End of the line for Silk Air MI185 legal action?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
End of the line for Silk Air MI185 legal action?
From AP:
"A relative of two victims in a SilkAir plane crash -- which was dogged by speculation of pilot suicide -- said Wednesday that plaintiffs had lost their final appeal in a lawsuit against the airline and that they may have to pay the airline's legal costs.
"We will probably have to pay and we will not find the truth and we will not get justice,'' said 39-year-old American Thomas Oey, who lost his mother, Bernice Oey, and brother, Jonathan Oey, in the crash.
All 104 people aboard SilkAir flight MI185 died when the Boeing 737 nose-dived into a river on Indonesia's Sumatra island in 1997.
Families of six of the victims sued SilkAir, claiming the crash was likely caused by "willful misconduct or default'' by the pilot or negligence by the airline, though the families weren't seeking specific damages. Most of the other victims' families accepted compensation of dlrs 200,000 per victim and did not sue.
The final judgment in the lawsuit is being prepared by court officials and is expected to be released to the public Thursday, Supreme Court official Jenny Ng said. Ng would not confirm that the plaintiffs had lost their appeal.
The judgment was not read out in open court. Oey was informed of the judgment by his lawyer late Wednesday.
The six families who sued lost a lawsuit last year against SilkAir, the regional arm of national flag carrier Singapore Airlines, after the families' lawyers failed to prove that the pilot deliberately crashed the plane.
This was their final appeal.
According to the judgment, the families will have to pay SilkAir's legal fees if the airline requests it, Oey said.
Official Indonesian investigators said there was not enough evidence to determine the cause of the crash. But U.S. investigators said pilot suicide and murder were likely to blame.
Lawyers for the victims' families argued in court that flight MI185's pilot, Singaporean Tsu Way Ming, should not have been allowed to fly because he had a history of safety breaches. The plane's data and cockpit voice recorders stopped working moments before the crash. Tsu had turned off a recorder on an earlier flight after a dispute with his co-pilot.
The plaintiffs in the case are from Singapore, Malaysia, the United States and Britain, and include parents, children and spouses of those killed in the crash.
The plane crashed during a flight from Jakarta to Singapore on Dec. 19, 1997. It was SilkAir's first and only crash."
"A relative of two victims in a SilkAir plane crash -- which was dogged by speculation of pilot suicide -- said Wednesday that plaintiffs had lost their final appeal in a lawsuit against the airline and that they may have to pay the airline's legal costs.
"We will probably have to pay and we will not find the truth and we will not get justice,'' said 39-year-old American Thomas Oey, who lost his mother, Bernice Oey, and brother, Jonathan Oey, in the crash.
All 104 people aboard SilkAir flight MI185 died when the Boeing 737 nose-dived into a river on Indonesia's Sumatra island in 1997.
Families of six of the victims sued SilkAir, claiming the crash was likely caused by "willful misconduct or default'' by the pilot or negligence by the airline, though the families weren't seeking specific damages. Most of the other victims' families accepted compensation of dlrs 200,000 per victim and did not sue.
The final judgment in the lawsuit is being prepared by court officials and is expected to be released to the public Thursday, Supreme Court official Jenny Ng said. Ng would not confirm that the plaintiffs had lost their appeal.
The judgment was not read out in open court. Oey was informed of the judgment by his lawyer late Wednesday.
The six families who sued lost a lawsuit last year against SilkAir, the regional arm of national flag carrier Singapore Airlines, after the families' lawyers failed to prove that the pilot deliberately crashed the plane.
This was their final appeal.
According to the judgment, the families will have to pay SilkAir's legal fees if the airline requests it, Oey said.
Official Indonesian investigators said there was not enough evidence to determine the cause of the crash. But U.S. investigators said pilot suicide and murder were likely to blame.
Lawyers for the victims' families argued in court that flight MI185's pilot, Singaporean Tsu Way Ming, should not have been allowed to fly because he had a history of safety breaches. The plane's data and cockpit voice recorders stopped working moments before the crash. Tsu had turned off a recorder on an earlier flight after a dispute with his co-pilot.
The plaintiffs in the case are from Singapore, Malaysia, the United States and Britain, and include parents, children and spouses of those killed in the crash.
The plane crashed during a flight from Jakarta to Singapore on Dec. 19, 1997. It was SilkAir's first and only crash."
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I am not, in any way, legally trained I am wary of venturing into legal arguments but in this case, I think, no matter where in the World this "accident" had happened, it still could not beproved beyond reasonable doubt that it was murder.
Quite what level of proof is required for damages to be awarded in a civil suit I don't know but I suspect, (once again, anywhere in the World), this requirement could not be met on the acceptable evidence available.
All very sad as there is little doubt in most people's minds of what did happen. IMHO.
Quite what level of proof is required for damages to be awarded in a civil suit I don't know but I suspect, (once again, anywhere in the World), this requirement could not be met on the acceptable evidence available.
All very sad as there is little doubt in most people's minds of what did happen. IMHO.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Singapore
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Straits Times 16th May 2002
Families of six SilkAir crash victims lose appeal
THE Court of Appeal has thrown out the suit of the families of six people who perished in the SilkAir crash in Palembang in 1997.
It said there was nothing suspicious about the background or behaviour of the pilots of MI 185 that suggested they may have crashed the plane intentionally.
In dismissing the appeal, it reiterated what the High Court had found in October last year: That the families had failed to prove that Captain Tsu Way Ming had deliberately caused the Boeing 737 to crash into Sumatra's Musi River during a flight from Jakarta to Singapore.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How noted in a written ruling made public yesterday that the pilot had a nett worth of more than $580,000 at the time of the crash despite suffering stock market losses. His behaviour was also normal before the crash.
CJ Yong added that the families, represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, had also 'exaggerated' the seriousness of three disciplinary incidents in the pilot's career.
He also said that MI 185's co-pilot, First Officer Duncan Ward, did not have any financial or disciplinary problems and had behaved normally before the crash.
The court - also comprising Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justice Judith Prakash - noted that the facts available on the cause of the crash were limited.
It was therefore unable to say whether the pilots had been guilty of wilful misconduct or were reckless.
As no one knew the situation which the pilots faced, it was very difficult to 'appreciate the decisions which they had to make and the risks appurtenant to each choice'.
For instance, given that the aircraft had deviated from its normal path when it dived into the river, simulators cannot replicate fully its motions.
Nor was it safe to conclude that the pilots had set the stabiliser trim, which controls the up-down movement, to cause the plane to dive steeply, as the device's readings could have moved during the crash.
CJ Yong said that the families, who had refused the airline's $332,000 compensation offer for each of their deceased relative, bore the burden of proving their case on a balance of probabilities. Their task was not just to disprove SilkAir's theories about the crash or to show that their explanations were more believable than the airline's.
'It is understandable if relatives and friends of the deceased are frustrated that lengthy investigations and a full-blown trial have yielded no conclusive cause.
'But a court of law cannot ignore the relevant substantive law and rules of evidence in order to offer what may be a false sense of closure,' said the CJ.
The court then ruled that SilkAir, represented by lawyer Lok Vi Ming, was now entitled to limit the compensation to the families to US$75,000 (S$135,750), under the terms of the Warsaw Convention, which limits the amount of compensation for air crashes.
One of the plaintiffs, Mr Thomas Oey, 39, a lecturer at a Baptist seminary, who lost his mother Berenice Braislin Oey, 71, and brother Jonathan Edward Oey, 39, said: 'I'm disappointed, but there's nothing that can be done.'
Also expressing disappointment, Dr Roy Joseph, 53, who lost his brother John, 45, in the crash, said: 'Nevertheless, we are pleased with the wealth of vital information we have obtained through the trial and the appeal.'
Families of six SilkAir crash victims lose appeal
THE Court of Appeal has thrown out the suit of the families of six people who perished in the SilkAir crash in Palembang in 1997.
It said there was nothing suspicious about the background or behaviour of the pilots of MI 185 that suggested they may have crashed the plane intentionally.
In dismissing the appeal, it reiterated what the High Court had found in October last year: That the families had failed to prove that Captain Tsu Way Ming had deliberately caused the Boeing 737 to crash into Sumatra's Musi River during a flight from Jakarta to Singapore.
Chief Justice Yong Pung How noted in a written ruling made public yesterday that the pilot had a nett worth of more than $580,000 at the time of the crash despite suffering stock market losses. His behaviour was also normal before the crash.
CJ Yong added that the families, represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, had also 'exaggerated' the seriousness of three disciplinary incidents in the pilot's career.
He also said that MI 185's co-pilot, First Officer Duncan Ward, did not have any financial or disciplinary problems and had behaved normally before the crash.
The court - also comprising Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justice Judith Prakash - noted that the facts available on the cause of the crash were limited.
It was therefore unable to say whether the pilots had been guilty of wilful misconduct or were reckless.
As no one knew the situation which the pilots faced, it was very difficult to 'appreciate the decisions which they had to make and the risks appurtenant to each choice'.
For instance, given that the aircraft had deviated from its normal path when it dived into the river, simulators cannot replicate fully its motions.
Nor was it safe to conclude that the pilots had set the stabiliser trim, which controls the up-down movement, to cause the plane to dive steeply, as the device's readings could have moved during the crash.
CJ Yong said that the families, who had refused the airline's $332,000 compensation offer for each of their deceased relative, bore the burden of proving their case on a balance of probabilities. Their task was not just to disprove SilkAir's theories about the crash or to show that their explanations were more believable than the airline's.
'It is understandable if relatives and friends of the deceased are frustrated that lengthy investigations and a full-blown trial have yielded no conclusive cause.
'But a court of law cannot ignore the relevant substantive law and rules of evidence in order to offer what may be a false sense of closure,' said the CJ.
The court then ruled that SilkAir, represented by lawyer Lok Vi Ming, was now entitled to limit the compensation to the families to US$75,000 (S$135,750), under the terms of the Warsaw Convention, which limits the amount of compensation for air crashes.
One of the plaintiffs, Mr Thomas Oey, 39, a lecturer at a Baptist seminary, who lost his mother Berenice Braislin Oey, 71, and brother Jonathan Edward Oey, 39, said: 'I'm disappointed, but there's nothing that can be done.'
Also expressing disappointment, Dr Roy Joseph, 53, who lost his brother John, 45, in the crash, said: 'Nevertheless, we are pleased with the wealth of vital information we have obtained through the trial and the appeal.'
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the same country where the ruling "democratic" political elite use the same courts to wax rich on the "opposition" party or individuals who dare to criticise or question their actions.
The same country where the Govt either own or control everything.
It would be brave justice indeed to suggest other than the received local wisdom.
One would hope that even if they will not publically admit what is obvious to most including the certifying country, that they would at least take it on board. Sadly the evidence suggests otherwise.
I guess this means no more Singapore holidays for me now.
The same country where the Govt either own or control everything.
It would be brave justice indeed to suggest other than the received local wisdom.
One would hope that even if they will not publically admit what is obvious to most including the certifying country, that they would at least take it on board. Sadly the evidence suggests otherwise.
I guess this means no more Singapore holidays for me now.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re the Straits Times of 16th May 2002, and only but a couple of the reported aspects of the MI 185 decision:
"It (the Court of Appeal) said there was nothing suspicious about the background or behaviour of the pilots of MI 185 that suggested they may have crashed the plane intentionally."
Comment: Nothing suspicious?? Really?
"Chief Justice Yong Pung How noted in a written ruling made public yesterday that ... his (the pilot's) behaviour was also normal before the crash."
Comment: Just what evidence did the Singapore Chief Justice have to conclude that the pilot's behaviour was normal before the crash (impact)?? I would suggest that following the flight's departure - none!
.... there are none so blind as those who will not see!
"It (the Court of Appeal) said there was nothing suspicious about the background or behaviour of the pilots of MI 185 that suggested they may have crashed the plane intentionally."
Comment: Nothing suspicious?? Really?
"Chief Justice Yong Pung How noted in a written ruling made public yesterday that ... his (the pilot's) behaviour was also normal before the crash."
Comment: Just what evidence did the Singapore Chief Justice have to conclude that the pilot's behaviour was normal before the crash (impact)?? I would suggest that following the flight's departure - none!
.... there are none so blind as those who will not see!
Having been present at the earlier court case it was obvious from day one that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. The astoundingly wild evidence from Silk Air reps that passed for technical fact was instantly accepted as the right answer by the judiciary. All contrary technical evidence offered by the plaintiffs reps was treated with scorn - despite much of it being in full technical accord with the US NTSB findings of deliberate control manipulations to put the aircraft into a terminal dive.
There was surprise in some quarters that an Appeal was mounted because the politics of the place would have dictated that an Appeal was a gamble that had no real hope of success.
There was surprise in some quarters that an Appeal was mounted because the politics of the place would have dictated that an Appeal was a gamble that had no real hope of success.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Singapore
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Straits Times
19th May 2002
SILKAIR CRASH
Fighting the case was 'worthwhile'
Man who lost his mother and younger brother gave up larger compensation to 'know the truth'
By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT
MR THOMAS Oey, 39, could have obtained $664,000 as compensation for the deaths of his mother and younger brother in the 1997 SilkAir crash.
He declined and chose to fight the airline.
He is the poorer for it - money-wise. And richer too - for the wealth of information that the trials threw up. In the end, it was a 'worthwhile cause', he said.
All 104 crew and passengers on board perished when the Boeing 737 plunged into the Musi River near Palembang, Sumatra, on Dec 19, 1997.
Mr Oey and four other families took their claim, that the pilots were guilty of wilful misconduct and had recklessly caused the crash, right up to the Court of Appeal - and lost it on Wednesday.
The Court of Appeal decided that SilkAir would compensate each family US$75,000, under the Warsaw Convention which sets the limit of the compensation for air crashes.
This is much lower than what SilkAir offered midway through the High Court trial - $332,000 compensation for each relative who died in the crash.
And Mr Oey believes that the US$75,000 compensation will be 'wiped out' soon, given that the families were also ordered to pay SilkAir legal costs.
He does not know what that would actually amount to, but a hefty sum looks likely, given the extensive legal work done by the airline's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, and his team to fight the case as well as experts brought in as witnesses.
He estimates his own legal costs to be $80,000, and the insurance paid out from the deaths of his mother and brother will help foot the bill.
The families' lawyer was Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, who brought in aviation experts such as Australian flight-safety consultant MacArthur Job as well as Captain Maurie Baston, a former aerobatic display pilot and flying instructor in the Royal Australian Air Force.
But Mr Oey stressed that money was not the main reason he chose to fight the case. 'The main reason was to let the public know the truth... My purpose is to establish the truth and to address aviation safety.'
He and the other families wanted more information about the cause of the crash, which was investigated by the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee.
It had said in its report that the cause of the crash could not be determined because of a lack of evidence as a result of the near-total destruction of the plane.
'The Indonesian investigator of the crash did not respond to the requests of family members to meet them to explain the final report. So, there was a lot of technical information which was explained during the course of the trial which we would never have understood otherwise,' said Mr Oey.
For instance, he said, expert witnesses told the court how the stabiliser trim, which controls the up and down movements of the plane, had to be held for 10 seconds for the plane to dive steeply and crash, showing that there was intentional pilot action.
But whether the pilot had intentionally caused the plane to crash was a different matter - and that was what the families believed, even though they knew it would be hard to prove it.
'The problem is it was considered a murder-suicide case, which required it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But we were not trying to prove it beyond reasonable doubt but as a balance of probabilities.'
In Mr Oey's eyes, their case fell because Singapore's Criminal Investigation Department found it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a motive for the pilot, Captain Tsu Way Ming, to crash the plane deliberately.
The court ruled that the pilot had no reason to do so despite losing on the stock market, as he had a nett worth of more than $580,000 at the time of the crash.
Since the crash, Mr Oey, an American who is a Singapore permanent resident and a lecturer with the Baptist Theological Seminary, has been working hard to promote aviation safety.
He has written to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore several times with his recommendations on how to improve air safety.
Some of his suggestions included installing video cameras in cockpits so that pilots and co-pilots could be monitored visually on film in case of emergencies, ensuring that cockpit recorders are 'tamper-resistant', and conducting psychological tests for pilots.
Mr Oey added that if money was the driving force of the court action, he would have taken the fight to the United States where some families sued Boeing, the plane manufacturer, claiming that mechanical failure and not pilot action had caused the crash.
Some American lawyers have claimed they could get at least US$1 million (S$1.8 million) in compensation if they won their case.
Mr Oey had joined the families who sued Boeing, but he dropped out because he was convinced that it was not mechanical failure that caused the crash.
Of his move, he said: 'I don't regret it.'
For Mr Oey, the crash which took the lives of his mother Berenice, 71, and brother Jonathan, 39, was difficult to bear.
He was to have been on the plane too, but he had to stay in Indonesia for two more weeks to attend a friend's wedding.
Asked if there was closure for him now that the case has ended, Mr Oey said: 'Ask me in two years' time. I'll just continue with my work and live from day to day.'
19th May 2002
SILKAIR CRASH
Fighting the case was 'worthwhile'
Man who lost his mother and younger brother gave up larger compensation to 'know the truth'
By Alethea Lim
COURT CORRESPONDENT
MR THOMAS Oey, 39, could have obtained $664,000 as compensation for the deaths of his mother and younger brother in the 1997 SilkAir crash.
He declined and chose to fight the airline.
He is the poorer for it - money-wise. And richer too - for the wealth of information that the trials threw up. In the end, it was a 'worthwhile cause', he said.
All 104 crew and passengers on board perished when the Boeing 737 plunged into the Musi River near Palembang, Sumatra, on Dec 19, 1997.
Mr Oey and four other families took their claim, that the pilots were guilty of wilful misconduct and had recklessly caused the crash, right up to the Court of Appeal - and lost it on Wednesday.
The Court of Appeal decided that SilkAir would compensate each family US$75,000, under the Warsaw Convention which sets the limit of the compensation for air crashes.
This is much lower than what SilkAir offered midway through the High Court trial - $332,000 compensation for each relative who died in the crash.
And Mr Oey believes that the US$75,000 compensation will be 'wiped out' soon, given that the families were also ordered to pay SilkAir legal costs.
He does not know what that would actually amount to, but a hefty sum looks likely, given the extensive legal work done by the airline's lawyer, Mr Lok Vi Ming, and his team to fight the case as well as experts brought in as witnesses.
He estimates his own legal costs to be $80,000, and the insurance paid out from the deaths of his mother and brother will help foot the bill.
The families' lawyer was Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, who brought in aviation experts such as Australian flight-safety consultant MacArthur Job as well as Captain Maurie Baston, a former aerobatic display pilot and flying instructor in the Royal Australian Air Force.
But Mr Oey stressed that money was not the main reason he chose to fight the case. 'The main reason was to let the public know the truth... My purpose is to establish the truth and to address aviation safety.'
He and the other families wanted more information about the cause of the crash, which was investigated by the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee.
It had said in its report that the cause of the crash could not be determined because of a lack of evidence as a result of the near-total destruction of the plane.
'The Indonesian investigator of the crash did not respond to the requests of family members to meet them to explain the final report. So, there was a lot of technical information which was explained during the course of the trial which we would never have understood otherwise,' said Mr Oey.
For instance, he said, expert witnesses told the court how the stabiliser trim, which controls the up and down movements of the plane, had to be held for 10 seconds for the plane to dive steeply and crash, showing that there was intentional pilot action.
But whether the pilot had intentionally caused the plane to crash was a different matter - and that was what the families believed, even though they knew it would be hard to prove it.
'The problem is it was considered a murder-suicide case, which required it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But we were not trying to prove it beyond reasonable doubt but as a balance of probabilities.'
In Mr Oey's eyes, their case fell because Singapore's Criminal Investigation Department found it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a motive for the pilot, Captain Tsu Way Ming, to crash the plane deliberately.
The court ruled that the pilot had no reason to do so despite losing on the stock market, as he had a nett worth of more than $580,000 at the time of the crash.
Since the crash, Mr Oey, an American who is a Singapore permanent resident and a lecturer with the Baptist Theological Seminary, has been working hard to promote aviation safety.
He has written to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore several times with his recommendations on how to improve air safety.
Some of his suggestions included installing video cameras in cockpits so that pilots and co-pilots could be monitored visually on film in case of emergencies, ensuring that cockpit recorders are 'tamper-resistant', and conducting psychological tests for pilots.
Mr Oey added that if money was the driving force of the court action, he would have taken the fight to the United States where some families sued Boeing, the plane manufacturer, claiming that mechanical failure and not pilot action had caused the crash.
Some American lawyers have claimed they could get at least US$1 million (S$1.8 million) in compensation if they won their case.
Mr Oey had joined the families who sued Boeing, but he dropped out because he was convinced that it was not mechanical failure that caused the crash.
Of his move, he said: 'I don't regret it.'
For Mr Oey, the crash which took the lives of his mother Berenice, 71, and brother Jonathan, 39, was difficult to bear.
He was to have been on the plane too, but he had to stay in Indonesia for two more weeks to attend a friend's wedding.
Asked if there was closure for him now that the case has ended, Mr Oey said: 'Ask me in two years' time. I'll just continue with my work and live from day to day.'
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: runway to runway
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im no legal expert (if i used to be a lawyer id never admit it), i understand this court case was in sin. if so what were they thinking, suing in this 'democratic island'. they must have known they wouldnt win. question: couldnt they sue in uk, or aus.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we not surprised? The land of the great untruths wins yet again. Facts are changed to protect the guilty and prevent that incredible loss of face. THAT remains the greatest threat to aviation in Asia. What an absolute and utter disgrace!
