Silk Air MI 185
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper has mentioned all that was required .
For those who still harp on Rudder hardover and refer to the Colarado Springs and Pittsburgh accidents, maybe you should look at the exact location of the crash with reference to the point that those aircrafts had the rudder hardover.
MI 185 crashed WITHIN 5 miles from the point it left FL 350, travelling at .74M at that level.
Anyone with basic knowledge of physics would figure out that inertia would carry that miless off. Only a "deliberately flown" manouvre can keep it within 5 miles!!!
For those who still harp on Rudder hardover and refer to the Colarado Springs and Pittsburgh accidents, maybe you should look at the exact location of the crash with reference to the point that those aircrafts had the rudder hardover.
MI 185 crashed WITHIN 5 miles from the point it left FL 350, travelling at .74M at that level.
Anyone with basic knowledge of physics would figure out that inertia would carry that miless off. Only a "deliberately flown" manouvre can keep it within 5 miles!!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're correct, Tripper.
* Only manual input can achieve the flight path as plotted by Singapore ATC.
* Only manual input can achieve the parameters of height lost, time elapsed and horizontal distance travelled.
* Only manual input can produce the full stab setting.
* Only manual input can produce the thrust setting with deactivation of the autothrottle system.
* Only manual input can achieve the flight path as plotted by Singapore ATC.
* Only manual input can achieve the parameters of height lost, time elapsed and horizontal distance travelled.
* Only manual input can produce the full stab setting.
* Only manual input can produce the thrust setting with deactivation of the autothrottle system.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I fully expect SIA and Silkair to cover up and Indonesia to do as its told (finances permitting), Casper's point's are without dispute and fact.
But, I don't expect those without a vested interest to agree. Remeber, the most obvious answer is often correct.
Crockett, I'm sorry for your loss and have had many friends die flying aeroplanes, but i do believe you do know what really happened. I pray for your closure.
But, I don't expect those without a vested interest to agree. Remeber, the most obvious answer is often correct.
Crockett, I'm sorry for your loss and have had many friends die flying aeroplanes, but i do believe you do know what really happened. I pray for your closure.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balthazar
I do believe you may have "hit the nail on the head " so to speak.. Your comment and I quote " and Indonesia to do as it is told (finances permitting ) " end quote..
You may recall that Indonesia was also negotiating with the International Monetary Fund at the time of the crash for somewhat significant loans and debt refinancing.. Who controls the IMF...??? USA... (Big Business and politics being the same thing in USA).. I think you will understand what I mean..
I think that also would be another reason that perhaps why the Indonesians would not want to publish any findings that may or may not piss someone off..
So assuming you are right Balthazar re Indonesia doing what it was told...I guess the question may be... who had the greater influence over Indonesia ..??.. I think perhaps it may have been Big Old Uncle Sam..and the IMF...
Your guess is as good as mine..!!!!
I do believe you may have "hit the nail on the head " so to speak.. Your comment and I quote " and Indonesia to do as it is told (finances permitting ) " end quote..
You may recall that Indonesia was also negotiating with the International Monetary Fund at the time of the crash for somewhat significant loans and debt refinancing.. Who controls the IMF...??? USA... (Big Business and politics being the same thing in USA).. I think you will understand what I mean..
I think that also would be another reason that perhaps why the Indonesians would not want to publish any findings that may or may not piss someone off..
So assuming you are right Balthazar re Indonesia doing what it was told...I guess the question may be... who had the greater influence over Indonesia ..??.. I think perhaps it may have been Big Old Uncle Sam..and the IMF...
Your guess is as good as mine..!!!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crockett,
Please forget the IMF and forget the USA in this disaster. The greatest external influence on the Indonesian investigation and report came from a source much more local - the HQ of the operator. That state could not afford to let be seen in print what EVERY investigator in the case actually knows and really believes -the TRUTH.
There is absolutely NO other probable cause than direct and intended pilot input - by the captain.
It's just a dreadful shame that they will probably get away with it. The purposes of any investigation are to establish causes, NOT apportion blame AND certainly NOT hide anything. Aviation safety and indeed credibility in the area are now less due to this sham of an investigation report.
Please forget the IMF and forget the USA in this disaster. The greatest external influence on the Indonesian investigation and report came from a source much more local - the HQ of the operator. That state could not afford to let be seen in print what EVERY investigator in the case actually knows and really believes -the TRUTH.
There is absolutely NO other probable cause than direct and intended pilot input - by the captain.
It's just a dreadful shame that they will probably get away with it. The purposes of any investigation are to establish causes, NOT apportion blame AND certainly NOT hide anything. Aviation safety and indeed credibility in the area are now less due to this sham of an investigation report.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets wait till October and those involved will have to produce whatever evidence they have in a court of law and let the jury decide.
It ain't perfect..but right now...that is all we have..
It ain't perfect..but right now...that is all we have..
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Crockett. Firstly my sincere personal sympathies and my respects for your search for the truth.
You are 6 months overdue with your latest stir of the pot, but it is giving you more this time than all the official enquiries did.
You say you know things you can not put on this thread. So, as consultants, do we.
We asked the right questions, of the right people, at the right time, and got all the right answers while they were still available.
As certainly as it is possible for anyone not in the jump seat at the time, we are certain we found out not only "who" but "why". But no one wanted to know.
It was definitely not the 733. The odds against that sequence of failures being mechanical, and happening at exactly the same time as the human failures, are impossible.
It was also not the Singaporean Captain Tsu. There is nothing in the circumstantial evidence that:
(a) does not apply equally to most of us; and
(b) has since been seen as serious enough to ground us all.
For example, most of us in our careers have surely had incidents, reprimands, money problems, and been close to others' accidents. It would be a very rare pilot who never had. Yet what are seen as reasons for blaming Captain Tsu are not valid reasons for grounding the rest of us.
Captain Tsu was an honourable professional pilot who's fatal error was simply to be dead and a convenient scapegoat.
So that leaves the co-pilot and the underlying systems.
It seems accepted that it was the co-pilot's foot on the rudder pedals when full deflection snapped the aircraft into its fatal dive. However he was a keen young pilot like we all once were and was himself the victim of a systems failure whose latent roots led us back to shortly before he was even born. This was literally an accident waiting to happen.
The official investigators all made the same mistake, and wasted all their resources, when they decided (sounds like KLM in Los Rodeos in 1977) that the co-pilot was experienced and well trained and closed off that line of enquiry.
NZ airline standards are high. To join ANZ at that time required an applicant to be ex RNZAF or to have ATPL with 2-3000 hours, most of it multi-engine command.
And Singaporean policy on compliance with ICAO Annex 1 was that pilots were not even eligible for a type rating on a heavy aircraft until they held ATPL.
However, the MI 185 co-pilot, although he had 2500 hours total, only had a CPL/IR with examination credits for ATPL from his basic training, and only had a bare 100 hours, again from his basic training, that was in command by himself at the front of an aircraft, without an instructor or captain beside him.
In this regard, bear in mind that unlike European airline cadetships, NZ pilots generally self-select for training on the basis of enthusiasm, medical, and money, and competitive selection for jobs starts when they are qualified and apply for the airlines. Egalitarianism it is called.
The co-pilot was also assessed for his licence through a devolved process that seemed to worry industry professionals more than it seemed to worry the authorities. The respected industry magazine "Wings" carried a number of reports of examination irregularities culminating in an artical called "Quo Vadis" by a Walter Wagtendonk in, I think, mid 1996.
And while you are looking at those old Wings, and at the NZALPA "Airline Pilot" magazine of the same period, you will also find a lot of references to the CVR.
The NZ Police misused CVR data to criminally prosecute the captain of the Ansett Dash 8 fatal at Palmerson North in 1995.
There was therefore a culture at the time of nonuse of the CVR, and even suspension of the legal requirements. Any NZ pilot of that time, or anyone working closely with then, would therefore be well aware of the disposition towards pulling CVR CBs.
The only mystery about disabling the CVR, is why it ever was a mystery.
Sorry I can't talk more. Can't afford to risk my day job now any more that I could risk it then.
You won't find it all for yourself now, but you still can find enough, if you backtrack and look in the right direction.
Good luck. WTN
You are 6 months overdue with your latest stir of the pot, but it is giving you more this time than all the official enquiries did.
You say you know things you can not put on this thread. So, as consultants, do we.
We asked the right questions, of the right people, at the right time, and got all the right answers while they were still available.
As certainly as it is possible for anyone not in the jump seat at the time, we are certain we found out not only "who" but "why". But no one wanted to know.
It was definitely not the 733. The odds against that sequence of failures being mechanical, and happening at exactly the same time as the human failures, are impossible.
It was also not the Singaporean Captain Tsu. There is nothing in the circumstantial evidence that:
(a) does not apply equally to most of us; and
(b) has since been seen as serious enough to ground us all.
For example, most of us in our careers have surely had incidents, reprimands, money problems, and been close to others' accidents. It would be a very rare pilot who never had. Yet what are seen as reasons for blaming Captain Tsu are not valid reasons for grounding the rest of us.
Captain Tsu was an honourable professional pilot who's fatal error was simply to be dead and a convenient scapegoat.
So that leaves the co-pilot and the underlying systems.
It seems accepted that it was the co-pilot's foot on the rudder pedals when full deflection snapped the aircraft into its fatal dive. However he was a keen young pilot like we all once were and was himself the victim of a systems failure whose latent roots led us back to shortly before he was even born. This was literally an accident waiting to happen.
The official investigators all made the same mistake, and wasted all their resources, when they decided (sounds like KLM in Los Rodeos in 1977) that the co-pilot was experienced and well trained and closed off that line of enquiry.
NZ airline standards are high. To join ANZ at that time required an applicant to be ex RNZAF or to have ATPL with 2-3000 hours, most of it multi-engine command.
And Singaporean policy on compliance with ICAO Annex 1 was that pilots were not even eligible for a type rating on a heavy aircraft until they held ATPL.
However, the MI 185 co-pilot, although he had 2500 hours total, only had a CPL/IR with examination credits for ATPL from his basic training, and only had a bare 100 hours, again from his basic training, that was in command by himself at the front of an aircraft, without an instructor or captain beside him.
In this regard, bear in mind that unlike European airline cadetships, NZ pilots generally self-select for training on the basis of enthusiasm, medical, and money, and competitive selection for jobs starts when they are qualified and apply for the airlines. Egalitarianism it is called.
The co-pilot was also assessed for his licence through a devolved process that seemed to worry industry professionals more than it seemed to worry the authorities. The respected industry magazine "Wings" carried a number of reports of examination irregularities culminating in an artical called "Quo Vadis" by a Walter Wagtendonk in, I think, mid 1996.
And while you are looking at those old Wings, and at the NZALPA "Airline Pilot" magazine of the same period, you will also find a lot of references to the CVR.
The NZ Police misused CVR data to criminally prosecute the captain of the Ansett Dash 8 fatal at Palmerson North in 1995.
There was therefore a culture at the time of nonuse of the CVR, and even suspension of the legal requirements. Any NZ pilot of that time, or anyone working closely with then, would therefore be well aware of the disposition towards pulling CVR CBs.
The only mystery about disabling the CVR, is why it ever was a mystery.
Sorry I can't talk more. Can't afford to risk my day job now any more that I could risk it then.
You won't find it all for yourself now, but you still can find enough, if you backtrack and look in the right direction.
Good luck. WTN
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks wnt
Another twist in the tale !!
Actually in an earlier response to Diggler in this thread when the question was asked who was in the cockpit... Maybe the co-pilot alone...Maybe the captain alone...??? I did ask whether the co-pilot was experienced enough to handle an inflight problem of some magnitude alone... I have always assumed he was.... based on all the information I have been privy to and with my limited understanding of what it all means. Your input and opinion is interesting ...
Would be interested to hear any other opinions ..
Thank you
Another twist in the tale !!
Actually in an earlier response to Diggler in this thread when the question was asked who was in the cockpit... Maybe the co-pilot alone...Maybe the captain alone...??? I did ask whether the co-pilot was experienced enough to handle an inflight problem of some magnitude alone... I have always assumed he was.... based on all the information I have been privy to and with my limited understanding of what it all means. Your input and opinion is interesting ...
Would be interested to hear any other opinions ..
Thank you
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WNT - Which planet are you on?
Sorry WNT, but your first post has to be the most ridiculous I have seen in three years of Pprune membership.
So the B733 may not have been to blame - uncommanded movement of the rudder has been proven in other notable B737 accidents, but not this one. But blaming the Kiwi FO - where do you get that one from? Was the FO the one who was reported as having psychological problems following a failed attempt at gaining a command role with SIA. Likewise, was he the one who was reported to have taken out extensive life insurance on himself just days before the flight? Furthermore, Tsu was reportedly heavily in debt. Whilst the FO (who would have paid a small fortune to get where he was) may have been in a similar situation, the 2500 hours time would have 'unfrozen' any ATPL as far as I am aware.
Then you add this little gem
Please provide the evidence - are you therefore implying that it was the FO who pulled the CB's and dived the aircraft? The evidence regrettably (from what I seen, heard, read, etc - none of us were unfortunate to be there) points to Tsu. The FO had his life before him, not catching him up, not struggling to pay debts.
May I suggest that in your story (and posting) you are not in fact in NZ, but nearer the Mallaca Straits, and that your post is to attempt to deflect attention to a party who cannot reply.
So the B733 may not have been to blame - uncommanded movement of the rudder has been proven in other notable B737 accidents, but not this one. But blaming the Kiwi FO - where do you get that one from? Was the FO the one who was reported as having psychological problems following a failed attempt at gaining a command role with SIA. Likewise, was he the one who was reported to have taken out extensive life insurance on himself just days before the flight? Furthermore, Tsu was reportedly heavily in debt. Whilst the FO (who would have paid a small fortune to get where he was) may have been in a similar situation, the 2500 hours time would have 'unfrozen' any ATPL as far as I am aware.
Then you add this little gem
Any NZ pilot of that time, or anyone working closely with then, would therefore be well aware of the disposition towards pulling CVR CBs.
May I suggest that in your story (and posting) you are not in fact in NZ, but nearer the Mallaca Straits, and that your post is to attempt to deflect attention to a party who cannot reply.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wnt,
There is not one shred of evidence to support your absolutely ridiculous theory.
I suspect that you are trying to draw us out in an attempt to establish our identities.
What absolute, pathetic and despicable crap! They don't call it Lyin City for nothing.
IF, as you claim, you actually are a consultant, then you would know what we all know!
There is not one shred of evidence to support your absolutely ridiculous theory.
I suspect that you are trying to draw us out in an attempt to establish our identities.
What absolute, pathetic and despicable crap! They don't call it Lyin City for nothing.
IF, as you claim, you actually are a consultant, then you would know what we all know!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe , WNT can provide us details of Tsu's debts ( totalling about $3.2 millions) and his Insurance cover of $3.5 millions ( $1.5 million approved on 19th Dec 1997)
Since he knows so much about the Kiwi F/O, I am sure this is a small job.
Also, when was the last time WNT had his EEG done?
Since he knows so much about the Kiwi F/O, I am sure this is a small job.
Also, when was the last time WNT had his EEG done?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To WNT
I do not know exactly who you are or what your motives may be but I suspect that you must be one sick person.
I have stayed out of this debate until now but, believe me, I am most interested in anything to do with MI185. I suppose that this post will identify me but, in fairness to the first officer and his family, I feel that I really must answer your most unwarranted and ill informed accusations.
Both the captain and the first officer on MI185 were well trained and both received "above average" ratings at their most recent base checks. Each pilot could have recovered from any jet upset or uncontrollable rudder, yaw damper malfunction etc ON HIS OWN. Each pilot was quite capable of also transmitting a distress call during such recovery ON HIS OWN.
The captain, a former RSAF aerobatic pilot and member of the Black Knights, was especially trained and talented in unusual attitudes.
The first officer, although young and with only some 2 - 3 years of B737 experience, was nontheless a most talented pilot with extremely high standards of manipulation and very sound flight management. Ask any captains who had operated with him!
Any confirmation of the above may be obtained from the pilots' training records which were seen by all appropriate investigators. How do I know the above? I assisted in the training and checking of both pilots and also took part in the investigation.
As I said, WNT, I do not wish to be drawn in to any slanging match or debate in regard to MI185. There has already been enough of that.
I SIMPLY CHALLENGE YOU TO POST ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR MOST UNWARRANTED, UNFAIR AND UNTRUE ACCUSATIONS.
I do not know exactly who you are or what your motives may be but I suspect that you must be one sick person.
I have stayed out of this debate until now but, believe me, I am most interested in anything to do with MI185. I suppose that this post will identify me but, in fairness to the first officer and his family, I feel that I really must answer your most unwarranted and ill informed accusations.
Both the captain and the first officer on MI185 were well trained and both received "above average" ratings at their most recent base checks. Each pilot could have recovered from any jet upset or uncontrollable rudder, yaw damper malfunction etc ON HIS OWN. Each pilot was quite capable of also transmitting a distress call during such recovery ON HIS OWN.
The captain, a former RSAF aerobatic pilot and member of the Black Knights, was especially trained and talented in unusual attitudes.
The first officer, although young and with only some 2 - 3 years of B737 experience, was nontheless a most talented pilot with extremely high standards of manipulation and very sound flight management. Ask any captains who had operated with him!
Any confirmation of the above may be obtained from the pilots' training records which were seen by all appropriate investigators. How do I know the above? I assisted in the training and checking of both pilots and also took part in the investigation.
As I said, WNT, I do not wish to be drawn in to any slanging match or debate in regard to MI185. There has already been enough of that.
I SIMPLY CHALLENGE YOU TO POST ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR MOST UNWARRANTED, UNFAIR AND UNTRUE ACCUSATIONS.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wnt, let's just highlight a couple of your points to show that you have no idea of what you're talking about.
This would disqualify almost all First Officers in Singapore and indeed many other airlines around the world. The normal route to ATPL is via the right seat of an airline aircraft, which brings us to the next quote.
You are describing a perfectly normal qualification for Singaporean Airline First Officers. Indeed many will still not have their ATPL subjects with this number of hours. And any pilot in Singapore who joined SIA or Silk as a cadet would only have the command experience you describe, so to suggest this particular FO's qualifications to be somehow substandard is simply being mischievous at best.
Either you are playing on other's ignorance of standard airline practices in order to mislead or, I suspect, you yourself don't understand normal practice well enough to make an educated analysis of the facts.
And Singaporean policy on compliance with ICAO Annex 1 was that pilots were not even eligible for a type rating on a heavy aircraft until they held ATPL.
However, the MI 185 co-pilot, although he had 2500 hours total, only had a CPL/IR with examination credits for ATPL from his basic training, and only had a bare 100 hours, again from his basic training, that was in command by himself at the front of an aircraft, without an instructor or captain beside him.
Either you are playing on other's ignorance of standard airline practices in order to mislead or, I suspect, you yourself don't understand normal practice well enough to make an educated analysis of the facts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given all of the above discussion... I wonder why the official crash investigation was stopped.. Surely, it is in everyones interest to know what happened, have it published and ensure the problems rectified..
Maybe the cause of the crash (problem) has been rectified so as to prevent in the future, I would like to think so..
Or maybe I am just a little naive..!!
Happy Days !!
Maybe the cause of the crash (problem) has been rectified so as to prevent in the future, I would like to think so..
Or maybe I am just a little naive..!!
Happy Days !!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given all of the above discussion... I wonder why the official crash investigation was stopped.. Surely, it is in everyones interest to know what happened, have it published and ensure the problems rectified..
_______________________________________________
Crockett,
I'm sorry to say it but, if you believe the above, you are being incredibly naive.
The "official" crash investigation was conducted by Indonesia but controlled by Singapore. Lyin' City certainly did not want anyone to know what happened and most definitely did not want it published. Can you imagine for one minute that they could or would openly admit that "their boy done wrong?"
Stop looking at the red herrings being thrown up by wnt and others. The truth is staring you in the face. It's also staring them in their collective face and it's to prevent "loss of that collective face" that they have been less than truthful. It's disgraceful!
_______________________________________________
Crockett,
I'm sorry to say it but, if you believe the above, you are being incredibly naive.
The "official" crash investigation was conducted by Indonesia but controlled by Singapore. Lyin' City certainly did not want anyone to know what happened and most definitely did not want it published. Can you imagine for one minute that they could or would openly admit that "their boy done wrong?"
Stop looking at the red herrings being thrown up by wnt and others. The truth is staring you in the face. It's also staring them in their collective face and it's to prevent "loss of that collective face" that they have been less than truthful. It's disgraceful!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Caspar
Guess that nothing has really changed...
At least some people still talking about it however... that is important...
Back to the drawing board for me...
Cheers..
Guess that nothing has really changed...
At least some people still talking about it however... that is important...
Back to the drawing board for me...
Cheers..
