Silk Air MI 185
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
56P ...a question if I may..
Given your stated professional relationship to both pilots...From your posting, obviously in your opinion both pilots were very capable.
Since you would appear to have in depth knowledge of the crash investigation from certain perspectives.. Perhaps you would share with us what your thoughts are on the cause of the crash..
Or would that put you in a difficult position.. If so, I understand..
Must admit...wnt has gone a little shy on us..!!
Given your stated professional relationship to both pilots...From your posting, obviously in your opinion both pilots were very capable.
Since you would appear to have in depth knowledge of the crash investigation from certain perspectives.. Perhaps you would share with us what your thoughts are on the cause of the crash..
Or would that put you in a difficult position.. If so, I understand..
Must admit...wnt has gone a little shy on us..!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripper
Re the amounts quoted of Capt Tsu Debts and Insurance amounts.. All the records I have seen do not totally up to those amounts.. Both Debts and Insurance Coverage were significantly less than you state.
I may be wrong of course, but believe you may be incorrect..
Re the amounts quoted of Capt Tsu Debts and Insurance amounts.. All the records I have seen do not totally up to those amounts.. Both Debts and Insurance Coverage were significantly less than you state.
I may be wrong of course, but believe you may be incorrect..
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crockett,
I believe that the crash was caused by deliberate pilot action and this opinion is formed by the complete lack of alternative possibilities, lack of attempted recovery, lack of distress calls, tripping of recorder circuit breakers etc that we have all read on this thread.
The NTSB comments on the Indonesian report constitute, I believe, an accurate assessment. I also think that this opinion is shared by all other investigators. It's just that some have problems in admitting it.
I also firmly believe that the deliberate pilot inputs were not made by the first officer and this opinion is also shared by the other investigators. Again, this is not included in the official report but it is contained in the NTSB comments.
To the best of my knowledge, this was the first occasion on which the NTSB's comments differed from another state's official findings. That should tell us all something.
I truly hope that the above helps.
I believe that the crash was caused by deliberate pilot action and this opinion is formed by the complete lack of alternative possibilities, lack of attempted recovery, lack of distress calls, tripping of recorder circuit breakers etc that we have all read on this thread.
The NTSB comments on the Indonesian report constitute, I believe, an accurate assessment. I also think that this opinion is shared by all other investigators. It's just that some have problems in admitting it.
I also firmly believe that the deliberate pilot inputs were not made by the first officer and this opinion is also shared by the other investigators. Again, this is not included in the official report but it is contained in the NTSB comments.
To the best of my knowledge, this was the first occasion on which the NTSB's comments differed from another state's official findings. That should tell us all something.
I truly hope that the above helps.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you 56P...Respect your opinion.
Still find it hard to believe... just from a pure human side.
It would take some type of major madman with major psycological problems to do what you suggest and whilst I admit Tsu may have had some issues to contend with...others also experience similar challenges in life and get on with life.. Whether they are a pilot or in some other just as noble profession..
If he was that psycologically disturbed...surely someone would have noticed and grounded him..(if that is the right terminology)...
I remain undecided.. to be honest.. but thank you nonetheless..
Still find it hard to believe... just from a pure human side.
It would take some type of major madman with major psycological problems to do what you suggest and whilst I admit Tsu may have had some issues to contend with...others also experience similar challenges in life and get on with life.. Whether they are a pilot or in some other just as noble profession..
If he was that psycologically disturbed...surely someone would have noticed and grounded him..(if that is the right terminology)...
I remain undecided.. to be honest.. but thank you nonetheless..
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW reported that the elevator had a full nose down trim induced at the time of impact, which means that the elevator was attached to the aircraft. I found a lot about the Captain, including the fact that he was a heavy gambler, but I can't find anything about the FO Ward Duncan Maurice .
Why would this new Zealander sit and do nothing if the Captain intentionally dove the aircraft into the ground? The lack of a transmission, at least a May Day is also puzzling.
Considering the number of unwanted full rudder deflections on the B-737, I wouldn't rule out anything in this one.
Why would this new Zealander sit and do nothing if the Captain intentionally dove the aircraft into the ground? The lack of a transmission, at least a May Day is also puzzling.
Considering the number of unwanted full rudder deflections on the B-737, I wouldn't rule out anything in this one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I.M.Esperto. The stabiliser and the elevator are two different things. The aircraft broke up during the dive. The stabiliser trim jack was located and examination of this component revealed that it was in the full forward electrical trm position. Just before the aircraft went into the dive the FDR recorded the stabiliser trim at the normal cruise postion. It is considered likely that someone deliberately toggled the trim to full forward at some point.
If one of the cockpit crew suddenly went crazy and shoved the aircraft into a dive there is no way the second crew member would have any hope of overpowering the culprit. Things would have happened too violently and too quickly before the second crew member could get his wits about him.
If one of the cockpit crew suddenly went crazy and shoved the aircraft into a dive there is no way the second crew member would have any hope of overpowering the culprit. Things would have happened too violently and too quickly before the second crew member could get his wits about him.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allegedly the CVR has the Capt. leaving his seat shortly before the event. If you wanted to disable the other pilot, would you do it while sitting, or stand behind him and whack him over the back of the head with something hard?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The easiest way to disable the co-pilot is to ask him to leave the flight deck and lock the door after him......some NZ pax knows his family and wants to say hello.
There is no evidence I've seen to prove he was on the flight deck and the pax manifest gives credence to the theory.
All the physical evidence points to a pilot induced accident (trajectory profile) and for the limited gene pool (SING INC) to advocate otherwise is in line with their general view that the rest of the world is a lot shorter on grey matter than they are.
As to the view that mentally unstable people shouldn't fly planes. I agree. But they do...especially after a company has invested a heap in proving they can..even if they shouldn't.
Proving the Capt committed suicide in a Singapore Court would be like trying to prove Lee Kwan Yew had some shadey property deals off Orchard Road....impossible.
FWIW
There is no evidence I've seen to prove he was on the flight deck and the pax manifest gives credence to the theory.
All the physical evidence points to a pilot induced accident (trajectory profile) and for the limited gene pool (SING INC) to advocate otherwise is in line with their general view that the rest of the world is a lot shorter on grey matter than they are.
As to the view that mentally unstable people shouldn't fly planes. I agree. But they do...especially after a company has invested a heap in proving they can..even if they shouldn't.
Proving the Capt committed suicide in a Singapore Court would be like trying to prove Lee Kwan Yew had some shadey property deals off Orchard Road....impossible.
FWIW
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traffic is right. The easiest way to remove the F/O from the scene would be to ask him to check something in the cabin, see a passenger etc ... anything to get him out of the cockpit.
In the ensuing manoeuvre, the aircraft rolled to the right and, when inverted, was pulled through into the dive. No one in the cabin would have been able to remain upright let alone approach and gain access to a locked cockpit door.
Crockett, the human factors people agreed that, after the cvr cb incident, Tsu WM should have been suspended because that premeditated and deliberate action should have proved to management that he was emotionally and psychologically upset and even disturbed.
I agree that such callous disregard for other lives still leaves me dumbfounded and speechless. You must remember, however, that Tsu wanted to cause maximum damage to a company that had caused him to lose a enormous loss of face and prestige. And, that's apart from his personal financial problems which were considerable, despite claims to the contrary.
In the ensuing manoeuvre, the aircraft rolled to the right and, when inverted, was pulled through into the dive. No one in the cabin would have been able to remain upright let alone approach and gain access to a locked cockpit door.
Crockett, the human factors people agreed that, after the cvr cb incident, Tsu WM should have been suspended because that premeditated and deliberate action should have proved to management that he was emotionally and psychologically upset and even disturbed.
I agree that such callous disregard for other lives still leaves me dumbfounded and speechless. You must remember, however, that Tsu wanted to cause maximum damage to a company that had caused him to lose a enormous loss of face and prestige. And, that's apart from his personal financial problems which were considerable, despite claims to the contrary.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crockett,
if you read through 56P's postings, you would find that he states" both pilots were capable an above average when the last Base check was done. He does not state that TWM is always an above average and capable pilot.
as for his debts and insurance covers, you will never get the exact picture from the place where he lived. But, everyone knew the history. Why haven't you read the statement from 56P when he states that "Tsu Way Ming's debts and insurance cover were considerably high".
There is no truth in stories being floated around about the F/Os capabilities or his part in the crash. I don't think there is any doubt that "If he was in the cockpit" he would have tried to save the aircraft and definitely given a distress call. Was he in the "cockpit" and alive, or was he out of the cockpit, is the only doubt existing
if you read through 56P's postings, you would find that he states" both pilots were capable an above average when the last Base check was done. He does not state that TWM is always an above average and capable pilot.
as for his debts and insurance covers, you will never get the exact picture from the place where he lived. But, everyone knew the history. Why haven't you read the statement from 56P when he states that "Tsu Way Ming's debts and insurance cover were considerably high".
There is no truth in stories being floated around about the F/Os capabilities or his part in the crash. I don't think there is any doubt that "If he was in the cockpit" he would have tried to save the aircraft and definitely given a distress call. Was he in the "cockpit" and alive, or was he out of the cockpit, is the only doubt existing
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It took an above average bit of "stick & rudder" skill to perform the aerobatic act that led to the aircraft's dive. When inverted in the dive, a large and consistent force is required to keep the nose down, even with full stab trim. A high thrust setting adds to the force required as well. Do nothing and, with autothrottle engaged, the aircraft would probably try to recover itself. This manoeuvre was caused by deliberate pilot input. Of that, there is no doubt!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, this pre-occupation with the lack of an emergency distress call during the dive is a bit unnecessary. It was fairly common practice, rightly or wrongly, for SilkAir pilots to fly in the cruise with their headsets off and to use the hand mike with the overhead speaker on. Hence following a dive of this magnitude, do you realistically think a call would be able to be made?
Casper
Your comments have been the most sensible and realistic on this thread so far.
WNT
What can i say....you call Capt Tsu Way Ming professional??? He was elevated to the position of Line Instructor Pilot in SilkAir not because of his ability or professionalism, but because of his special relationship with the Flight operations Manager L.Ganapathy. Ganapathy 'owed' Tsu. He was therefore earmarked for high places. In the subsequent investigation, it was discovered that Ganapathy had 'mislaid' the file of Tsu's earlier transgressions. These included the CVR CB incident, the manado debacle, and the low thrust incident out of Changi. Even the Chief Pilot T. Leong was critical of Ganapathy for keeping him on after these incidents.
Tsu wasn't professional.
He was a cowboy who enjoyed cutting corners and getting places fast. He regulary broke SOP's. He lied in the investigation of his Manado stuff up. He lied during the investigation into why he pulled the CVR on another flight.
Despite all of this factual evidence, which was proven in the Singapore courts by the way, SilkAir still kept him on as a captain!!!
That's the disgrace as far as I'm concerned.
Casper
Your comments have been the most sensible and realistic on this thread so far.
WNT
What can i say....you call Capt Tsu Way Ming professional??? He was elevated to the position of Line Instructor Pilot in SilkAir not because of his ability or professionalism, but because of his special relationship with the Flight operations Manager L.Ganapathy. Ganapathy 'owed' Tsu. He was therefore earmarked for high places. In the subsequent investigation, it was discovered that Ganapathy had 'mislaid' the file of Tsu's earlier transgressions. These included the CVR CB incident, the manado debacle, and the low thrust incident out of Changi. Even the Chief Pilot T. Leong was critical of Ganapathy for keeping him on after these incidents.
Tsu wasn't professional.
He was a cowboy who enjoyed cutting corners and getting places fast. He regulary broke SOP's. He lied in the investigation of his Manado stuff up. He lied during the investigation into why he pulled the CVR on another flight.
Despite all of this factual evidence, which was proven in the Singapore courts by the way, SilkAir still kept him on as a captain!!!
That's the disgrace as far as I'm concerned.
Last edited by Capt. Erebus; 22nd Jun 2003 at 06:40.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Erebus
You may be wrongly blaming the FOM for sitting on the file re Manado, CVR cb incident and the "less than desired thrust" take off. I "think" that the file containing that info was handed to the CAAS with all the other files at the time of the crash and maybe the regulator sat on it. In any event, it was finally produced some two months after the event and THAT act (of withholding it) certainly did nothing to assist the investigation - whoever was responsible for sitting on it. Just Lyin' City SOPs, I guess!
The real problem with MI Flt Ops was their failure to suspend Tsu after the CVR cb incident. If they'd acted then, 103 innocent persons would still be alive. I suppose that it's easy to say that in hindsight but I thought that's why management pilots are paid their salaries.
You may be wrongly blaming the FOM for sitting on the file re Manado, CVR cb incident and the "less than desired thrust" take off. I "think" that the file containing that info was handed to the CAAS with all the other files at the time of the crash and maybe the regulator sat on it. In any event, it was finally produced some two months after the event and THAT act (of withholding it) certainly did nothing to assist the investigation - whoever was responsible for sitting on it. Just Lyin' City SOPs, I guess!
The real problem with MI Flt Ops was their failure to suspend Tsu after the CVR cb incident. If they'd acted then, 103 innocent persons would still be alive. I suppose that it's easy to say that in hindsight but I thought that's why management pilots are paid their salaries.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caspar
Just wanted to correct one thing you said.. It was not 103 innocent persons.. One passenger was carrying a 5 month unborn child.. my mathematics says 104 ...
Legal definition of "living being" might disagree with me.. but trust me... it was 104...
Enough said... let justice take its course.. No other way unfortunately...
Just wanted to correct one thing you said.. It was not 103 innocent persons.. One passenger was carrying a 5 month unborn child.. my mathematics says 104 ...
Legal definition of "living being" might disagree with me.. but trust me... it was 104...
Enough said... let justice take its course.. No other way unfortunately...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper,
" less than desired thrust" is a gross understatement.
Tsu Way Ming "firewalled" the thrust levers and still did not get "take-off thrust". He still continued the take off.
So, what did the management do to him: to quote from some of their statements in the court case in singapore--" he arraged for passengers to go to Kunming on other airlines"!!!!!
Maybe that was more important than making sure that the aircraft had enough thrust for the take off !!!
But then Tsu was "an above average pilot"
" less than desired thrust" is a gross understatement.
Tsu Way Ming "firewalled" the thrust levers and still did not get "take-off thrust". He still continued the take off.
So, what did the management do to him: to quote from some of their statements in the court case in singapore--" he arraged for passengers to go to Kunming on other airlines"!!!!!
Maybe that was more important than making sure that the aircraft had enough thrust for the take off !!!
But then Tsu was "an above average pilot"
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crockett,
Please accept my most sincere apology. I was aware of your double loss and my oversight was a thoughtless omission. I'm truly sorry.
Tripper,
"Less than desired thrust" was a bit tongue-in-cheek, I admit. The aircraft would have been reasonably heavy for that take-off and so there would have been more than ample time between checking thrust at 60 kts and the decision time at V1 for both crew members to consider and act on the thrust deficiency. In my humble opinion, this was a most serious incident and yet the only official criticism that Tsu received was for not completing the paperwork for an overweight landing! No mention of the continued take-off with a major thrust deficiency, especially when going to a destination where every bit of FULL thrust would have been needed for take-off there. Strange reaction from management of flight operations.
I guess that he received the "above average" grade for actual aircraft handling in the simulator. Out on the line, of course, his flight management skills (or lack thereof) would have been noticed only by the other crew member.
Please accept my most sincere apology. I was aware of your double loss and my oversight was a thoughtless omission. I'm truly sorry.
Tripper,
"Less than desired thrust" was a bit tongue-in-cheek, I admit. The aircraft would have been reasonably heavy for that take-off and so there would have been more than ample time between checking thrust at 60 kts and the decision time at V1 for both crew members to consider and act on the thrust deficiency. In my humble opinion, this was a most serious incident and yet the only official criticism that Tsu received was for not completing the paperwork for an overweight landing! No mention of the continued take-off with a major thrust deficiency, especially when going to a destination where every bit of FULL thrust would have been needed for take-off there. Strange reaction from management of flight operations.
I guess that he received the "above average" grade for actual aircraft handling in the simulator. Out on the line, of course, his flight management skills (or lack thereof) would have been noticed only by the other crew member.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper
"this was the most serious incident">>> took place in the middle of November 1997. The management sat on that without any action except chiding Tsu for an "overweight landing!!!?? "
56P mentions that Tsu " hated the company ".
One month for the hatred to grow and culminate at Palembang on 19th December !!!
Incidently, when you mention " there was ample time between 60 knots and V1 " to recognise that there was insufficient power,
the Boeing procedure requires "set take-off thrust by 60 kts"
"this was the most serious incident">>> took place in the middle of November 1997. The management sat on that without any action except chiding Tsu for an "overweight landing!!!?? "
56P mentions that Tsu " hated the company ".
One month for the hatred to grow and culminate at Palembang on 19th December !!!
Incidently, when you mention " there was ample time between 60 knots and V1 " to recognise that there was insufficient power,
the Boeing procedure requires "set take-off thrust by 60 kts"
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripper
I am aware of the Boeing procedure in regard to setting of thrust by 60 kts. That is why I made reference to the time available between 60 kts and V1 - more than enough time for the crew to have ACTED on the thrust deficiency that they SHOULD have noticed at 60 kts. In this case, V1 would have been a higher value than that for a shorter sector so the time available was even greater than normal. Were they both asleep during the take-off run??
I am aware of the Boeing procedure in regard to setting of thrust by 60 kts. That is why I made reference to the time available between 60 kts and V1 - more than enough time for the crew to have ACTED on the thrust deficiency that they SHOULD have noticed at 60 kts. In this case, V1 would have been a higher value than that for a shorter sector so the time available was even greater than normal. Were they both asleep during the take-off run??