Silk Air MI 185
wSherif1 and Pprune Gang: Excuse me for jumping in and asking some questions down below. This is a fascinating debate, and my heart still goes out to Crockett (and the rest), who lost his wife and unborn child in this nightmare, based on what I remember many months ago.
There have often been serious questions raised about some NTSB reports and possible strange omissions. Never mind the FBI agents onboard the first boats to go to the TWA 800 crash scene (long before 9/11), what the military helicopter pilots saw...and mysterious events at the storage center for the crash debris and residue on some aircraft seats. There were also major questions about the Canadian Trans. Boards' various rulings on the Arrow Air DC-8 crash at Gander, Canada; but the controversies over these or other various details are NOT really my main point here.
The possibility that such Transportation Boards for these two nations might exclude or disregard any major facts while arriving at primary causes for aircraft accidents also causes me to wonder about the function of similar Boards of Investigation, especially those in nations which are certainly not a democracy, or any such Board which attempts to operate under a steel-fisted dictatorship. I would be much less convinced by conclusions published by experts working (appointed/re-appointed by?) under such regimes.
One subjective problem in this debate could be the very uncomfortable notion that a regular airline pilot could be (especially before 9/11) so despondent that he could even contemplate bringing down a plane with other people on it, as with the Egyptair flight. I would rather not believe that this were possible-but it is NOT impossible. Did it also happen on the JAL or ANA DC-8 many years ago at ANC? Could the repulsive concept be the motivation for any element(s) in this debate? Could cash be an incentive?
I know one thing-assuming that the Silk Air 737's cruise flight was suddenly upset by either a wingtip vortex or other outside forces, any pilot who is highly skilled and fairly current in aerobatics should be able to fairly quickly recover control of a transport aircraft, and maybe without losing 20,000' (as long as he is not in the lav or too involved with deciphering strange abbreviated NOTAMS or petty arrival and dept notes in Jepps on noise abatement...). And if the rudder actuator suffered a major control problem, as might have been the case with the USAir 737 as with the Eastwinds' (correct name?) 737 over South Carolina (the crew survived to talk about it...) it probably would not have gone straight down. Since suicide/mass murder (no matter how repulsive an idea), in my opinion, explains many of the facts, has the airline there done any covert or overt evaluations of the mental conditions of its pilot staff?
There have often been serious questions raised about some NTSB reports and possible strange omissions. Never mind the FBI agents onboard the first boats to go to the TWA 800 crash scene (long before 9/11), what the military helicopter pilots saw...and mysterious events at the storage center for the crash debris and residue on some aircraft seats. There were also major questions about the Canadian Trans. Boards' various rulings on the Arrow Air DC-8 crash at Gander, Canada; but the controversies over these or other various details are NOT really my main point here.
The possibility that such Transportation Boards for these two nations might exclude or disregard any major facts while arriving at primary causes for aircraft accidents also causes me to wonder about the function of similar Boards of Investigation, especially those in nations which are certainly not a democracy, or any such Board which attempts to operate under a steel-fisted dictatorship. I would be much less convinced by conclusions published by experts working (appointed/re-appointed by?) under such regimes.
One subjective problem in this debate could be the very uncomfortable notion that a regular airline pilot could be (especially before 9/11) so despondent that he could even contemplate bringing down a plane with other people on it, as with the Egyptair flight. I would rather not believe that this were possible-but it is NOT impossible. Did it also happen on the JAL or ANA DC-8 many years ago at ANC? Could the repulsive concept be the motivation for any element(s) in this debate? Could cash be an incentive?
I know one thing-assuming that the Silk Air 737's cruise flight was suddenly upset by either a wingtip vortex or other outside forces, any pilot who is highly skilled and fairly current in aerobatics should be able to fairly quickly recover control of a transport aircraft, and maybe without losing 20,000' (as long as he is not in the lav or too involved with deciphering strange abbreviated NOTAMS or petty arrival and dept notes in Jepps on noise abatement...). And if the rudder actuator suffered a major control problem, as might have been the case with the USAir 737 as with the Eastwinds' (correct name?) 737 over South Carolina (the crew survived to talk about it...) it probably would not have gone straight down. Since suicide/mass murder (no matter how repulsive an idea), in my opinion, explains many of the facts, has the airline there done any covert or overt evaluations of the mental conditions of its pilot staff?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 21st Jul 2003 at 11:36.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition Override
"so despondent that he could even contemplate bringing down a plane with other people on it"
Never forget that this particular individual did not want to kill just himself. He wanted to cause maximum damage to the company. * He was a former golden boy - a local.
* He had been demoted - massive "loss of face."
* His insurance policy had just been activated.
* He had had previous "incidents" with NZ pilots.
He forgot the transponder and failed to realize that the stab trim setting and the deactivation of the auto-throttle system would identify pilot input. Likewise, pulling the CVR & DFDR CBs cast further light on deliberate action. Even the location of the crash is significant, as are the lack of mayday call and lack of code 7700 on the transponder.
It's all there. He should, of course, have been suspended after the infamous CVR CB incident. Then, the crash and loss of innocent lives simply could not have happened.
"so despondent that he could even contemplate bringing down a plane with other people on it"
Never forget that this particular individual did not want to kill just himself. He wanted to cause maximum damage to the company. * He was a former golden boy - a local.
* He had been demoted - massive "loss of face."
* His insurance policy had just been activated.
* He had had previous "incidents" with NZ pilots.
He forgot the transponder and failed to realize that the stab trim setting and the deactivation of the auto-throttle system would identify pilot input. Likewise, pulling the CVR & DFDR CBs cast further light on deliberate action. Even the location of the crash is significant, as are the lack of mayday call and lack of code 7700 on the transponder.
It's all there. He should, of course, have been suspended after the infamous CVR CB incident. Then, the crash and loss of innocent lives simply could not have happened.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition Override: It was a JAl DC-8-61 into Haneda. Pilot ended up surving and was committed I think.
Kaptin M....We actually obtained the sat pics for the time/day and its was basically clear
GT
Kaptin M....We actually obtained the sat pics for the time/day and its was basically clear
GT
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoff
You are correct. From recall it was 1982 or 1983. Capt Katagiri at the ripe old age of 38 decided it was all too much and tried, unsuccessfully, to kill himself. Although he failed, he managed to kill about 23 other people.
Remarkably similar, now that the subject is raised, to the current debate.
Katagiri returned straight back into the LHS of a JAL DC8 after being on sick leave for three months (read mental illness). One check ride and he was let loose on the line. First trip back he acted strangely on the way down to Fukuoka, The F/O and the F/E, both older then Katagiri, did nothing. He called his mother that evening from the hotel in Fukuoka and said he couldn't hack it anymore.
He then jumped back in the LHS the next day and proceeded to try and kill himself. Of course JAL tried to hush it up but as it all happened about 500m from the piano keys, that proved impossible.
For those with suicidal tendencies, an aircraft is a spellbinding environment that leaves tall buildings and railway platforms for dead.
I am sure wsherif1 might have a different explanation which I await with interest.
You are correct. From recall it was 1982 or 1983. Capt Katagiri at the ripe old age of 38 decided it was all too much and tried, unsuccessfully, to kill himself. Although he failed, he managed to kill about 23 other people.
Remarkably similar, now that the subject is raised, to the current debate.
Katagiri returned straight back into the LHS of a JAL DC8 after being on sick leave for three months (read mental illness). One check ride and he was let loose on the line. First trip back he acted strangely on the way down to Fukuoka, The F/O and the F/E, both older then Katagiri, did nothing. He called his mother that evening from the hotel in Fukuoka and said he couldn't hack it anymore.
He then jumped back in the LHS the next day and proceeded to try and kill himself. Of course JAL tried to hush it up but as it all happened about 500m from the piano keys, that proved impossible.
For those with suicidal tendencies, an aircraft is a spellbinding environment that leaves tall buildings and railway platforms for dead.
I am sure wsherif1 might have a different explanation which I await with interest.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traffic,
Your comment,
"I am sure wsherif1 might have a different explanation which I await with interest."
I have no knowledge of the accident you refer to.
Three pilot suicides in a relatively short period of time. Not plausible!
Recent information may suggest that the CVR, FDR were not turned offf!!! In the MI 185 accident!!!
wsherif1
Your comment,
"I am sure wsherif1 might have a different explanation which I await with interest."
I have no knowledge of the accident you refer to.
Three pilot suicides in a relatively short period of time. Not plausible!
Recent information may suggest that the CVR, FDR were not turned offf!!! In the MI 185 accident!!!
wsherif1
wsherif1:
I have been reading your outpourings with ever and ever increasing incredulity and despite the fact that I probably know more about standing wave than you will ever learn, I have so far managed to tell myself to stay out of this idiotic argument.
However, I would like to pick you up on one of your latest stupid utterance:
"3 pilot suicides in a relatively short period of time. Not plausible."
A well-known UK airline, which is very highly respected, had no less than 5 pilots commit suicide in one year (about 20 years ago). Fortunately they all did it away from the aeroplanes that they normally flew.
I knew two of them personally.
Suicide is much more common than you realise. In fact, I reckon you know as much about what makes people tick as you do about what makes aeroplanes tick.
I have been reading your outpourings with ever and ever increasing incredulity and despite the fact that I probably know more about standing wave than you will ever learn, I have so far managed to tell myself to stay out of this idiotic argument.
However, I would like to pick you up on one of your latest stupid utterance:
"3 pilot suicides in a relatively short period of time. Not plausible."
A well-known UK airline, which is very highly respected, had no less than 5 pilots commit suicide in one year (about 20 years ago). Fortunately they all did it away from the aeroplanes that they normally flew.
I knew two of them personally.
Suicide is much more common than you realise. In fact, I reckon you know as much about what makes people tick as you do about what makes aeroplanes tick.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1
I know that I previously said that I'm out of this debate but your following claim should not go unchallenged. It's another cheap attempt at deception such as that published recently in "The New Paper," a daily rag issued in that fine example of democracy, the Republic of Singapore.
Your claim:
"Recent information may suggest that the CVR, FDR were not turned offf!!! In the MI 185 accident!!!"
Please advise the source of your above claim. IF it came from the "New Paper" which, in turn, came from the plaintiffs' attorneys, then it's completely incorrect and you can expect a retraction in the near future.
I can assure you that the power supplies to both CVR & DFDR failed prior to the aircraft leaving 35000' and, in the case of the CVR, tests confirmed that this loss of power was not due to a power surge or an overheat. In neither case was there a power failure to the bus that supplied power to each recorder. Are you even aware that the captain had deliberately pulled the CVR CB on an earlier occasion, also with a NZ first officer?
It may well be in your interests to become familiar with the JAL crash (not accident), similar ones in Morocco and Botswana, and, of course, Egyptair and SilkAir. By the way, are you aware that Egyptair has finally accepted legal responsibility for the B767 crash?
I do not know about other cases that you quote but you have been quite incorrect in your claims regarding this one.
I know that I previously said that I'm out of this debate but your following claim should not go unchallenged. It's another cheap attempt at deception such as that published recently in "The New Paper," a daily rag issued in that fine example of democracy, the Republic of Singapore.
Your claim:
"Recent information may suggest that the CVR, FDR were not turned offf!!! In the MI 185 accident!!!"
Please advise the source of your above claim. IF it came from the "New Paper" which, in turn, came from the plaintiffs' attorneys, then it's completely incorrect and you can expect a retraction in the near future.
I can assure you that the power supplies to both CVR & DFDR failed prior to the aircraft leaving 35000' and, in the case of the CVR, tests confirmed that this loss of power was not due to a power surge or an overheat. In neither case was there a power failure to the bus that supplied power to each recorder. Are you even aware that the captain had deliberately pulled the CVR CB on an earlier occasion, also with a NZ first officer?
It may well be in your interests to become familiar with the JAL crash (not accident), similar ones in Morocco and Botswana, and, of course, Egyptair and SilkAir. By the way, are you aware that Egyptair has finally accepted legal responsibility for the B767 crash?
I do not know about other cases that you quote but you have been quite incorrect in your claims regarding this one.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411,
Your comments,
"A well-known UK airline, which is very highly respected, had no less than 5 pilots commit suicide in one year (about 20 years ago). Fortunately they all did it away from the aeroplanes that they normally flew."
Of course I was referring to supposed pilot suicides via aircraft!
SilkAir MI 185, EgyptAir 990, Royal Air Maroc ATR 42.
Your comments,
"A well-known UK airline, which is very highly respected, had no less than 5 pilots commit suicide in one year (about 20 years ago). Fortunately they all did it away from the aeroplanes that they normally flew."
Of course I was referring to supposed pilot suicides via aircraft!
SilkAir MI 185, EgyptAir 990, Royal Air Maroc ATR 42.
Last edited by wsherif1; 16th Jul 2003 at 04:44.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
wsherif1 said, "The probable cause of the MI 185 accident was... along with erroneous flight instrument indications. due to wind shear across the pitot-static sensors.
Again, wsherif1 - would you care to specify precisely which instrument(s) you are referring to, please.
Again, wsherif1 - would you care to specify precisely which instrument(s) you are referring to, please.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAL DC-8-61: It was indeed a suicide attempt....everyone agreed on that. The pilots fought to regain control and luckily for those who survived it was the sea approach to Haneda.
GT.
GT.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Agde
Age: 75
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
either wsherif1 is bonkers or he cant understand what is being written by others. He must be a "laksa" man
next , he may say that eye witnesses saw MI 185 pitch up and roll!!!!
next , he may say that eye witnesses saw MI 185 pitch up and roll!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 75 DME on the 198 radial Left FL 230
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wsherif1
I am a military trained pilot (though clearly not as old or bold as you are), as was the AC in this case. Given my training was in a different country than this case, Right from the very beginning of IF phase I was trained in the phenomenon you so eloquently cut and paste here. I have even had the misfortune of experiencing it in flight in an aircraft with significant -G issues (teetering head RW type). I would imagine any pilot with significant IF experience (especially one with a formation / display aerobatics background) would be well aware of what I consider fairly common instrument errors. Aware enough to be able to sort it out in 20000' feet or so on a CAVOK day.
As someone else put it Power + Attitude = performance. Full power + Windscreen full of green does not equal recovery from an Unusual Attitude.
Now lets assume for a minute that you are a military pilot (benefit of the doubt) with a few log books full of experience can you honestly say that 2 experienced pilots (one of who was used to being upside down and recovering from UA's) sat there and let it happen? without even making an impact on the aircrafts trajectory? Maybe they were too busy trying to work out what those circuit breakers did?
I am a military trained pilot (though clearly not as old or bold as you are), as was the AC in this case. Given my training was in a different country than this case, Right from the very beginning of IF phase I was trained in the phenomenon you so eloquently cut and paste here. I have even had the misfortune of experiencing it in flight in an aircraft with significant -G issues (teetering head RW type). I would imagine any pilot with significant IF experience (especially one with a formation / display aerobatics background) would be well aware of what I consider fairly common instrument errors. Aware enough to be able to sort it out in 20000' feet or so on a CAVOK day.
As someone else put it Power + Attitude = performance. Full power + Windscreen full of green does not equal recovery from an Unusual Attitude.
Now lets assume for a minute that you are a military pilot (benefit of the doubt) with a few log books full of experience can you honestly say that 2 experienced pilots (one of who was used to being upside down and recovering from UA's) sat there and let it happen? without even making an impact on the aircrafts trajectory? Maybe they were too busy trying to work out what those circuit breakers did?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gymposh,
Your comment,
"Can you honestly say that 2 experienced pilots (one of who was used to being upside down and recovering from UA's) sat there and let it happen? without even making an impact on the aircrafts trajectory?"
Yes, We are talking about a MASSIVE aircraft structure in a vertical dive, after the upset, (in a free fall, no lift, no drag). Accelerating at the rate of G instantaneously, the aircraft rapidly reaches velocities precluding a safe recovery. e.g., NWA 705, EgyptAir 990, COPA 185, all broke up in the air. Yes I know, you will tell me theywere all pilot suicides.
As NWA Captain Paul Soderlind says in his FSB 3-63, "When flying in turbulence you must keep the aircraft level!!!
Paul was Chief Pilot-Technical for NWA and received 8 awards for his contributations to air safety. He developed the Airspeed Bug System and the Turbulence Plot. He died in December, 2000.
I put in 8 years in Naval Carrier Operations, (F6F, F4U, F8F)
Fraternally
Your comment,
"Can you honestly say that 2 experienced pilots (one of who was used to being upside down and recovering from UA's) sat there and let it happen? without even making an impact on the aircrafts trajectory?"
Yes, We are talking about a MASSIVE aircraft structure in a vertical dive, after the upset, (in a free fall, no lift, no drag). Accelerating at the rate of G instantaneously, the aircraft rapidly reaches velocities precluding a safe recovery. e.g., NWA 705, EgyptAir 990, COPA 185, all broke up in the air. Yes I know, you will tell me theywere all pilot suicides.
As NWA Captain Paul Soderlind says in his FSB 3-63, "When flying in turbulence you must keep the aircraft level!!!
Paul was Chief Pilot-Technical for NWA and received 8 awards for his contributations to air safety. He developed the Airspeed Bug System and the Turbulence Plot. He died in December, 2000.
I put in 8 years in Naval Carrier Operations, (F6F, F4U, F8F)
Fraternally
Last edited by wsherif1; 18th Jul 2003 at 14:17.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why wont any of you listen to wsherif1?
As NWA Captain Paul Soderlind says in his FSB 3-63, "When flying in turbulence, immediately disarm the DFDR. The very next action must be to disarm the CVR. In the next chapter we will move on to power and stab trim settings.......!!!
Paul was Chief Pilot-Technical for NWA and received 8 awards for his contributations to air safety. He developed the Airspeed Bug System and the Turbulence Plot. He died in December, 2000.
I can't understand the continuing debate on this. Why go on about it? Haven't you heard about NWA Captain Paul Soderlind? (Paul was Chief Pilot-Technical for NWA and received 8 awards for his contributations to air safety. He developed the Airspeed Bug System and the Turbulence Plot. He died in December, 2000.)
I think some people need to take off their blinkers, and look at
all the factors involved.
ps. Do you think if I mention Mr Soderlind's qualifications a few more times, it will strengthen my argument?
As NWA Captain Paul Soderlind says in his FSB 3-63, "When flying in turbulence, immediately disarm the DFDR. The very next action must be to disarm the CVR. In the next chapter we will move on to power and stab trim settings.......!!!
Paul was Chief Pilot-Technical for NWA and received 8 awards for his contributations to air safety. He developed the Airspeed Bug System and the Turbulence Plot. He died in December, 2000.
I can't understand the continuing debate on this. Why go on about it? Haven't you heard about NWA Captain Paul Soderlind? (Paul was Chief Pilot-Technical for NWA and received 8 awards for his contributations to air safety. He developed the Airspeed Bug System and the Turbulence Plot. He died in December, 2000.)
I think some people need to take off their blinkers, and look at
all the factors involved.
ps. Do you think if I mention Mr Soderlind's qualifications a few more times, it will strengthen my argument?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As NWA Captain Paul Soderlind says in his FSB 3-63, "When flying in turbulence you must keep the aircraft level!!!
unfortunately, he did not say that " the captain's head should have been level"
why else would he "switch off" DFDR and CVR CBs, the autopilot, the A/T, and then push the thrust levers full forward, stab trim full nose down. Maybe, if he had his head level, he would have remembered to switch off the transponder as well!!!
wsherif1, give us a break. In one of your earlier postings, you mentioned " just trying to save a few lives". Do that and shut up.
the captain of 185 did just the opposite
unfortunately, he did not say that " the captain's head should have been level"
why else would he "switch off" DFDR and CVR CBs, the autopilot, the A/T, and then push the thrust levers full forward, stab trim full nose down. Maybe, if he had his head level, he would have remembered to switch off the transponder as well!!!
wsherif1, give us a break. In one of your earlier postings, you mentioned " just trying to save a few lives". Do that and shut up.
the captain of 185 did just the opposite