Grade One flying instructor and air-crash consultant, he also said the extensive break-up of the aircraft at impact indicated the angle of its dive before the crash was 'very steep'.
He said: 'Someone had held down the stabiliser trim control for seven to eight seconds...It's an awfully long time to be holding the switch.'
He said that this was how long it would have taken for someone to get the trim control from 4.5 units to 2.5 units - the position in which it was in after the crash.
When Justice Tan Lee Meng asked him if a Boeing 737 pilot would know that if he pressed the switch down for seven to eight seconds, without doing anything else, he would die.
'Yes,' replied Capt Laming.
Co-pilot queried for not reporting captain
By Karen Wong
THE key witness in the SilkAir lawsuit was yesterday asked why he failed to tell the airline's management about Captain Tsu Way Ming's erratic behaviour.
First Officer Lawrence Dittmer was also cross-examined about why he had waited until the court proceedings, four years later, to talk about certain incidents.
Mr Dittmer is employed by SilkAir but was subpoenaed to testify for the families of six people who died in the Dec 19, 1997 crash, and who are now suing the airline for damages.
He was asked why he failed to tell SilkAir that Capt Tsu assured him he would inform management of an incident in which he missed the first landing approach at Manado airport in Indonesia, then did not.
Mr Dittmer said this was implied in his report, which was filed after management learned about the Manado incident. In it, he said he accepted responsibility for not checking whether Capt Tsu had informed management about the matter.
He also said that he later spoke to management about Capt Tsu's assurance.
Lawyer Lok Vi Ming said: 'You had not told anyone until yesterday, that Captain Tsu had told you he would take care of it.'
Mr Dittmer said: 'That's not true. I had informed management that Captain Tsu had told me in the cockpit that he would inform management.'
Mr Lok: 'Do you have any documents to show this?'
Mr Dittmer: 'No.'
The first officer was co-piloting the plane with Capt Tsu on two of the occasions when the latter breached safety procedures, in the months before the MI 185 crash which killed all 104 people on board.
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUIT
Evidence 'showed probable cause'
Expert witness says investigators had enough evidence to support theory that 1997 crash was not accidental
By Karen Wong
THE Indonesian-led investigation team had enough evidence to conclude that someone in the cockpit probably caused SilkAir Flight MI 185 to crash into the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997, an Australian aviation expert told the High Court yesterday.
Captain John Laming, an expert witness for the families of six people killed in the tragedy, was testifying about the report, which gave an 'inconclusive' finding as to the cause of the Boeing 737 crash in Palembang, Indonesia.
The report, by the Indonesian National Transport Safety Committee, was released last December after a three-year investigation into the crash, which killed all 104 people on board.
Capt Laming, 67, debunked the 'inconclusive' part of the report, saying: 'I have my doubts about that. I think there was enough evidence to come up with the most probable cause.'
In his three-page report to the court, he said it would have needed someone in the cockpit to hold down the controls, set the electrical stabiliser trim control to full forward and engage full engine power to force the aircraft into the steep dive experienced by MI 185.
He said: 'With these actions held for a number of seconds, and no attempt taken to recover, the aircraft would eventually reach the point of no return and break up.'
Capt Laming is one of the three aviation experts testifying for the families who are suing SilkAir for 'wilful misconduct or default'. He has served in the Royal Australian Air Force as a pilot, aircraft accident investigator and a flight safety officer.
Now a Grade One flying instructor and air-crash consultant, he also said the extensive break-up of the aircraft at impact indicated the angle of its dive before the crash was 'very steep'.
He said: 'Someone had held down the stabiliser trim control for seven to eight seconds...It's an awfully long time to be holding the switch.'
He said that this was how long it would have taken for someone to get the trim control from 4.5 units to 2.5 units - the position in which it was in after the crash.
When Justice Tan Lee Meng asked him if a Boeing 737 pilot would know that if he pressed the switch down for seven to eight seconds, without doing anything else, he would die.
'Yes,' replied Capt Laming.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Latest News - Singapore
05 July 05:31PM -- Singapore Time
'SilkAir pilot could have stabilised aircraft'
SINGAPORE -- The pilot of a SilkAir plane that crashed in 1997, killing all 104 people aboard, could have stabilised the plane quickly from its steep fall, the Singapore High Court was told on Thursday.
Mr John Laming, an Australian pilot and flight simulator instructor, said commercial pilots were trained to know how to handle a sudden loss of cabin pressure which puts an airplane into steep descent.
'I was talking here of 20 seconds of work,' he said, explaining the procedure to stabilise a plunging aircraft.
'It is not difficult. In the simulator, we train until you are very competent at this,' said Mr Laming, who said he had trained international airline pilots.
But he agreed under cross-examination that the physical changes in a real-life sudden loss of cabin pressure as well as the psychological pressure on the pilot would be different from a simulated nosedive.
He was giving evidence on the fourth day of a negligence suit lodged by relatives of six victims against SilkAir, the regional arm of Singapore Airlines.
The families claim there was evidence that the crash was deliberately caused by the cockpit crew.
Flight MI 185, a Boeing 737, crashed into an Indonesian river on Dec 19, 1997, killing all 104 passengers and crew aboard, including the pilot, Captain Tsu Way Ming and First Officer Duncan Ward. -- AFP
05 July 05:31PM -- Singapore Time
'SilkAir pilot could have stabilised aircraft'
SINGAPORE -- The pilot of a SilkAir plane that crashed in 1997, killing all 104 people aboard, could have stabilised the plane quickly from its steep fall, the Singapore High Court was told on Thursday.
Mr John Laming, an Australian pilot and flight simulator instructor, said commercial pilots were trained to know how to handle a sudden loss of cabin pressure which puts an airplane into steep descent.
'I was talking here of 20 seconds of work,' he said, explaining the procedure to stabilise a plunging aircraft.
'It is not difficult. In the simulator, we train until you are very competent at this,' said Mr Laming, who said he had trained international airline pilots.
But he agreed under cross-examination that the physical changes in a real-life sudden loss of cabin pressure as well as the psychological pressure on the pilot would be different from a simulated nosedive.
He was giving evidence on the fourth day of a negligence suit lodged by relatives of six victims against SilkAir, the regional arm of Singapore Airlines.
The families claim there was evidence that the crash was deliberately caused by the cockpit crew.
Flight MI 185, a Boeing 737, crashed into an Indonesian river on Dec 19, 1997, killing all 104 passengers and crew aboard, including the pilot, Captain Tsu Way Ming and First Officer Duncan Ward. -- AFP
Guest
Posts: n/a
July 6, 2001 FRI Straits Times
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUITS
Over 30 families sue Boeing
In writs filed in the US, they claim that Boeing and other manufacturers made defective and unsafe parts
By Karen Wong
SOME of the families who are suing SilkAir over the death of relatives in the 1997 Palembang plane crash are also suing Boeing and other aircraft-part manufacturers in the United States.
In the other lawsuits, happening independently of the High Court SilkAir trial now taking place here, the families are claiming that the manufacturers madedefective and unsafe parts.
Now, SilkAir's lawyers want the plaintiffs to disclose all the documents relating to the US lawsuits, apart from the three suits which they already have documents for because, they argue, the court here should know the details of legal actions by the plaintiffs elsewhere.
But the plaintiffs' lawyer, senior counsel Michael Khoo, said his clients do not have those documents, though he added he would hand over what he has. A writ has been filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, in which more than 30 families, including those of the late John Joseph and Lee Eng Seng, both Singaporeans, have alleged that Kavilico Corporation, ITT Neodyne, Parker-Hannifin Corporation and the Boeing Company, are somewhat responsible for the Indonesia crash.
Kavilico designed, manufactured and inspected parts of the Boeing 737 aircraft, including the dampener pressure sensor.
ITT Neodyne manufactured the pressure-sensing switch in the secondary filter and Parker-Hannifin, the rudder power control unit.
Boeing built the aircraft.
The plaintiffs claim that they have suffered mental anguish and fear of impending death as a result of the MI 185 crash on Dec 19, 1997.
On top of the damages, they want compensation for their pain and suffering, and also funeral expenses.
In another writ filed in Seattle, Washington, the families of Mrs Berenice Braislin Oey and Miss Pang Swee Gan, a Malaysian, with about 20 other families, are suing B.F. Goodrich Aerospace.
They have alleged that Goodrich, which installed the toilet and the galley for the Boeing 737 that crashed into the Musi River, was responsible for the defective and dangerous condition of those parts.
They claim that the toilet and galley were not fit for their intended purposes and were unreasonably dangerous due to defective design, manufacture and installation, among other things.
The plaintiffs in that case are also saying that Goodrich had acted 'intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, grossly, wilfully and wantonly' by installing a toilet or galley in the aircraft which it knew was dangerous.
Mrs Beryl Claire Clarke from Scotland, the widow of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, has also joined about 20 other families in a separate suit against Goodrich.
The suit, filed in Seattle, claims that the galley was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
The Straits Times understands that the position of the families is that the suits in the US would not affect their case before the courts here.
Could the co-pilot have stepped in?
He would have only 15 seconds to react, says expert witness
AN AVIATION expert told the High Court yesterday that if the pilot wanted to bring down the plane, the co-pilot would have only seconds to act before the point of no return.
Captain John Laming, 69, made these remarks when Justice Tan Lee Meng asked what the co-pilot could have done to salvage the situation if the pilot wanted to crash the plane.
An expert witness for the families of six victims of the SilkAir MI 185 crash, Capt Laming said: 'The pilot who is not flying the plane will have extreme problems...apart from having to wrest the control stick back.'
He had testified that it would have needed someone in the cockpit to hold down the controls, set the electrical stabiliser trim control to full forward and engage full engine power to force the aircraft into the steep dive experienced by MI 185.
He said it was that input from the cockpit which had caused the plane to crash into the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997, killing all 104 people on board.
Yesterday, Justice Tan asked: 'Are you saying that if one pilot decides to go frolicking, the other is helpless?'
Capt Laming said: 'He's not helpless. But he would have to overcome the other pilot really quickly.
'It's highly critical in that steep dive. Unless you can get the plane up in 15 seconds, you will lose the aircraft.'
But, SilkAir's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, later said that even if one of the pilots had sent the plane into a nosedive, there was a stabiliser trim cut-out switch, located between the pilots' seats, which could be used in emergencies.
He said that the co-pilot could have easily reached down for this switch, without having to wrestle with the other pilot for control over the plane.
Justice Tan said: 'If that's so, then the other pilot could have mitigated the circumstances.'
Capt Laming replied: 'But he wouldn't have immediately realised what was happening.'
Capt Maurie Baston, the managing director of Aviation Management Services, took the stand yesterday afternoon as the second of three expert witnesses for the families.
A former aerobatic- display pilot and flying instructor in the Royal Australian Air Force, he has had 15 years' experience in aviation management.
Capt Baston's report stated that intentional pilot action probably caused the crash.
'There's more than sufficient available technical evidence to support the view that the aircraft was literally driven into the ground,' he said.
The hearing continues today.
SILKAIR CRASH LAWSUITS
Over 30 families sue Boeing
In writs filed in the US, they claim that Boeing and other manufacturers made defective and unsafe parts
By Karen Wong
SOME of the families who are suing SilkAir over the death of relatives in the 1997 Palembang plane crash are also suing Boeing and other aircraft-part manufacturers in the United States.
In the other lawsuits, happening independently of the High Court SilkAir trial now taking place here, the families are claiming that the manufacturers madedefective and unsafe parts.
Now, SilkAir's lawyers want the plaintiffs to disclose all the documents relating to the US lawsuits, apart from the three suits which they already have documents for because, they argue, the court here should know the details of legal actions by the plaintiffs elsewhere.
But the plaintiffs' lawyer, senior counsel Michael Khoo, said his clients do not have those documents, though he added he would hand over what he has. A writ has been filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, in which more than 30 families, including those of the late John Joseph and Lee Eng Seng, both Singaporeans, have alleged that Kavilico Corporation, ITT Neodyne, Parker-Hannifin Corporation and the Boeing Company, are somewhat responsible for the Indonesia crash.
Kavilico designed, manufactured and inspected parts of the Boeing 737 aircraft, including the dampener pressure sensor.
ITT Neodyne manufactured the pressure-sensing switch in the secondary filter and Parker-Hannifin, the rudder power control unit.
Boeing built the aircraft.
The plaintiffs claim that they have suffered mental anguish and fear of impending death as a result of the MI 185 crash on Dec 19, 1997.
On top of the damages, they want compensation for their pain and suffering, and also funeral expenses.
In another writ filed in Seattle, Washington, the families of Mrs Berenice Braislin Oey and Miss Pang Swee Gan, a Malaysian, with about 20 other families, are suing B.F. Goodrich Aerospace.
They have alleged that Goodrich, which installed the toilet and the galley for the Boeing 737 that crashed into the Musi River, was responsible for the defective and dangerous condition of those parts.
They claim that the toilet and galley were not fit for their intended purposes and were unreasonably dangerous due to defective design, manufacture and installation, among other things.
The plaintiffs in that case are also saying that Goodrich had acted 'intentionally, maliciously, recklessly, grossly, wilfully and wantonly' by installing a toilet or galley in the aircraft which it knew was dangerous.
Mrs Beryl Claire Clarke from Scotland, the widow of Mr Eugene Francis Clarke, has also joined about 20 other families in a separate suit against Goodrich.
The suit, filed in Seattle, claims that the galley was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
The Straits Times understands that the position of the families is that the suits in the US would not affect their case before the courts here.
Could the co-pilot have stepped in?
He would have only 15 seconds to react, says expert witness
AN AVIATION expert told the High Court yesterday that if the pilot wanted to bring down the plane, the co-pilot would have only seconds to act before the point of no return.
Captain John Laming, 69, made these remarks when Justice Tan Lee Meng asked what the co-pilot could have done to salvage the situation if the pilot wanted to crash the plane.
An expert witness for the families of six victims of the SilkAir MI 185 crash, Capt Laming said: 'The pilot who is not flying the plane will have extreme problems...apart from having to wrest the control stick back.'
He had testified that it would have needed someone in the cockpit to hold down the controls, set the electrical stabiliser trim control to full forward and engage full engine power to force the aircraft into the steep dive experienced by MI 185.
He said it was that input from the cockpit which had caused the plane to crash into the Musi River on Dec 19, 1997, killing all 104 people on board.
Yesterday, Justice Tan asked: 'Are you saying that if one pilot decides to go frolicking, the other is helpless?'
Capt Laming said: 'He's not helpless. But he would have to overcome the other pilot really quickly.
'It's highly critical in that steep dive. Unless you can get the plane up in 15 seconds, you will lose the aircraft.'
But, SilkAir's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, later said that even if one of the pilots had sent the plane into a nosedive, there was a stabiliser trim cut-out switch, located between the pilots' seats, which could be used in emergencies.
He said that the co-pilot could have easily reached down for this switch, without having to wrestle with the other pilot for control over the plane.
Justice Tan said: 'If that's so, then the other pilot could have mitigated the circumstances.'
Capt Laming replied: 'But he wouldn't have immediately realised what was happening.'
Capt Maurie Baston, the managing director of Aviation Management Services, took the stand yesterday afternoon as the second of three expert witnesses for the families.
A former aerobatic- display pilot and flying instructor in the Royal Australian Air Force, he has had 15 years' experience in aviation management.
Capt Baston's report stated that intentional pilot action probably caused the crash.
'There's more than sufficient available technical evidence to support the view that the aircraft was literally driven into the ground,' he said.
The hearing continues today.