Silk Air MI 185
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 75 DME on the 198 radial Left FL 230
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF??????????????? Um did I miss something in the last 15 years????????
"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. "
We are talking about a MASSIVE aircraft structure
They all still handle the same (at least all the controls work the same) before the upset as they did after (even the sim ones)
No Lift
There were plenty of V Square’s going over the wings and the report (which I took the time to read) said the wings were still attached to the fuselage. In a vertical dive the AoA should be something less than that which produces a full stall. Perhaps you meant no vertical component of lift??
No Drag
??????? Quick someone tell NASA hell better phone Boeing first though they may have come up with a way to save millions in fuel bills and can reduce the cost of building ACFT. Do you even understand the concept of drag? If the ACFT was accelerating does drag not go up by a factor of 3?
Accelerating at the rate of G instantaneously
So is it accelerating or does it get there instantaneously??
The aircraft rapidly reaches velocities precluding a safe recovery.
I agree!! A "safe" recovery but that does not stop the crew from trying!!! or did the missing CVR transcript go like this!
P1 Oh well vertical dive nothing we can do now you pull the breakers I will start the stopwatch.
P2 OK and don't forget to make sure the XPDR is on, damn everything was going so well too wish there was something we could do. You know I remember Paul Soderlind said something about this wish I could remember what it was. Oh not to matter.
By thew way my job really is about saving lives.
"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. "
We are talking about a MASSIVE aircraft structure
They all still handle the same (at least all the controls work the same) before the upset as they did after (even the sim ones)
No Lift
There were plenty of V Square’s going over the wings and the report (which I took the time to read) said the wings were still attached to the fuselage. In a vertical dive the AoA should be something less than that which produces a full stall. Perhaps you meant no vertical component of lift??
No Drag
??????? Quick someone tell NASA hell better phone Boeing first though they may have come up with a way to save millions in fuel bills and can reduce the cost of building ACFT. Do you even understand the concept of drag? If the ACFT was accelerating does drag not go up by a factor of 3?
Accelerating at the rate of G instantaneously
So is it accelerating or does it get there instantaneously??
The aircraft rapidly reaches velocities precluding a safe recovery.
I agree!! A "safe" recovery but that does not stop the crew from trying!!! or did the missing CVR transcript go like this!
P1 Oh well vertical dive nothing we can do now you pull the breakers I will start the stopwatch.
P2 OK and don't forget to make sure the XPDR is on, damn everything was going so well too wish there was something we could do. You know I remember Paul Soderlind said something about this wish I could remember what it was. Oh not to matter.
By thew way my job really is about saving lives.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re wsherif1
Was he ever anything other than a smokescreen? And a pretty poor one at that.
One positive point, however, was that he DID bring out all the reactions and that managed to keep this whole disgraceful cover-up in pprune headlines. Thanks, wsherif1.
Was he ever anything other than a smokescreen? And a pretty poor one at that.
One positive point, however, was that he DID bring out all the reactions and that managed to keep this whole disgraceful cover-up in pprune headlines. Thanks, wsherif1.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thanks also to Danny and the rest of the PPRuNe moderators who have allowed this topic to continue in its entirity.
The findings of probale cause(s) of the crash of MI 185 - a B737 scheduled flight operated by Singapore Airlines subsidiary Silk Air - have clearly been subverted in the light of evidence that has never been made public by the companies.
Possibly ONLY for commercial reasons - GREED.
Some of the contributors to this thread have an intimate knowledge of the FACTUAL findings (no I'm not one of those) and they have presented them here for public exposure. Additionally, there is almost no amount of uncertainty amongst the local Singaporean Silk Air flight and cabin crews about the cause of the crash.
Tsu's behaviour did not go unnoticed.
The cover-up does nothing to promote Singapore's reputation of being an open society, but instead promotes the Lyin' City (a bastardisation of The Lion City) tag, and puts those who try to conceal the truth in the same category as the Chinese who lied and denied the SARS outbreak in China, until it was no longer able to be contained.
The findings of probale cause(s) of the crash of MI 185 - a B737 scheduled flight operated by Singapore Airlines subsidiary Silk Air - have clearly been subverted in the light of evidence that has never been made public by the companies.
Possibly ONLY for commercial reasons - GREED.
Some of the contributors to this thread have an intimate knowledge of the FACTUAL findings (no I'm not one of those) and they have presented them here for public exposure. Additionally, there is almost no amount of uncertainty amongst the local Singaporean Silk Air flight and cabin crews about the cause of the crash.
Tsu's behaviour did not go unnoticed.
The cover-up does nothing to promote Singapore's reputation of being an open society, but instead promotes the Lyin' City (a bastardisation of The Lion City) tag, and puts those who try to conceal the truth in the same category as the Chinese who lied and denied the SARS outbreak in China, until it was no longer able to be contained.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anatomy of a Pitchup:
I was in a Boeing 707 at 37,000 feet, in the clear above thunderstorm activity. First updraft, I knocked off the auto-pilot. Second updraft, aircraft pitched up 25 to 35 degrees. Resultant relative wind from strong updraft and aircraft's velocity increased the angle of attack and the lift, moving the center of lift forward on the swept wing, pulling the nose up. Because of the relative wind direction little or no increase in aircraft load factor, therefore little loss of kinetic energy! Aircraft continued on projected flight path, in this attitude, with no iminent stall threat. Both pilots' looking out the windows at a visual horizon were not affected by flight instrument readings. Eased the nose back down to the visual horizon and continued on course.
NWA 705 pitchup. Boeing 720B (8 feet shorter than a 707, thus more susceptible to a pitchup (shorter moment arm). Aircraft pitched up to about 35 degrees. Pilot applied forward pitch control with little effect, (strong updraft). Trimmed the horizontal stabilizer full nose down. When the aircraft exited the updraft and returned to normal relative wind conditions, the aircraft pitched over into a vertical dive. The aircraft came apart in the air.
Subsequent examination of the gyros showed severe impact damage to the nose down stops, from the rapid rotation of the aircraft about its center of gravity. (lateral axis.)
NWA 705 pitchup. Boeing 720B (8 feet shorter than a 707, thus more susceptible to a pitchup (shorter moment arm). Aircraft pitched up to about 35 degrees. Pilot applied forward pitch control with little effect, (strong updraft). Trimmed the horizontal stabilizer full nose down. When the aircraft exited the updraft and returned to normal relative wind conditions, the aircraft pitched over into a vertical dive. The aircraft came apart in the air.
Subsequent examination of the gyros showed severe impact damage to the nose down stops, from the rapid rotation of the aircraft about its center of gravity. (lateral axis.)
Last edited by wsherif1; 21st Jul 2003 at 06:33.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear! Hear! Thank you, Danny, and the other moderators.
This may well prove to be one of the few venues where the truth has been told in this tragic case, one of which Lyin' City and the puppet investigator should be absolutely ashamed.
The "official" investigation has done absolutely nothing for aviation safety, except to illustrate what NOT to do! At least, however, the rest of the world knows. The price of face - tragic!
This may well prove to be one of the few venues where the truth has been told in this tragic case, one of which Lyin' City and the puppet investigator should be absolutely ashamed.
The "official" investigation has done absolutely nothing for aviation safety, except to illustrate what NOT to do! At least, however, the rest of the world knows. The price of face - tragic!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't let it go can you ?
Silk Air was a suicide mission - or was it your theory of "windshear" across the pitot tubes and static ports ?
Goodnight and goodbye.
Silk Air was a suicide mission - or was it your theory of "windshear" across the pitot tubes and static ports ?
Goodnight and goodbye.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1 wrote: I was in a Boeing 707 at 37,000 feet, in the clear above thunderstorm activity. First updraft, I knocked off the auto-pilot. Second updraft, aircraft pitched up 25 to 35 degrees.
I wonder where he learnt his weather flying!!? service ceiling of a 707 is 37000ft. BASIC airmanship requires that " YOU NEVER FLY OVER A THUNDERSTORM ", especially if you are at your service ceiling.
I suppose 30000 hours means nothing , if your basics are wrong!!
I wonder where he learnt his weather flying!!? service ceiling of a 707 is 37000ft. BASIC airmanship requires that " YOU NEVER FLY OVER A THUNDERSTORM ", especially if you are at your service ceiling.
I suppose 30000 hours means nothing , if your basics are wrong!!
Casper: When you said on page 13 that the infamous Silk Air Captain's insurance had been activated, what was that all about?
As for his massive gambling debts, had his creditors begun to garnish (legally remove) money from his paychecks?
I suppose that the airline does not have volunteer line pilots who have training to resolve personality conflicts (i.e. "Professional Standards") or those who can investigate other problems at an early stage.
As for his massive gambling debts, had his creditors begun to garnish (legally remove) money from his paychecks?
I suppose that the airline does not have volunteer line pilots who have training to resolve personality conflicts (i.e. "Professional Standards") or those who can investigate other problems at an early stage.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Upsets:
Tripper.
It may have been 33,000 or 35,000 feet, it was a long time ago. Any way we were well on top.
What I am trying to say is, there is no requirement to react to an aircraft pitchup, which may be accompanied by a false indication of a rapid increase in altitude along with the rate of climb against the stop, and a rapid decrease in airspeed, by shoving the nose over into a vertical dive!
Excerpt from an NTSB letter dated January 21, 1998'
Pilot reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself.
It may have been 33,000 or 35,000 feet, it was a long time ago. Any way we were well on top.
What I am trying to say is, there is no requirement to react to an aircraft pitchup, which may be accompanied by a false indication of a rapid increase in altitude along with the rate of climb against the stop, and a rapid decrease in airspeed, by shoving the nose over into a vertical dive!
Excerpt from an NTSB letter dated January 21, 1998'
Pilot reaction to turbulence is more of a problem than the jolt of turbulence itself.
Last edited by wsherif1; 22nd Jul 2003 at 03:32.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition Override
A large insurance policy taken out by Tsu WM became active (available - current) on the morning of 19 Dec 1997, the day of the crash.
I'm not aware of any deductions from his pay for debts and I doubt if any were made.
No, the company had no provision for such counselling or assistance. The only opportunity that the company had to make any input into Tsu's problems occurred after he had deliberately tripped the CVR cb. On that occasion, he was demoted from a line instructor pilot to a line captain. Had he been suspended (as many claim he should have), the crash could not have occurred.
wsherif1
As already stated by 56P, the weather was definitely not a factor in this crash so please stop raving on about a jet upset. A jet upset did happen BUT it was pilot initiated and actioned!
A large insurance policy taken out by Tsu WM became active (available - current) on the morning of 19 Dec 1997, the day of the crash.
I'm not aware of any deductions from his pay for debts and I doubt if any were made.
No, the company had no provision for such counselling or assistance. The only opportunity that the company had to make any input into Tsu's problems occurred after he had deliberately tripped the CVR cb. On that occasion, he was demoted from a line instructor pilot to a line captain. Had he been suspended (as many claim he should have), the crash could not have occurred.
wsherif1
As already stated by 56P, the weather was definitely not a factor in this crash so please stop raving on about a jet upset. A jet upset did happen BUT it was pilot initiated and actioned!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper,
Your comment,
"As already stated by 56P, the weather was definitely not a factor in this crash so please stop raving on about a jet upset."
A jet upset can not only be initiated by weather-induced- turbulence but also aircraft-wake-turbulence, or clear-air-turbulence. I encountered severe aircraft-wake-turbulence behind another Boeing 707, 45 miles in trail! (Dr. A.A. Wray of NASA affirms, in smooth air, aircraft wake turbulence can persist for extended periods of time.)
Your comment,
"A jet upset did happen BUT it was pilot initiated and actioned"!
ALL JET AIRCRAFT UPSETS ARE PILOT INITIATED!!!
Unusual attitude transitions are initiated by weather or aircraft-wake-turbulence. The Upset is the, after the fact, occurrence!!!
Your comment,
"As already stated by 56P, the weather was definitely not a factor in this crash so please stop raving on about a jet upset."
A jet upset can not only be initiated by weather-induced- turbulence but also aircraft-wake-turbulence, or clear-air-turbulence. I encountered severe aircraft-wake-turbulence behind another Boeing 707, 45 miles in trail! (Dr. A.A. Wray of NASA affirms, in smooth air, aircraft wake turbulence can persist for extended periods of time.)
Your comment,
"A jet upset did happen BUT it was pilot initiated and actioned"!
ALL JET AIRCRAFT UPSETS ARE PILOT INITIATED!!!
Unusual attitude transitions are initiated by weather or aircraft-wake-turbulence. The Upset is the, after the fact, occurrence!!!
Last edited by wsherif1; 23rd Jul 2003 at 04:43.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1
You don't get it, do you? Not only was weather NOT a factor, there was no other aircraft at the same level in that area and nor had one transited that area at that level.
Sorry, you are totally incorrect on this one. How about the CVR & DFDR????
You don't get it, do you? Not only was weather NOT a factor, there was no other aircraft at the same level in that area and nor had one transited that area at that level.
Sorry, you are totally incorrect on this one. How about the CVR & DFDR????
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper,
Your comment,
"Not only was weather NOT a factor, there was no other aircraft at the same level in that area and nor had one transited that area at that level."
You cannot see CAT nor does it register on radar etc.
There was no indication of any turbulence in the United 826 incident either. (five broken necks, 6 broken backs, and one fatality!)
I encountered severe aircraft wake turbulence 45 miles behind another B 707.
There is no way you can say that there was no weather, or other condition, at that time, at that altitude, on that particular track, with any assurance of accuracy.
I have no idea what happened to the FDR /CVR.
Your comment,
"Not only was weather NOT a factor, there was no other aircraft at the same level in that area and nor had one transited that area at that level."
You cannot see CAT nor does it register on radar etc.
There was no indication of any turbulence in the United 826 incident either. (five broken necks, 6 broken backs, and one fatality!)
I encountered severe aircraft wake turbulence 45 miles behind another B 707.
There is no way you can say that there was no weather, or other condition, at that time, at that altitude, on that particular track, with any assurance of accuracy.
I have no idea what happened to the FDR /CVR.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1
Yes you can based on the weather forecasts and aftercasts and pireps or lack of them. At the same time you definitely can't say that there was any weather or other condition at that time, at that altitude, on that particular track. Based on your explanations it is almost definite that you have no assurance of accuracy.
All the evidence so far makes your theory the most feeble and based on the logic principle of 'Occams Razor' you are advised to stop with your "I'm in step and you are all out of step" argument.
Based on your logic (or lack of it) I can equally argue ad infinitum that "I encountered severe aircraft wake turbulence 45 miles behind another B 707." is a lie and you have no proof that it wasn't actually CAT you were experiencing!
The terminology you use such as "...windshear across the pitot tubes..." immediately dismisses you as any form of expert and brings you to the level of just someone with a theory... one that the majority of us on here disagree with becuase you can't back it up with anything except a broken record repetition that if you repeat it enough times someone might belive it!
No wonder you don't trust the NTSB or other agencies accident reports. I mean, why should they take into consideration anything but your own singular theory? "I have no idea what happened to the FDR /CVR." is akin to saying that you don't care as long as your pet theory is the only one that can be true. I wouldn't mind but you provide no credentials to back up your theory other than as a line pilot who is almost certainly already retired and unfamiliar with the dramatic changes in technology in todays jets.
There is no way you can say that there was no weather, or other condition, at that time, at that altitude, on that particular track, with any assurance of accuracy.
All the evidence so far makes your theory the most feeble and based on the logic principle of 'Occams Razor' you are advised to stop with your "I'm in step and you are all out of step" argument.
Based on your logic (or lack of it) I can equally argue ad infinitum that "I encountered severe aircraft wake turbulence 45 miles behind another B 707." is a lie and you have no proof that it wasn't actually CAT you were experiencing!
The terminology you use such as "...windshear across the pitot tubes..." immediately dismisses you as any form of expert and brings you to the level of just someone with a theory... one that the majority of us on here disagree with becuase you can't back it up with anything except a broken record repetition that if you repeat it enough times someone might belive it!
No wonder you don't trust the NTSB or other agencies accident reports. I mean, why should they take into consideration anything but your own singular theory? "I have no idea what happened to the FDR /CVR." is akin to saying that you don't care as long as your pet theory is the only one that can be true. I wouldn't mind but you provide no credentials to back up your theory other than as a line pilot who is almost certainly already retired and unfamiliar with the dramatic changes in technology in todays jets.
Last edited by Danny; 23rd Jul 2003 at 08:47.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all for your input and obvious interest in this subject.. I am happy to see that the Silk Air crash has not been forgotten..
One day the truth of what happened will be recognised..
One day the truth of what happened will be recognised..
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
Your comment,
"No wonder you don't trust the NTSB or other agencies accident reports."
When the NTSB removes essential evidence from the TWA 800 FDR Chart, and fails to include the ATC Chairman's Factual Report in the United 585 final report, while misreading the United 826 incident FDR Chart, you begin to wonder whether it is incompetence deliberate cover-ups! The NTSB also made false statements in the EgyptAir 990 report!
If you would like to see proofs of these statements forward me a fax no. and I will be happy to send the charts and missing report excerpts along.
Your comment,
"The terminology you use such as "...windshear across the pitot tubes..." immediately dismisses you as any form of expert and brings you to the level of just someone with a theory... one that the majority of us on here disagree with becuase you can't back it up with anything except a broken record repetition that if you repeat it enough times someone might belive it!"
If you would read excerpts from NWA Capt. Paul Soderlind's Flight Standards Bulletin 3-65 regarding erroneous flight instrument indications, (on this forum), and also Boeing Publication "Aero 08", which covers the same subject, it should be enlightning.
Because of my unique experience, encountering a strong updraft
induced pitch-up, in the clear, above thunderstorm activity, I am aware of what actually happens in a pitch-up. I am trying to pass along some information to those who have not had this happen to them, yet!
As the NTSB says, "Piot reaction to turbulence can be more of a problem then the jolt of turbulence itself."
Your comment,
"No wonder you don't trust the NTSB or other agencies accident reports."
When the NTSB removes essential evidence from the TWA 800 FDR Chart, and fails to include the ATC Chairman's Factual Report in the United 585 final report, while misreading the United 826 incident FDR Chart, you begin to wonder whether it is incompetence deliberate cover-ups! The NTSB also made false statements in the EgyptAir 990 report!
If you would like to see proofs of these statements forward me a fax no. and I will be happy to send the charts and missing report excerpts along.
Your comment,
"The terminology you use such as "...windshear across the pitot tubes..." immediately dismisses you as any form of expert and brings you to the level of just someone with a theory... one that the majority of us on here disagree with becuase you can't back it up with anything except a broken record repetition that if you repeat it enough times someone might belive it!"
If you would read excerpts from NWA Capt. Paul Soderlind's Flight Standards Bulletin 3-65 regarding erroneous flight instrument indications, (on this forum), and also Boeing Publication "Aero 08", which covers the same subject, it should be enlightning.
Because of my unique experience, encountering a strong updraft
induced pitch-up, in the clear, above thunderstorm activity, I am aware of what actually happens in a pitch-up. I am trying to pass along some information to those who have not had this happen to them, yet!
As the NTSB says, "Piot reaction to turbulence can be more of a problem then the jolt of turbulence itself."
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you would read excerpts from NWA Capt. Paul Soderlind's Flight Standards Bulletin 3-65 regarding erroneous flight instrument indications, (on this forum), and also Boeing Publication "Aero 08", which covers the same subject, it should be enlightning.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training Wheels,
Just remember when your aircraft pitches up and the altimeter is indicating a 3,000 feet per minute climb with the rate of climb needle pegged up and the airspeed dropping off rapidly, do not, I say again, do not shove the nose over!!!
Just remember when your aircraft pitches up and the altimeter is indicating a 3,000 feet per minute climb with the rate of climb needle pegged up and the airspeed dropping off rapidly, do not, I say again, do not shove the nose over!!!