Silk Air MI 185
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7X7
I will explain what happened to NW 705 which is the same phenomenon that affected Silk Air MI 185
NW 705 encountered severe weather turbulence in thunderstorm activity. The aircraft pitched up in an updraft to about a 30 degree nose high attitude The pilot applied forward pitch control to lower the nose, however he was still in the updraft and the aircraft was slow in reacting to the control input. The pilot then trimmed the stabilizer full nose down, to the stops. When the aircraft exited the updraft and returned to tne normal relative wind direction the aircraft reacted to the full nose down stabilizer position and the forward pitch control input and pitched over into a vertical dive. The acceleration at the rate of G was so rapid that the aircraft exceeded the velocity at which a recovery could be made and the aircraft came apart in the air.!
I grant Silk Air was not in severe activity but any erroneous flight instrument indications will affect the pilots instinctive reactions!
The NTSB says that, "A pilots inadvertent reaction to turbulence can cause more problems than the jolt of turbulence itself."
I will explain what happened to NW 705 which is the same phenomenon that affected Silk Air MI 185
NW 705 encountered severe weather turbulence in thunderstorm activity. The aircraft pitched up in an updraft to about a 30 degree nose high attitude The pilot applied forward pitch control to lower the nose, however he was still in the updraft and the aircraft was slow in reacting to the control input. The pilot then trimmed the stabilizer full nose down, to the stops. When the aircraft exited the updraft and returned to tne normal relative wind direction the aircraft reacted to the full nose down stabilizer position and the forward pitch control input and pitched over into a vertical dive. The acceleration at the rate of G was so rapid that the aircraft exceeded the velocity at which a recovery could be made and the aircraft came apart in the air.!
I grant Silk Air was not in severe activity but any erroneous flight instrument indications will affect the pilots instinctive reactions!
The NTSB says that, "A pilots inadvertent reaction to turbulence can cause more problems than the jolt of turbulence itself."
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1
>>>>The acceleration at the rate of G was so rapid that the aircraft exceeded the velocity at which a recovery could be made and the aircraft came apart in the air.!
Silkair 185 did not come apart in the air. It was flown into the ground manually and it was nothing to do with "erroneous flight instruments"
>>>>The acceleration at the rate of G was so rapid that the aircraft exceeded the velocity at which a recovery could be made and the aircraft came apart in the air.!
Silkair 185 did not come apart in the air. It was flown into the ground manually and it was nothing to do with "erroneous flight instruments"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripper
I may be wrong but I believe both wing tips about 3 to 4 feet sections and parts of the tail/rudder did come apart from the aircraft before it hit the ground. They were found about 4 kilometers from the main crash site if I recall correctly..
Will have to check my copy of the crash investigation report when I get home tonight..
I may be wrong but I believe both wing tips about 3 to 4 feet sections and parts of the tail/rudder did come apart from the aircraft before it hit the ground. They were found about 4 kilometers from the main crash site if I recall correctly..
Will have to check my copy of the crash investigation report when I get home tonight..
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crockett,
what you are refering to, are parts which separated due to speed exceeding structural limits of the aircraft. It was not due to reasons mentioned by wsherif1. He is just describing things which never happened to 185 and I think he knows nothing about flying
what you are refering to, are parts which separated due to speed exceeding structural limits of the aircraft. It was not due to reasons mentioned by wsherif1. He is just describing things which never happened to 185 and I think he knows nothing about flying
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripper
Was not suggesting one way or another why or when it happened.. just that parts did come apart from the main body of the aircraft during the somewhat rapid descent.. We do not know for sure how much of the aircraft came apart during the descent as only +/- 70% of the total aircraft weight was ever recovered from the crash site.. Who the hell knows what happened to the other +/- 30%..
Maybe it was carried away by the musi river, maybe fell elsewhere and never found away from the crash site, maybe taken by the villagers who lived right next to the crash site.. Who knows..???
Sure some of it must have been taken by them since all the luggage disapeared aswell... Not one suitcase, not one bag, not one wallet found. In fact, not one body found either....which is a bit strange since they (The villagers) seemed to find a lot of credit cards...(which they later tried to sell back to us when we visited the crash site by the way)... Who can blame them I guess..
Guess what I am getting at..not all the wreckage was found..so we do not know when the missing +/- 30 % separated from the main body of the aircraft.. or at least I do not and have not read anything to suggest otherwise.. Wish I did know..
It might provide some answers or proof or whatever you want to call it..
Was not suggesting one way or another why or when it happened.. just that parts did come apart from the main body of the aircraft during the somewhat rapid descent.. We do not know for sure how much of the aircraft came apart during the descent as only +/- 70% of the total aircraft weight was ever recovered from the crash site.. Who the hell knows what happened to the other +/- 30%..
Maybe it was carried away by the musi river, maybe fell elsewhere and never found away from the crash site, maybe taken by the villagers who lived right next to the crash site.. Who knows..???
Sure some of it must have been taken by them since all the luggage disapeared aswell... Not one suitcase, not one bag, not one wallet found. In fact, not one body found either....which is a bit strange since they (The villagers) seemed to find a lot of credit cards...(which they later tried to sell back to us when we visited the crash site by the way)... Who can blame them I guess..
Guess what I am getting at..not all the wreckage was found..so we do not know when the missing +/- 30 % separated from the main body of the aircraft.. or at least I do not and have not read anything to suggest otherwise.. Wish I did know..
It might provide some answers or proof or whatever you want to call it..
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's becoming fairly obvious to most of us that wsherif1 has very little idea about that which he purports to be an expert on. His single issue campaign that most pilot induced crashes/suicides over the last 20 years or so are in fact wake turbulence or wx induced turbulence upsets that were not recovered shows that he is more of a loony conspiracy theorist with the NTSB out to get him. I would worry more about wsherif1 ending up on the top of a water tower with a rifle and a high power scope!
It's one thing to theorise but to make statements wsherif1 as wsherif1 has, with the refusal to even acknowledge other possibilities and at the same time making obvious errors in his presentation just shows to those of us who are indeed real pilots that he is an enthusiast with a conspiracy theory. Too much spare time which he probably uses to read accident reports and a natural fear that 'they're coming to get him' have led to him assuming that his authoratitive style will be accepted without query on here.
Unfotunately, people like Crockett, who lost close family and are still tragically trying to get some kind of closure on this terrible crash have to suffer the silly theories of an enthusiastic but single issue conspiracy theorist. Take it from the majority of normal pilots, wsherif1 has not provided any credentials to back up his expertise which he spouts on about and is therefore discredited in our eyes, just as the Indonesian investigation team were.
It's one thing to theorise but to make statements wsherif1 as wsherif1 has, with the refusal to even acknowledge other possibilities and at the same time making obvious errors in his presentation just shows to those of us who are indeed real pilots that he is an enthusiast with a conspiracy theory. Too much spare time which he probably uses to read accident reports and a natural fear that 'they're coming to get him' have led to him assuming that his authoratitive style will be accepted without query on here.
Unfotunately, people like Crockett, who lost close family and are still tragically trying to get some kind of closure on this terrible crash have to suffer the silly theories of an enthusiastic but single issue conspiracy theorist. Take it from the majority of normal pilots, wsherif1 has not provided any credentials to back up his expertise which he spouts on about and is therefore discredited in our eyes, just as the Indonesian investigation team were.
Too mean to buy a long personal title
cargo boy: [wsherif1] is an enthusiast with a conspiracy theory
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo Boy,
Your comment,
"Take it from the majority of normal pilots, wsherif1 has not provided any credentials to back up his expertise which he spouts on about."
Wsherif1,
My credentials are posted on the forum. Check them out.
The following information is quoted from NWA Captain Paul Soderlind's, "Flight Standards Bulletin" 3-65. Paul was NWA Chief Pilot-Technical. He was awarded 8 commendations for his contributatins to air safty. He developed the Airspeed Bug System, and along with the NWA Chief meterorologist, the "Turbulence Plot." NWA used the Plot sucessfully for many years. He also authored FSB 8-63, "Jet Turbulence Penetration". Paul died December 2000.
Control Cues:
Of the five sources of pitch information, three often lie to you in turbulence. Unless this phenomena is understood, you may make a PUSH control input when a PUll is required. If reversed control inputs are made, loss of control in turbulence becomes a stronger possibility.
Though it seems a ridiculous over simplification and really not necessary to state, to fly safely in turbulence you must keep the airplane level. This requires control of pitch and roll, and of the two, pitch control problems predominate. Upsets in pitch, both small and large, are more common than in roll. It is interesting--and enlightening--to study why this may be.
Only one indicator gives roll infoemation, and it tells the truth, Not so with pitch indications, and the problem may be that you have too many!
When pitch attitude changes, five cockpit indications respond, thus tell you something about pitch attitude.
These are:
- The attitude indicator.
- The airspeed indicator.
- The altimeter.
- The vertical speed indicator
- Load factor ("seat-of-the-pants") changes.
Of these, only the attitude indicator directly indicates pitch. While the others respond to pitch changes, they do not and cannot indicate pitch. In drafts, the latter four will lie to you in one form or another, if they are interpreted as indications of pitch. The degree to which the information is false depends, among other things, on the direction from which the drafts come. So many variables are involved that the pattern of false information is not repeatable and thus cannot be learned. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM HERE IS USING, OR BEING INFLUENCED BY, "PITCH" INDICATORS THAT DO NOT INDICATE PITCH.
posted 2nd July 2003 07:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tripper to Crockett,
"what you are refering to, are parts which separated due to the speed exceeding structural limits of the aircraft. It was not due to reasons mentioned by wsherif1"
My statement, wsherif1.
The acceleration at the rate of G was so rapid that the aircraft exceeded the velocity at which a recovery could be made and the aircraft came apart in the air.!
Tripper,
" He is just describing things which never happened to 185 and I think he knows nothing about flying."
wsherif1's comment,
Flew the Navy Douglas SBD, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, F8F Bearcat, AD, F9F Panther Jet, accrued 75 traps on straight deck Aircraft Carriers. Flew AAL's Convair 240, DC6, DC7, and was Rated on the Electra, B707, B727, Convair 990, DC10, retired off the B747, and enjoyed every minute.
Just trying to save lives!
Your comment,
"Take it from the majority of normal pilots, wsherif1 has not provided any credentials to back up his expertise which he spouts on about."
Wsherif1,
My credentials are posted on the forum. Check them out.
The following information is quoted from NWA Captain Paul Soderlind's, "Flight Standards Bulletin" 3-65. Paul was NWA Chief Pilot-Technical. He was awarded 8 commendations for his contributatins to air safty. He developed the Airspeed Bug System, and along with the NWA Chief meterorologist, the "Turbulence Plot." NWA used the Plot sucessfully for many years. He also authored FSB 8-63, "Jet Turbulence Penetration". Paul died December 2000.
Control Cues:
Of the five sources of pitch information, three often lie to you in turbulence. Unless this phenomena is understood, you may make a PUSH control input when a PUll is required. If reversed control inputs are made, loss of control in turbulence becomes a stronger possibility.
Though it seems a ridiculous over simplification and really not necessary to state, to fly safely in turbulence you must keep the airplane level. This requires control of pitch and roll, and of the two, pitch control problems predominate. Upsets in pitch, both small and large, are more common than in roll. It is interesting--and enlightening--to study why this may be.
Only one indicator gives roll infoemation, and it tells the truth, Not so with pitch indications, and the problem may be that you have too many!
When pitch attitude changes, five cockpit indications respond, thus tell you something about pitch attitude.
These are:
- The attitude indicator.
- The airspeed indicator.
- The altimeter.
- The vertical speed indicator
- Load factor ("seat-of-the-pants") changes.
Of these, only the attitude indicator directly indicates pitch. While the others respond to pitch changes, they do not and cannot indicate pitch. In drafts, the latter four will lie to you in one form or another, if they are interpreted as indications of pitch. The degree to which the information is false depends, among other things, on the direction from which the drafts come. So many variables are involved that the pattern of false information is not repeatable and thus cannot be learned. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM HERE IS USING, OR BEING INFLUENCED BY, "PITCH" INDICATORS THAT DO NOT INDICATE PITCH.
posted 2nd July 2003 07:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tripper to Crockett,
"what you are refering to, are parts which separated due to the speed exceeding structural limits of the aircraft. It was not due to reasons mentioned by wsherif1"
My statement, wsherif1.
The acceleration at the rate of G was so rapid that the aircraft exceeded the velocity at which a recovery could be made and the aircraft came apart in the air.!
Tripper,
" He is just describing things which never happened to 185 and I think he knows nothing about flying."
wsherif1's comment,
Flew the Navy Douglas SBD, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, F8F Bearcat, AD, F9F Panther Jet, accrued 75 traps on straight deck Aircraft Carriers. Flew AAL's Convair 240, DC6, DC7, and was Rated on the Electra, B707, B727, Convair 990, DC10, retired off the B747, and enjoyed every minute.
Just trying to save lives!
Last edited by wsherif1; 4th Jul 2003 at 16:03.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley,
Your comment,
"The aircraft is trimmed for the speed you were at when encountering the upset and it will seek to recover to that same speed, flying more or less straight and level " WRONG!!!
YOU DO NOT ENCOUNTER AN UPSET.!!! You do encounter an updraft, aircraft wake or weather turbulence.!!! The pilot reacts to the wind shear effects on the flight instruments and is the cause of the upset! PIO!
Your comment,
"The aircraft is trimmed for the speed you were at when encountering the upset and it will seek to recover to that same speed, flying more or less straight and level " WRONG!!!
YOU DO NOT ENCOUNTER AN UPSET.!!! You do encounter an updraft, aircraft wake or weather turbulence.!!! The pilot reacts to the wind shear effects on the flight instruments and is the cause of the upset! PIO!
Last edited by wsherif1; 12th Jul 2003 at 08:18.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif 1,
9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT, repeat NOT, break apart in the air.
Why have you not addressed the power failures to the CVR & DFDR? Why do you not address all the latent factors in this case?
9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT, repeat NOT, break apart in the air.
Why have you not addressed the power failures to the CVR & DFDR? Why do you not address all the latent factors in this case?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1
i like the "Just trying to save lives!" bit.
From your list it appears that you are also a trained aerobatic pilot defending the captain of 185 who took everyone on board with him.
try reading through the postings and the NTSB report, instead of rambling
i like the "Just trying to save lives!" bit.
From your list it appears that you are also a trained aerobatic pilot defending the captain of 185 who took everyone on board with him.
try reading through the postings and the NTSB report, instead of rambling
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
56P
Your comments,
I say again: 9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT break up in the air.
With respect, Crockett was not a member of the investigation. I was.
How do you explain the muliple and varius aircraft parts discovered in the area??
Your comments,
I say again: 9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT break up in the air.
With respect, Crockett was not a member of the investigation. I was.
How do you explain the muliple and varius aircraft parts discovered in the area??
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1
"How do you explain the muliple and varius aircraft parts discovered in the area??"
That question of yours really does demonstrate your ignorance in regard to this crash. Please read the earlier posts and, if all else fails, please try the actual report. The latter document may be deficient in many areas in what it does NOT state BUT it actually does contain some items of interest, especially in regard to wreckage and flight control components that were recovered. Only one small part of the aircraft separated from the main body in the dive, testament to the structural integrity of the aircraft at speeds way in excess of its normal envelope.
"How do you explain the muliple and varius aircraft parts discovered in the area??"
That question of yours really does demonstrate your ignorance in regard to this crash. Please read the earlier posts and, if all else fails, please try the actual report. The latter document may be deficient in many areas in what it does NOT state BUT it actually does contain some items of interest, especially in regard to wreckage and flight control components that were recovered. Only one small part of the aircraft separated from the main body in the dive, testament to the structural integrity of the aircraft at speeds way in excess of its normal envelope.
Guest
Posts: n/a
MI 185. False instrument indications in CAVOK causing it to crash? The aircraft had an EFIS flight instrument panel on both sides of the cockpit - plus a standby ADI, ASI and altimeter. Very reliable flight instruments - much more so than non-EFIS.
Silk Air said the captain was a brilliant aerobatic pilot - leader of the military aerobatic team. Surely with all these superb qualifications he could recover from any known inverted position in CAVOK - if his EFIS instruments were erroneous or not. On the other hand, too, he would have the skills needed to deliberately place the 737 into an inverted attitude if he chose to do so...don't you agree?
Silk Air said the captain was a brilliant aerobatic pilot - leader of the military aerobatic team. Surely with all these superb qualifications he could recover from any known inverted position in CAVOK - if his EFIS instruments were erroneous or not. On the other hand, too, he would have the skills needed to deliberately place the 737 into an inverted attitude if he chose to do so...don't you agree?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1 wrote
"Flew the Navy Douglas SBD, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, F8F Bearcat, AD, F9F Panther Jet, accrued 75 traps on straight deck Aircraft Carriers.
Flew AAL's Convair 240, DC6, DC7, and
was Rated on the Electra, B707, B727, Convair 990, DC10, retired off the B747
there is a difference between "flew" and "rated" isn't it??
I wonder if he has ever seen the EFIS cockpit!!!
"Flew the Navy Douglas SBD, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, F8F Bearcat, AD, F9F Panther Jet, accrued 75 traps on straight deck Aircraft Carriers.
Flew AAL's Convair 240, DC6, DC7, and
was Rated on the Electra, B707, B727, Convair 990, DC10, retired off the B747
there is a difference between "flew" and "rated" isn't it??
I wonder if he has ever seen the EFIS cockpit!!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, Tripper. When you look at what he's "flown" and what he's "rated on," there really is a story there. I suspect that he probably knows all about steam propulsion and gas lighting!
Wiley, Tripper, Hudson, 56P and others have all offered extremely plausible explanations, ones that are shared in nearly all quarters. wsherif1, on the other hand, clings blindly to the pilot reaction to jet upset / turbulence scenario and continually refuses to address any of the other factors unique to this case; viz DFDR, CVR, demotion, insurance etc etc. He even keeps referring to the loss of a NW B720 near Miami, an accident caused by penetration of severe thunderstorm activity! Knowledge of history, however, is no substitute for actual experience.
At least, in this case, he has contributed to maintaining this issue in the pprune headlines, a situation probably most unwelcome in the areas separated by the Malacca Straits.
Wiley, Tripper, Hudson, 56P and others have all offered extremely plausible explanations, ones that are shared in nearly all quarters. wsherif1, on the other hand, clings blindly to the pilot reaction to jet upset / turbulence scenario and continually refuses to address any of the other factors unique to this case; viz DFDR, CVR, demotion, insurance etc etc. He even keeps referring to the loss of a NW B720 near Miami, an accident caused by penetration of severe thunderstorm activity! Knowledge of history, however, is no substitute for actual experience.
At least, in this case, he has contributed to maintaining this issue in the pprune headlines, a situation probably most unwelcome in the areas separated by the Malacca Straits.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hudson,
Your comment,
MI 185. False instrument indications in CAVOK causing it to crash? The aircraft had an EFIS flight instrument panel on both sides of the cockpit - plus a standby ADI, ASI and altimeter. Very reliable flight instruments - much more so than non-EFIS.
The pitot-static sensors are the same holes, no hi-tech here.
When the NTSB put the results of the COPA Accident FDR readouts through the computer the readings were so radical that the Boeing engineers claimed that the maneouvers were impossible for the aircraft to have performed.!
Your comment,
MI 185. False instrument indications in CAVOK causing it to crash? The aircraft had an EFIS flight instrument panel on both sides of the cockpit - plus a standby ADI, ASI and altimeter. Very reliable flight instruments - much more so than non-EFIS.
The pitot-static sensors are the same holes, no hi-tech here.
When the NTSB put the results of the COPA Accident FDR readouts through the computer the readings were so radical that the Boeing engineers claimed that the maneouvers were impossible for the aircraft to have performed.!