SilkAir MI 185
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a bottle
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An accident that has been flogged to no end
Dead men don"t talk
If at all anybody comes up with a "concrete conclusion" with the evidence present.... It's would be a gambling stab in the sky and at best based on presumption....since its easier to be emotive than logical .... We continue flogging the dead horse...People of science and logic would dictate that a conclusion is unattainable.. It's time to let MI185 be inconclusive....
Let the dead rest in peace
Dead men don"t talk
If at all anybody comes up with a "concrete conclusion" with the evidence present.... It's would be a gambling stab in the sky and at best based on presumption....since its easier to be emotive than logical .... We continue flogging the dead horse...People of science and logic would dictate that a conclusion is unattainable.. It's time to let MI185 be inconclusive....
Let the dead rest in peace
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing/NTSB role in _INVESTIGATION_
From comment just above:
The USA's NTSB still holds an undeserved reputation as a good investigating authority. I liked that TV-show's (above) interview with Feith -- Feith (former NTSB) clearly expressed Boeing's absolute certainty about the SilkAir INITIAL upset.
So, there are some good reasons why the NTSB's staff should be suspect, some errs (biased-botched investigations) that need correction. USA-law lacks any means for reviewing NTSB-staff errs, NTSB refuse to comply with their own rules for "reconsideration"; & the 9th Circuit Court decision stated the NTSB enjoys "unreviewable discretion": No IG, no Court of Inquiry can review the NTSB-staff errs.
"... An accident ... flogged to no end ... let MI185 be inconclusive...."
There is more to this than just the NTSC's MI185 _investigation_: in the mid'1990's the USA's NTSB committed a few major errs (though COS, PIT, and 800 cases were _investigated_ to a proper conclusion).The USA's NTSB still holds an undeserved reputation as a good investigating authority. I liked that TV-show's (above) interview with Feith -- Feith (former NTSB) clearly expressed Boeing's absolute certainty about the SilkAir INITIAL upset.
So, there are some good reasons why the NTSB's staff should be suspect, some errs (biased-botched investigations) that need correction. USA-law lacks any means for reviewing NTSB-staff errs, NTSB refuse to comply with their own rules for "reconsideration"; & the 9th Circuit Court decision stated the NTSB enjoys "unreviewable discretion": No IG, no Court of Inquiry can review the NTSB-staff errs.
Last edited by IGh; 12th Oct 2012 at 04:23.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is wrong to describe MI185 as an 'accident', it wasn't, it was a deliberate act of murder.
I was in Singapore at the time, working for the parent company, followed every word of the Indonesian investigation and know technical wittinesses who were part of that investigation.
NTSB aside, Boeing produced irrefutable evidence, based on their knowledge of the aircraft systems, an aircraft they designed and built, that there was human intervention to take the aircraft from a stable cruise condition into a high speed and fatal dive and that there was no other way this could have happened, this was verified by independent aircraft engineers, from around the world, who were given access to the data. Every piece of the puzzle fitted, yet here we have conspiracy theorists, for that is what they are, trying to tell us that, by some miraculous coincidence, every piece of that multi thousand piece puzzle, actually come together to suggest alternative causes to the incident.
I agree, this subject should be put to bed and the Innocent dead allowed to rest in peace.
I was in Singapore at the time, working for the parent company, followed every word of the Indonesian investigation and know technical wittinesses who were part of that investigation.
NTSB aside, Boeing produced irrefutable evidence, based on their knowledge of the aircraft systems, an aircraft they designed and built, that there was human intervention to take the aircraft from a stable cruise condition into a high speed and fatal dive and that there was no other way this could have happened, this was verified by independent aircraft engineers, from around the world, who were given access to the data. Every piece of the puzzle fitted, yet here we have conspiracy theorists, for that is what they are, trying to tell us that, by some miraculous coincidence, every piece of that multi thousand piece puzzle, actually come together to suggest alternative causes to the incident.
I agree, this subject should be put to bed and the Innocent dead allowed to rest in peace.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like parabellum I too was in Singapore at the time working for the parent company and as he says it was a deliberate act of suicide and murder by the deeply flawed Captain whose career and personal life were in ruins.
Loss of Face is very important to certain peoples and he was clever enough to know that having pulled both CB's behind his seat that it would be nigh impossible to 100% say it was deliberate despite the full power and stab trim wound fully down.
Loss of Face is very important to certain peoples and he was clever enough to know that having pulled both CB's behind his seat that it would be nigh impossible to 100% say it was deliberate despite the full power and stab trim wound fully down.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments above:
Edit: From Indonesia's NTSC, final AAR pg N-57 (pdf pg 249), commenting on that Boeing-NTSB assertion --
"... MI185 as an 'accident' ... a deliberate act of murder.... the Indonesian investigation ... Boeing produced irrefutable evidence ..."
Thanks, that says it all."... human intervention ... from a stable cruise ... into a high speed and fatal dive ... no other way this could have happened ..."
So, should investigators ignore seven decades of Boeing-style upsets cited earlier?Edit: From Indonesia's NTSC, final AAR pg N-57 (pdf pg 249), commenting on that Boeing-NTSB assertion --
"NTSC's Comments:
"There was no evidence to positively conclude that the departure from cruise flight was an intentional maneuver...."
[See Appendix N, where the investigating authority (NTSC) counters Boeing's assertions.
Final Report No. 01/00 - KNKT/97.35/00.01.003
"There was no evidence to positively conclude that the departure from cruise flight was an intentional maneuver...."
[See Appendix N, where the investigating authority (NTSC) counters Boeing's assertions.
Final Report No. 01/00 - KNKT/97.35/00.01.003
Last edited by IGh; 18th Oct 2012 at 17:12. Reason: Added NTSC commment on Boeing's assertion
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not going to bother trying to discuss this with you any further IGh, what are you anyway? Your profile is very light on information. Are you someone who should know what they are talking about, an accident investigator, an aircraft engineer, a pilot, someone who was there at the time? Any of these? Or are you just a conspiracy theorists who delights in ignoring all evidence in order to follow your own highly suspect fantasies?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: dBoonies
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
defects in rudder control system ..
Business Times - 09 Jul 2004
SilkAir crash: US firm told to pay US$44m
Los Angeles Superior Court jury says defects in rudder control system caused the crash
(LOS ANGELES) Parker Hannifin Corp, the world's largest maker of hydraulic equipment, was told by a Los Angeles jury to pay US$43.6 million to the families of three people killed in a 1997 crash of a SilkAir Pte plane in Indonesia.
The Los Angeles Superior Court jury on Tuesday determined that defects in a rudder control system caused the Boeing Co 737 to plunge from 35,000 feet, killing all 104 people aboard.
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that there were no mechanical defects and the pilot intentionally caused the crash.
'We are incredulous,' said Lorrie Paul Crum, a spokeswoman for Cleveland-based Parker Hannifin, who said the company will appeal. 'This is the best case for tort reform I've seen yet.'
The jury assigned the entire responsibility for the crash to Parker Hannifin, rejecting the option of apportioning any fault to SilkAir or Boeing, which manufactured the 10-month-old 737. Parker Hannifin was the only defendant.
Boeing had settled earlier and SilkAir had paid about US$100,000 to each family under the Warsaw Convention, which limits airlines' liability in international accidents, said Walter Lack, a lawyer for the families.
The case was the first US trial over the crash of SilkAir Flight 135, Mr Lack said. The trial established Parker Hannifin's liability and relatives of about 30 other people will now go to trial in the same Los Angeles court to determine how much Parker Hannifin owes them in damages, he said.
'This is just the tip of the iceberg,' Mr Lack said. Another 40 cases are pending in federal court in Seattle, he said.
SilkAir is Singapore Airline Ltd's regional unit, serving mainly tourists travelling to Asian destinations. SilkAir Flight 135 was travelling to Singapore from Jakarta when it crashed in December 1997.
The NTSB said in a December 2000 letter to the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee that 'no airplane- related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident' and the evidence indicates the crash was caused by 'intentional pilot action'. The Indonesian safety agency gave no official reason for the crash.
The US agency investigates major international accidents involving US air carriers or US manufactured jets. NTSB reports can't be used as evidence at trial under federal law, Ms Crum said. Mr Lack said factual statements from NTSB reports can be used, while conclusions and recommendations are barred by the law.
Parker Hannifin intends to challenge that statute in its appeal as well as seek a legislative remedy, Ms Crum said. The verdict won't affect Parker Hannifin's earnings because the company is covered by insurance, she added.
The case was brought by the families of Soen Lay Heng, 46, a Singapore resident who specialised in security printing; Merleen Tan Peck Jiang, 26, a Singapore resident who worked as a computer consultant; and Kenneth George Wilson, 44, a Scottish citizen living in Indonesia.
The trial before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias lasted six weeks. The jury deliberated for four days before delivering its unanimous verdict on all questions, Mr Lack said. - Bloomberg
SilkAir crash: US firm told to pay US$44m
Los Angeles Superior Court jury says defects in rudder control system caused the crash
(LOS ANGELES) Parker Hannifin Corp, the world's largest maker of hydraulic equipment, was told by a Los Angeles jury to pay US$43.6 million to the families of three people killed in a 1997 crash of a SilkAir Pte plane in Indonesia.
The Los Angeles Superior Court jury on Tuesday determined that defects in a rudder control system caused the Boeing Co 737 to plunge from 35,000 feet, killing all 104 people aboard.
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that there were no mechanical defects and the pilot intentionally caused the crash.
'We are incredulous,' said Lorrie Paul Crum, a spokeswoman for Cleveland-based Parker Hannifin, who said the company will appeal. 'This is the best case for tort reform I've seen yet.'
The jury assigned the entire responsibility for the crash to Parker Hannifin, rejecting the option of apportioning any fault to SilkAir or Boeing, which manufactured the 10-month-old 737. Parker Hannifin was the only defendant.
Boeing had settled earlier and SilkAir had paid about US$100,000 to each family under the Warsaw Convention, which limits airlines' liability in international accidents, said Walter Lack, a lawyer for the families.
The case was the first US trial over the crash of SilkAir Flight 135, Mr Lack said. The trial established Parker Hannifin's liability and relatives of about 30 other people will now go to trial in the same Los Angeles court to determine how much Parker Hannifin owes them in damages, he said.
'This is just the tip of the iceberg,' Mr Lack said. Another 40 cases are pending in federal court in Seattle, he said.
SilkAir is Singapore Airline Ltd's regional unit, serving mainly tourists travelling to Asian destinations. SilkAir Flight 135 was travelling to Singapore from Jakarta when it crashed in December 1997.
The NTSB said in a December 2000 letter to the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee that 'no airplane- related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident' and the evidence indicates the crash was caused by 'intentional pilot action'. The Indonesian safety agency gave no official reason for the crash.
The US agency investigates major international accidents involving US air carriers or US manufactured jets. NTSB reports can't be used as evidence at trial under federal law, Ms Crum said. Mr Lack said factual statements from NTSB reports can be used, while conclusions and recommendations are barred by the law.
Parker Hannifin intends to challenge that statute in its appeal as well as seek a legislative remedy, Ms Crum said. The verdict won't affect Parker Hannifin's earnings because the company is covered by insurance, she added.
The case was brought by the families of Soen Lay Heng, 46, a Singapore resident who specialised in security printing; Merleen Tan Peck Jiang, 26, a Singapore resident who worked as a computer consultant; and Kenneth George Wilson, 44, a Scottish citizen living in Indonesia.
The trial before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias lasted six weeks. The jury deliberated for four days before delivering its unanimous verdict on all questions, Mr Lack said. - Bloomberg
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: dBoonies
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rudder defect!
In a separate investigation into whether a criminal offence
might have caused the crash, the Singapore Police CID
found no evidence that the pilot or anyone else on board
may have had suicidal tendencies or a motive to cause the
crash.
might have caused the crash, the Singapore Police CID
found no evidence that the pilot or anyone else on board
may have had suicidal tendencies or a motive to cause the
crash.
7 The Singapore accredited representative to the
investigation stated expressly that the wreckage of the
cockpit and circuit breaker panel had not been recovered.8
investigation stated expressly that the wreckage of the
cockpit and circuit breaker panel had not been recovered.8
By May 2003, an emerging body of new evidence
suggested that Flight MI 185’s flight data recorder had not
stopped recording until shortly before the crash.
suggested that Flight MI 185’s flight data recorder had not
stopped recording until shortly before the crash.
9 The
recorder also showed an unusual full rudder deflection.
Such a rudder position would have caused the jet to swerve
sharply and snap into a roll . In July 2004, a Los
Angeles court in the United States ruled that the Flight MI
185 crash had been caused by a defective servo valve in the
plane’s rudder.10 The rudder manufacturer was ordered to
recorder also showed an unusual full rudder deflection.
Such a rudder position would have caused the jet to swerve
sharply and snap into a roll . In July 2004, a Los
Angeles court in the United States ruled that the Flight MI
185 crash had been caused by a defective servo valve in the
plane’s rudder.10 The rudder manufacturer was ordered to
pay the families of victims
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The
recorder also showed an unusual full rudder deflection
recorder also showed an unusual full rudder deflection
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That verdict, based on a jury's findings, is most likely being appealed.
The Singapore Police report will be problematic.
Far to many other factors to consider, stabiliser trim full nose down, throttles fully open etc. etc.
The Singapore Police report will be problematic.
Far to many other factors to consider, stabiliser trim full nose down, throttles fully open etc. etc.
Last edited by parabellum; 19th Nov 2012 at 00:33.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far to many other factors to consider, stabiliser trim full nose down, throttles fully open etc. etc.
He further postulated that in all probability a crack started across the windscreen caused by a "progressive" electrical failure. Warming up to his own argument the witness suggested whoever was on the flight deck panicked and selected full down stab trim while pushing the 737 into a steep dive and was too busy to make a radio call or select the speed brakes but when he realised his error he pushed open the throttles in order to get the nose to rise.
In addition, so the expert argued, as it was known the captain had in all probability left the cockpit for a short while, judging by the last recorded words on the CVR, the only person left in the cockpit at the time of the nose dive was the first officer. Ergo, the F/O was probably to blame.. His argument was accepted by the judge as one plausable explanation for the accident. Well, to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, he would, wouldn't he?
Last edited by A37575; 19th Nov 2012 at 11:36.
-Secondary slide took 260lbs of pull to remove from casing which had hit the ground at near supersonic speed...
-trim nose down from cruise position
-VGV/MEC/HPC/Thr Quadrant indicative of high power setting
-speedbrakes down
-near vertical impact
-transonic speed
-CVR fail
-FDR fail
and P-H gets pinged? Don't like the double action servo valve on principle, but theres a point where the simple answer is the most likely answer, certainly it cannot be ruled out in the condition of lack of evidence. There is no evidence that the rudder was hard over to the right, in fact the evidence is contrary, slight left deflection. That the pilot(s) decided that full power and nose down trim was necessary to achieve a recovery from a high speed vertical dive is an indication as to the lack of basic knowledge that pervades at least 12 jurors.
-trim nose down from cruise position
-VGV/MEC/HPC/Thr Quadrant indicative of high power setting
-speedbrakes down
-near vertical impact
-transonic speed
-CVR fail
-FDR fail
and P-H gets pinged? Don't like the double action servo valve on principle, but theres a point where the simple answer is the most likely answer, certainly it cannot be ruled out in the condition of lack of evidence. There is no evidence that the rudder was hard over to the right, in fact the evidence is contrary, slight left deflection. That the pilot(s) decided that full power and nose down trim was necessary to achieve a recovery from a high speed vertical dive is an indication as to the lack of basic knowledge that pervades at least 12 jurors.
Last edited by fdr; 20th Nov 2012 at 00:35.
