SilkAir 185 - I do not get it..??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the info on why Australia did not officially speak out. However if Australians were present during the investigation and are aware of this so called coverup isn't it their duty to report this? I see that Great Britian have commented on this accident although they are not one of the official three countries involved. That means that Australia could have done the same.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If Australia or any other party involved are aware of facts that were not contained in the Final Crash Report and should have been...surely those parties should speak out..with the facts...
So far, all we have heard is expressions that say the final report was missing pertinent information and findings. However, no one has said what exactly was missing with specific examples..This includes the NTSB..
What appears to be the problem with speaking out.??.
If there is indeed more information that should be made public, why not release it.. I simply do not believe that it is because they do not want to upset the Indonesians..
If this is the reason, the Australian organisations involved are showing them selves to be just as bad as the Indonesian Investigators...
Corrupt.??..I think not in the true sense of the word, but corruption at a bigger Political and Economic level...
Very Sad indeed whatever the cause of the crash, that safety does not appear to be that important to the organisations who are charged with improving Aviation Safety..
So far, all we have heard is expressions that say the final report was missing pertinent information and findings. However, no one has said what exactly was missing with specific examples..This includes the NTSB..
What appears to be the problem with speaking out.??.
If there is indeed more information that should be made public, why not release it.. I simply do not believe that it is because they do not want to upset the Indonesians..
If this is the reason, the Australian organisations involved are showing them selves to be just as bad as the Indonesian Investigators...
Corrupt.??..I think not in the true sense of the word, but corruption at a bigger Political and Economic level...
Very Sad indeed whatever the cause of the crash, that safety does not appear to be that important to the organisations who are charged with improving Aviation Safety..
Guest
Posts: n/a
The US NTSB comments on the official report actually did contain examples and specifics of what (they considered)should have been included in the final report. The NTSB can not force the Indonesian authority into including these facts - they can only recommend it which they did.
There is not necessarily a cover up as such. It is more like simply not disclosing all the evidence. Singapore will not publicly admit that one of its boys killed 103 innocent persons and the Indonesian investigator has simply done what his neighbours have instructed.
There is not necessarily a cover up as such. It is more like simply not disclosing all the evidence. Singapore will not publicly admit that one of its boys killed 103 innocent persons and the Indonesian investigator has simply done what his neighbours have instructed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The SilkAir tragedy was badly handled from the start. SIA was keen to distance itself totally from SilkAir to avoid bad publicity. This was impossible in Oct2000 when it hit management in the face. Whatever your opinions, SIA as a company has had a hull loss in ALL three of its flt depts. namely the flying college(learjet), SilkAir(737) and Singapore Airlines(747), over a period of only 4 years. That's almost as bad as Korean, an airline which is the butt of many jokes around flt ops. SQ management, time to wake up and smell the coffee before you spill some more.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A LOT OF QUESTIONS -
While most have a high degree of respect for the NTSB, the agency is riddled with false reports and left-out information - fact, not fiction.
Rmemeber the ongoing issue on the B-767 in Australia; nobody seems to have a clean show.
I won't totally discount the suicide theory, but I'd like to see a lot more holes plugged, first.
While most have a high degree of respect for the NTSB, the agency is riddled with false reports and left-out information - fact, not fiction.
Rmemeber the ongoing issue on the B-767 in Australia; nobody seems to have a clean show.
I won't totally discount the suicide theory, but I'd like to see a lot more holes plugged, first.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Skydrifter,
It seems pretty clear cut to me. Since the crash in 1997, how many occurrences have there been of CVR's and FDR's failing in flight? My guess would be very few, if any. And furthermore, what an amazing coincidence that the two most vital pieces of equipment that could have provided some clues to the cause of the crash, stopped working just minutes before.
Now, with respect, sir, which holes exactly would you like to see plugged? Please do elaborate.
[This message has been edited by WSSS (edited 13 April 2001).]
It seems pretty clear cut to me. Since the crash in 1997, how many occurrences have there been of CVR's and FDR's failing in flight? My guess would be very few, if any. And furthermore, what an amazing coincidence that the two most vital pieces of equipment that could have provided some clues to the cause of the crash, stopped working just minutes before.
Now, with respect, sir, which holes exactly would you like to see plugged? Please do elaborate.
[This message has been edited by WSSS (edited 13 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
WSSS, can't agree more.
In life, "coincidence" is defined as one or more events occuring without the same causal influence.
FDR,CVR,buddies crash anniversary,new life insurance, financial problems, a flight path not possible without maintained pilot inputs.
In the above scenario, anyone with any sense of rationale or practical thinking would realise that "coincidence" is a word that only a very blinkered and rationalising SQ management body would use.
Oh sorry, I forgot you have to do WHATEVER it takes to keep those shareholders happy.
In life, "coincidence" is defined as one or more events occuring without the same causal influence.
FDR,CVR,buddies crash anniversary,new life insurance, financial problems, a flight path not possible without maintained pilot inputs.
In the above scenario, anyone with any sense of rationale or practical thinking would realise that "coincidence" is a word that only a very blinkered and rationalising SQ management body would use.
Oh sorry, I forgot you have to do WHATEVER it takes to keep those shareholders happy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just in regards to US Air 427 crash(1994) and United 585 (1991)- these 2 accidents were never conclusivily proven to be caused by rudder hardovers. Although this is a very possible cause with plenty of evidence to back it up there are other possibilities. US Air 427 may have flown into the wake of a Delta 727- 6nm ahead at the time, and United 585 may have been brought down by a very vicious rotor in the vicinity of Colorado Springs at the time of the accident.
Guest
Posts: n/a
WSSS -
1. The CVR ends with the captain leaving the cockpit with the seat slid back and nothing substantial to suggest that he pulled the circuit breakers. The CVR is dual powered.
2. How did he manage to pull both circuit breakers without the copilot noticing?
3. The ATC recordings attest to the first officer being alive immediately before the high-dive.
4. How did the captain pull off the high-dive, unopposed? A struggle would have knocked off the autopilot, leaving a radar record.
5. Finances aside, what valid indications were there of the type of anxiety or depression leading to this supposed suicide?
The ValuJet 592 investigation is a CVR and FDR farce. The date is unimportant.
The Alaska 261 CVR data is conspicuously highly incomplete. Granted the final report isn't out yet. There seemes to be spin-doctoring in progress, focusing on the jack-screw, which couldn't uniquely account for the accident.
Again, my mind is open, but so are a lot of questions.
1. The CVR ends with the captain leaving the cockpit with the seat slid back and nothing substantial to suggest that he pulled the circuit breakers. The CVR is dual powered.
2. How did he manage to pull both circuit breakers without the copilot noticing?
3. The ATC recordings attest to the first officer being alive immediately before the high-dive.
4. How did the captain pull off the high-dive, unopposed? A struggle would have knocked off the autopilot, leaving a radar record.
5. Finances aside, what valid indications were there of the type of anxiety or depression leading to this supposed suicide?
The ValuJet 592 investigation is a CVR and FDR farce. The date is unimportant.
The Alaska 261 CVR data is conspicuously highly incomplete. Granted the final report isn't out yet. There seemes to be spin-doctoring in progress, focusing on the jack-screw, which couldn't uniquely account for the accident.
Again, my mind is open, but so are a lot of questions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Skydrifter,
The official MI185 report implied that the CVR/FDR failed as a result of a mechanical malfunction such as that caused by a broken wire. After tests conducted by the NTSB, this was found to be unlikely. The NTSB sound analysis test results were consistent with a loss of power to the CVR that was most likely caused by physical pulling of the circuit breaker.
Furthermore, the FDR, which was still operating for about 6 minutes after the CVR failed, did not give any indications of impending electrical problems that could have caused the CVR and FDR to have failed.
Given the fact that the FDR failed 6 minutes after the CVR, and the explanation given by the official report that this was caused by a broken wire, it would be highly improbable that 2 separate cases of broken wires existed on a 9 month old airplane. And how coincidental was it that these 2 wires chose to break just before a 15,000 fpm descent into the Musi river?
We can only speculate why the F/O wasn't alert to the alleged CB pulling incident ...or who knows, he may well have been aware of this.....it's anybody's guess.
And if indeed, the Captain pulled the CB of the CVR, it wouldn't have been the first time that he's done it. And as I recall in the other CVR CB pulling incident, the Captain only replaced the CB after a lengthy discussion with his F/O. On MI 185, maybe such a discussion was taking place at the time? ....We just don't know.
Chronological order of events before descent.
09:05:15 - CVR stops. Captain thought to have left the flight deck.
09:10:26 - Last radio contact with Jakarta Control made by F/O
09:11:33 - FDR stops
09:12:17 - Commenced descent (400 ft below cruising level)
So, there's 1 minute and 7 seconds between when the F/O made radio contact and when the FDR stops. Enough time for the F/O to leave the cockpit, the Captain to lock the door, pull the FDR CB, and then commence descent about 40 seconds after?
And just one final note...if the Captain allegedly had wanted to make this look like an accident for insurance claim purposes, then he would have taken drastic measures to cover his footsteps. And I would suggest that this is the reason why this accident is as mysterious as it is, because, right from the very start, it was always intended to be covered up.
[This message has been edited by WSSS (edited 15 April 2001).]
The official MI185 report implied that the CVR/FDR failed as a result of a mechanical malfunction such as that caused by a broken wire. After tests conducted by the NTSB, this was found to be unlikely. The NTSB sound analysis test results were consistent with a loss of power to the CVR that was most likely caused by physical pulling of the circuit breaker.
Furthermore, the FDR, which was still operating for about 6 minutes after the CVR failed, did not give any indications of impending electrical problems that could have caused the CVR and FDR to have failed.
Given the fact that the FDR failed 6 minutes after the CVR, and the explanation given by the official report that this was caused by a broken wire, it would be highly improbable that 2 separate cases of broken wires existed on a 9 month old airplane. And how coincidental was it that these 2 wires chose to break just before a 15,000 fpm descent into the Musi river?
We can only speculate why the F/O wasn't alert to the alleged CB pulling incident ...or who knows, he may well have been aware of this.....it's anybody's guess.
And if indeed, the Captain pulled the CB of the CVR, it wouldn't have been the first time that he's done it. And as I recall in the other CVR CB pulling incident, the Captain only replaced the CB after a lengthy discussion with his F/O. On MI 185, maybe such a discussion was taking place at the time? ....We just don't know.
Chronological order of events before descent.
09:05:15 - CVR stops. Captain thought to have left the flight deck.
09:10:26 - Last radio contact with Jakarta Control made by F/O
09:11:33 - FDR stops
09:12:17 - Commenced descent (400 ft below cruising level)
So, there's 1 minute and 7 seconds between when the F/O made radio contact and when the FDR stops. Enough time for the F/O to leave the cockpit, the Captain to lock the door, pull the FDR CB, and then commence descent about 40 seconds after?
And just one final note...if the Captain allegedly had wanted to make this look like an accident for insurance claim purposes, then he would have taken drastic measures to cover his footsteps. And I would suggest that this is the reason why this accident is as mysterious as it is, because, right from the very start, it was always intended to be covered up.
[This message has been edited by WSSS (edited 15 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
WSSS -
Despite the age of the aircraft, Kapton wire has been a problem, note two avionics cases on this aircraft.
The :45 minute delay between the FDR quitting and the dive strikes me as unlikely that a 'planned' timing was the case. Yes, debate is possible.
In the COPA crash, the NTSB glossed over the fact that the attitude indicator AND compass switches were set to BOTH ON 1, and the pressurization controller indicated an electrical failure and a decompression at their assigned cruise altitude. The 'short' on the attitude indicator also didn't pan out.
Hence my continued distrust of the 'data control.'
In the background is the NTSB willing acceptance of the non-reporting of mechanical failures (estimated 70% non-reporting and selective reporting, additionally)on the FAA's watch - more 'data control.'
While badly dated, the 'Hoot' Gibson 727 tumble, was probably the first rudder actuator hard-over case. A long list of review requests have been denied, despite the glaring coverup.
It has also been established that Boeing and the FAA knew about the rudder control insufficiency on the 737, hence, I'm simply not willing to trust those entities.
Note also that no criminal investigation has been initiated, despite the hundreds of deaths in the 737 crashes and the associated cover-ups.
I remain highly curious, encouraging others to keep asking questions.
Despite the age of the aircraft, Kapton wire has been a problem, note two avionics cases on this aircraft.
The :45 minute delay between the FDR quitting and the dive strikes me as unlikely that a 'planned' timing was the case. Yes, debate is possible.
In the COPA crash, the NTSB glossed over the fact that the attitude indicator AND compass switches were set to BOTH ON 1, and the pressurization controller indicated an electrical failure and a decompression at their assigned cruise altitude. The 'short' on the attitude indicator also didn't pan out.
Hence my continued distrust of the 'data control.'
In the background is the NTSB willing acceptance of the non-reporting of mechanical failures (estimated 70% non-reporting and selective reporting, additionally)on the FAA's watch - more 'data control.'
While badly dated, the 'Hoot' Gibson 727 tumble, was probably the first rudder actuator hard-over case. A long list of review requests have been denied, despite the glaring coverup.
It has also been established that Boeing and the FAA knew about the rudder control insufficiency on the 737, hence, I'm simply not willing to trust those entities.
Note also that no criminal investigation has been initiated, despite the hundreds of deaths in the 737 crashes and the associated cover-ups.
I remain highly curious, encouraging others to keep asking questions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Skydrifter,
WSSS has got it right although the actual time interval between stoppage of the DFDR and starting of the dive was 1 min 10 seconds.
Other posts have addressed all of your concerns and pointed out the 99.99% fact that this crash was pilot intended and pilot induced.
Please explain your claims of cover-ups in the other 737 accidents where, by the way, FDRs and CVRs continued to operate perfectly.
Are you really that thick or are you simply refuting intelligent opinions and facts out of hand? If so, why?
WSSS has got it right although the actual time interval between stoppage of the DFDR and starting of the dive was 1 min 10 seconds.
Other posts have addressed all of your concerns and pointed out the 99.99% fact that this crash was pilot intended and pilot induced.
Please explain your claims of cover-ups in the other 737 accidents where, by the way, FDRs and CVRs continued to operate perfectly.
Are you really that thick or are you simply refuting intelligent opinions and facts out of hand? If so, why?
