SilkAir MI 185
 

Letter to Canberra Times

A pdf copy of Flight Safety magazine will be available next week at:
www.casa.gov.au
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ref: Air safety report

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Australia) has just published a report in its journal Flight Safety Australia which I would like to see picked up by the media, for the sake of Australians who have to forsake our very safe airlines and fly with foreign carriers. Without making a judgment, the report says "readers can draw their own conclusions".

In the light of the most recent fatal landing accident in Indonesia, I have
drawn mine.

The report of a crash in December 1997 seems to ine to show that the
aircraft, carrying 102 people, was destroyed by a deliberate act of the
captain, who, we are told, was in serious financial difficulties. It seems
he switched off the cockpit recorders and sent the loaded airliner into an
inverted dive at over the speed of sound, an action which required a
positive, deliberate, control input tip to the moment the aircraft began to break tip before impact.

The investigation was one of the most comprehensive possible, but "the Indonesian National Transport Safety Bureau ... produced
an evasive and worthless report", contradicting the careful findings of the
non-Indonesian investigative bodies.

A further report in Flight Safety suggests to me there is a deep-seated
official reluctance to admit it is possible "that anyone who would commit
suicide would also kill so many innocent people alongside him". The pilot involved had been reported and indeed demoted for landing too fast and trying to "reduce flight times".

Travellers would be well advised to study this excellent report and consider
its import.

Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) licensed copy
Canberra Times
Wednesday 13/2/2008
Page: 12
Section: Letters
Region: Canberra Circulation: 33,935
Type: Capital City Daily
Size: 77.13 sq.cms.
Published: MTWTFS

If this is an official report by an Authority, why has it not gone direct to the Press? Or have I as usual missed the point?

Another mishap by a foreign airline:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=312924

Draw your own conclusions.

The crash of MI 185 was caused by deliberate pilot input. The only way to match the trajectory as recorded on radar and remain within parameters of height lost Vs time elapsed Vs horizontal distance travelled is by rolling the aircraft to the right and diving inverted until impact. To maintain that inverted attitude requires considerable and prolonged pilot input.

Mac Job had access to all the factual evidence in this case and that evidence supports only one possibility - deliberate pilot input.

There is no jet upset that will cause a B737 go from FL350 to FL 195 in 32 seconds. It takes pilot input to achieve that.

As mentioned above, the investigators also had much more evidence that the trajectory to determine the actual cause.

For the life of me I can't understand why the report makes the findings it does in the face of such over whelming evidence. Surely the authority would have known that it would not be accepted by the worlds audience. What did they hope to achieve? Anybody?

BA,

Singapore is probably the biggest foreign investor in Indonesia. Singapore Inc got the report it wanted despite the 49 page document from the US NTSB disagreeing with another member state's official finding - a first, I might add.

The ATSB (BASI at the time) also realised the real cause of the crash.

At the time, Flight International magazine (02-08 January 2001) called it an "unsatisfactory report."

They don't call it Lyin' City for nothing.

Sorry, IGh, you are wrong in regard to the SilkAir case. Believe me, I know.

Twa 800
 

IGH,

You mentioned TWA 800. I just wanted to throw in a comment. I had an NTSB inspector on my jumpseat leaving DCA heading toward BOS the morning after TWA 800. He said, and I quote, " This is the only accident I've ever been to, where I was told the cause before I left the office"

You're right, P7G, TWA 800 is still a can of worms.

IGh - sorry, I believe on this one you may be barking up a tree. While the 737 has had its unexplained upsets could you explain how both the recorders mysteriously failed only minutes before the event. That alone is one BIG, BIG smoking gun. Or is that some sort of conspiracy also?

IGh,

That's all fine and beaut info. It is not, however, what occurred on MI 185. It was proved that the CVR and DFDR did not fail due to a power surge or an overheat. The CBs were pulled manually - those are facts.

There was no jet upset. The was, however, a manoeuvre that was achieved by deliberate and sustained pilot input. That is also a fact.

Air China 006
 

IgH - Air China 006 was not a real mystery in term of getting into the dive.
The crew let it happen by leaving the A/P engaged during the restart and ignoring the speed decay or was there something else involved?
Just Curious
20driver

56P,
How do one prove beyond doubt that the power loss to the FDR and CVR was due to CBs being pulled manually? The aircraft was totally destroyed into tiny bits.

I am not saying the CBs weren't pulled manually but how do one prove it? Are the state of the CBs being recorded?

So, perhaps you are right. Or perhaps IGh is right, there may be other explanations.

Would psychiatric evaluation work?
 

IGh
no recorded case of BOTH the CVR AND the FDR being rendered inoperative by a hi rate dive.(Egypt Airs recorders worked till impact)
In this case also they were working just fine till before the event started.(in the examples given by IGh,they were either not working to start with ,or had a similar signature to being intentionally erased.)
One would expected that even if there was a catastrophic failure of some kind,the recorders should have continued to work till the upset actually started,and not stop a little before.
This would require a scenrio where the catastrophic failure resulted in electrical power loss only to the recorders(the transponder was workng till impact) But allowed the A/c to have a normal trajectory for a few seconds/minutes then strat a dive which can only be simulated with deliberate human intervenion .
As in the case of Egypt Air,national concerns seem to have scutled a competent report(and national lobies can be as powerful as manufactuers lobies)
What needs to be adressed is, if a psychiatric evaluation a foolproof method of detecting/ preventing such events .

Sorry to all for posting here, since I ain't a flyboy.


But how would a psychological evaluation have made a difference? You could go to 4 different shrinks and they would come out with 4 different reports regarding your state of mind, it isn't an exact science and it all depends on whether the shrink is actually wanting to do his job or collect the bucks for seeing someone.

From what my, I guess uneducated, interpretation of the pdf posted here goes, it was deliberate. I've never driven anything like that bird but even I can see that what happened in that case was nothing remotely like an "accident" or a failure.

They ruled out the improbable, that only leaves one thing. Think of it like someone driving a car while you are a passenger and he/she wants to drive into a bridge, except you cannot grab the steering wheel to pull the car out of it....

Nat Geo has produced a new Aircrash Investigation episode on MI 185. It is about to go to air and it tells the TRUTH!

Any idea exactly when will it be aired? Air Crash Investigation is usually on at 2300 local time in Singapore (UTC+8) on Thursday evenings. Will it be aired this week?

We'll let the thread run a bit for the inevitable commentary on the doco. However, if it continues along the conspiracist line .. it might get closed downstream a little.

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

Igh... Good job with reaearch on supporting evedence..

The Boeing/NTSB role in _INVESTIGATION_
 

From comment just above: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.

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.

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.

Comments above:Thanks, that says it all.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 --

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?

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

Rudder defect!
 

If that were true it is interesting the fact was not presented in court at a subsequent civil action. And even it was true, Boeing and another agency found that an uncommanded hard over rudder was easily controllable at high altitude especially as in this case the captain was a former qualified aerobatic pilot. He should have had no trouble righting the 737 had the rudder gone hard-over. By the same token he would also have no trouble at all rolling the aircraft into a steep spiral dive from which recovery would quickly be impossible.

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.

Agree. One needed to be an observer at the Singapore court case to hear the quite incredible opinions offered by one of the so called "expert" witnesses for the defence (Silk Air) When questioned why the pilot apparently chose to dive steeply at high power with speed brakes retracted and no mayday call or any other transmission, the "expert" witness stated the pilot was actually trying to pull out of the dive by applying high power since it is well known that if power is applied the nose of the aircraft will raise itself. The same expert postulated the most probable sequence of events were initially caused by the electrical actuation of the CVR circuit breaker followed shortly after by the electrical actuation of the two FDR circuit breakers.

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?

-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.