Silk Air MI 185
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Distorting some of the debate on this crash and a few others are some people who do not want the sucide theory to win out becuase they feel it will fuel a public push for video cameras in the cockpit.
I do not feel there should be videos but many pilots fear, with justification, that some politician will react and legislate.
Although one could always find a way to turn the video camera off.
GT
I do not feel there should be videos but many pilots fear, with justification, that some politician will react and legislate.
Although one could always find a way to turn the video camera off.
GT
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
wsherif1, with each post you make, it becomes more apparent that either you are:
(i) NOT a pilot..perhaps a close relative of the Chinese captain of MI 185??...or a legal counsel, trying to feel your way??,
or,
(ii) a pilot who retired some 20 or more years ago, and who is not familiar with glass cockpit instruments. Your comment, "{Very reliable flight instruments - much more so than non-EFIS.}The pitot-static sensors are the same holes, no hi-tech here.", underscores your apparent total lack of knowledge of EFIS equipped aircraft vs the old "suck and blow" type!!
You appear to be trying to throw too many "red herrings" into this post, to deliberately confuse/subvert those who are NOT professional pilots.
But keep 'em coming, because the depth of knowledge by some of the posters here runs several hundred fathoms over the constant reference you invariably hark back to.....is this the SOLE evidence upon which you hope to build your case?
If so, I shall be MORE than happy to help in cannon-balling its relevance to MI 185!
GT...no need to turn them off - a bit of sticking plaster should do!!
(i) NOT a pilot..perhaps a close relative of the Chinese captain of MI 185??...or a legal counsel, trying to feel your way??,
or,
(ii) a pilot who retired some 20 or more years ago, and who is not familiar with glass cockpit instruments. Your comment, "{Very reliable flight instruments - much more so than non-EFIS.}The pitot-static sensors are the same holes, no hi-tech here.", underscores your apparent total lack of knowledge of EFIS equipped aircraft vs the old "suck and blow" type!!
You appear to be trying to throw too many "red herrings" into this post, to deliberately confuse/subvert those who are NOT professional pilots.
But keep 'em coming, because the depth of knowledge by some of the posters here runs several hundred fathoms over the constant reference you invariably hark back to.....is this the SOLE evidence upon which you hope to build your case?
If so, I shall be MORE than happy to help in cannon-balling its relevance to MI 185!
GT...no need to turn them off - a bit of sticking plaster should do!!
Last edited by Kaptin M; 7th Jul 2003 at 19:50.
wsherif1
You do not have to be an electronics expert to work out why the FDR and CVR ceased operating. Quite simply they were switched off prior to the aerobatics display.
As to impact damage to the gyro stops, I would have thought hitting the ground/swamp/water at Mach1+ might well make your assertion irrefutable!
Where do I get a computer with pitot-static sensors that runs FS2003? I sure would like one of those for Xmas.
Paul Soderlind must be turning in his grave.
Clarification:
If the above appears to break the train of the thread it is because wsherif1's post to which the above refers has subsequently been deleted.
You do not have to be an electronics expert to work out why the FDR and CVR ceased operating. Quite simply they were switched off prior to the aerobatics display.
As to impact damage to the gyro stops, I would have thought hitting the ground/swamp/water at Mach1+ might well make your assertion irrefutable!
Where do I get a computer with pitot-static sensors that runs FS2003? I sure would like one of those for Xmas.
Paul Soderlind must be turning in his grave.
Clarification:
If the above appears to break the train of the thread it is because wsherif1's post to which the above refers has subsequently been deleted.
Last edited by VR-HFX; 9th Jul 2003 at 00:03.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1 flew the Douglas SBD, the Dauntless dive bomber, which entered service with the US Navy in 1939, played a prominent role in the battle of Midway (1942), and its last major engagement was the Battle of the Philippine Sea (1944), being replaced in the last years of World War II by the Helldiver. The US Marine Corps used it until the end of the war (August 1945), but not off carriers. So someone who flew the SBD presumably did so about 60 years ago..
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>wsherif1 flew the Douglas SBD, the Dauntless dive bomber, which entered service with the US Navy in 1939, played a prominent role in the battle of Midway (1942), and its last major engagement was the Battle of the Philippine Sea (1944), being replaced in the last years of World War II by the Helldiver. The US Marine Corps used it until the end of the war (August 1945), but not off carriers. So someone who flew the SBD presumably did so about 60 years ago..
"The pitot-static sensors are the same holes, no hi-tech here."
This explains why the "Zero" s of the Japanese Air Force were crashing into the Yank ships during the war. Maybe, wsherif1 should mail them all his postings and the Paul Soderlind report he keeps refering to. The skies over the Pacific must have been full of CAT when the Zero's were flying around
"The pitot-static sensors are the same holes, no hi-tech here."
This explains why the "Zero" s of the Japanese Air Force were crashing into the Yank ships during the war. Maybe, wsherif1 should mail them all his postings and the Paul Soderlind report he keeps refering to. The skies over the Pacific must have been full of CAT when the Zero's were flying around
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1 may be correct as there IS a link here. The waters from the Musi River flow into the Java Sea, then through the Straits of Malacca to the South China Sea and through the Sulu Sea to the Pacific Ocean. Common ground (water) at last!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tripper,
I flew the SBD for 12 hours after finishing basic flight training in Pensacola. The Navy had one available at Corry Field and the thinking was, to permit the student pilots to experience flight time in a heavier aircraft prior to advanced training in the F4U.
I flew the SBD for 12 hours after finishing basic flight training in Pensacola. The Navy had one available at Corry Field and the thinking was, to permit the student pilots to experience flight time in a heavier aircraft prior to advanced training in the F4U.
Last edited by wsherif1; 12th Jul 2003 at 08:06.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the Silk Air Final Report....of all the things that struck me was the extraordinary explanation that the Indonesians gave for the CVR cut off....
While the report said that no cause of the CVR stoppage could be concluded it suggestted that "a break in the wiring" was a possibility.
The NTSB's unprecedented 49 page dismissal of the Indonesian report debunks the "break in wiring" theory.
The "break in wiring" theory is so lame that many have suggested that it was Prof Diran's way of protesting that his report was being tampered with.
Food for thought!
GT
While the report said that no cause of the CVR stoppage could be concluded it suggestted that "a break in the wiring" was a possibility.
The NTSB's unprecedented 49 page dismissal of the Indonesian report debunks the "break in wiring" theory.
The "break in wiring" theory is so lame that many have suggested that it was Prof Diran's way of protesting that his report was being tampered with.
Food for thought!
GT
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
>>>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<<<
Please help me out here, isn't the F4 a McDonald Douglas Phantom jet, not a Corsair? Not sure if there is an F4 with a 'U' variant too.
>>>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<<<
Please help me out here, isn't the F4 a McDonald Douglas Phantom jet, not a Corsair? Not sure if there is an F4 with a 'U' variant too.
Last edited by Lee; 11th Jul 2003 at 19:53.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lee
<<<
Please help me out here, isn't the F4U a McDonald Douglas Phantom jet, not a Corsair?
>>>
No, I guess this is the Vought F4U Corsair. Before the 1950s the US Navy had a different nomenclature / type-numbering system for its aircraft from the USAF. The system was unified under the DoD at some point, maybe the mid/late 1950s, so we now have common C-, F-, A- etc., type designators.
<<<
Please help me out here, isn't the F4U a McDonald Douglas Phantom jet, not a Corsair?
>>>
No, I guess this is the Vought F4U Corsair. Before the 1950s the US Navy had a different nomenclature / type-numbering system for its aircraft from the USAF. The system was unified under the DoD at some point, maybe the mid/late 1950s, so we now have common C-, F-, A- etc., type designators.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7x7
Your comment,
"I notice you’re carefully avoiding Wiley’s question about MI185’s near vertical descent." Please explain how the 35,000’ tropical ‘wind shear’ did that.
In the United 585 accident over Colorado Springs the ATC controller stated, "The aircraft seemed to pitch up, just prior to the push over into a vertical dive." "The aircraft never rolled, it went straight in." The NWA 705 accident resulted from the pilots trimming the stabilizer full nose down, when the aircraft pitched up from a strong, weather induced up draft. Both aircraft ended up in a "near vertical descent."
56P,
Your comment,
"9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT, repeat NOT, break apart in the air."
Information on this forum indicates that only 70% of the structure was ever recovered and that parts of the aircraft left the structure prior to ground impact.
Your comment,
"I notice you’re carefully avoiding Wiley’s question about MI185’s near vertical descent." Please explain how the 35,000’ tropical ‘wind shear’ did that.
In the United 585 accident over Colorado Springs the ATC controller stated, "The aircraft seemed to pitch up, just prior to the push over into a vertical dive." "The aircraft never rolled, it went straight in." The NWA 705 accident resulted from the pilots trimming the stabilizer full nose down, when the aircraft pitched up from a strong, weather induced up draft. Both aircraft ended up in a "near vertical descent."
56P,
Your comment,
"9V-TRF (MI 185) did NOT, repeat NOT, break apart in the air."
Information on this forum indicates that only 70% of the structure was ever recovered and that parts of the aircraft left the structure prior to ground impact.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Madras,India
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1,
185 did NOT pitch up. It just rolled to the side and was flown into a near vertical dive, manually.
Why don't you go through the FULL report, including the NTSB one which you dislike so much, before making all these stupid comments.
185 crash was not due to any of the problems that you keep refering to. IT WAS A PURE AND SIMPLE CASE OF PILOT SUICIDE MURDER
185 did NOT pitch up. It just rolled to the side and was flown into a near vertical dive, manually.
Why don't you go through the FULL report, including the NTSB one which you dislike so much, before making all these stupid comments.
185 crash was not due to any of the problems that you keep refering to. IT WAS A PURE AND SIMPLE CASE OF PILOT SUICIDE MURDER
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ONE of the resaons that only 70% of the structure was ever recovered was because the 737 crashed into the Musi River. WHAT is extremely interesting is that the US Navy that had salvage equipment in the area offered to help BUT that offer was declined. Again I wonder why.
GT
GT
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1,
GT is quite correct. The aircraft crashed into the Musi River which is about 20' deep at the point of impact. The CVR was located under 27' of mud UNDER the bottom of the river! When the speed of impact and the approx 10-15 kts tide are considered, 70% was a very respectable figure.
By the way, that 70% included all the flight control components and all were found to be operating normally at the point of impact.
The ONLY part of the aircraft to separate prior to impact was a small (18 kg weight) piece of the horizontal stabiliser that was found on the ground 4500 met from the impact reference point. Considering the fact that the speed of the aircraft was way in excess of its normal envelope at this point in its trajectory, it's testament to the integrity of the aircraft that the rest of it held together.
This crash was NOT similar to those at Colorado Springs, Pittsburgh or your pet favourite B720 one near Miami. Did the CVRs and DFDRs in those events experience power failures prior to impact or EVEN in the cruise?
This one was a deliberate and premeditated act. Read (objectively) the full report, NTSB comments and the related factors in this case and you should be able to understand why ALL other possible causes can be excluded.
Why do you suppose that some former plaintiffs have already withdrawn from the case against Boeing?
GT is quite correct. The aircraft crashed into the Musi River which is about 20' deep at the point of impact. The CVR was located under 27' of mud UNDER the bottom of the river! When the speed of impact and the approx 10-15 kts tide are considered, 70% was a very respectable figure.
By the way, that 70% included all the flight control components and all were found to be operating normally at the point of impact.
The ONLY part of the aircraft to separate prior to impact was a small (18 kg weight) piece of the horizontal stabiliser that was found on the ground 4500 met from the impact reference point. Considering the fact that the speed of the aircraft was way in excess of its normal envelope at this point in its trajectory, it's testament to the integrity of the aircraft that the rest of it held together.
This crash was NOT similar to those at Colorado Springs, Pittsburgh or your pet favourite B720 one near Miami. Did the CVRs and DFDRs in those events experience power failures prior to impact or EVEN in the cruise?
This one was a deliberate and premeditated act. Read (objectively) the full report, NTSB comments and the related factors in this case and you should be able to understand why ALL other possible causes can be excluded.
Why do you suppose that some former plaintiffs have already withdrawn from the case against Boeing?