The Truth about the SilkAir MI 185 Disaster
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reports, including detailed analysis of aircraft and debris trajectories, as well as a Boeing comparison of estimated flight conditions with the flutter envelope, are available on-line for anyone who is interested. Though the graphs and charts suffer from the usual confusion of differing scale measurements, one doesn't need to be an engineering genius to unravel them.
Once a belief in a particular causal theory sets in there is always a danger that the facts may be forced into supporting that theory. One prefers to muse around the hard facts of the debris field and puzzle out the order of events as far as possible. The suicide assumption may well be correct, but that doesn't rule out sifting through the pieces for other possibilities.
One thing is for sure, once the elevators are detached from an aeroplane that is designed such that the tail surfaces apply a downwards force to hold the nose up in normal trimmed flight (as is the case with B737/B757/B767 et al) it is going to nose over and head down very rapidly. Thus, the question of which came first - elevator detachment or overspeed - is the key to unlocking the root cause.
I am only asking a question. "Why were the elevator and stabiliser tips so far from the impact point, when all other parts, including the ailerons and wingtips, were gathered together at the impact site?
Once a belief in a particular causal theory sets in there is always a danger that the facts may be forced into supporting that theory. One prefers to muse around the hard facts of the debris field and puzzle out the order of events as far as possible. The suicide assumption may well be correct, but that doesn't rule out sifting through the pieces for other possibilities.
One thing is for sure, once the elevators are detached from an aeroplane that is designed such that the tail surfaces apply a downwards force to hold the nose up in normal trimmed flight (as is the case with B737/B757/B767 et al) it is going to nose over and head down very rapidly. Thus, the question of which came first - elevator detachment or overspeed - is the key to unlocking the root cause.
I am only asking a question. "Why were the elevator and stabiliser tips so far from the impact point, when all other parts, including the ailerons and wingtips, were gathered together at the impact site?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One prefers to muse around the hard facts of the debris field and puzzle out the order of events as far as possible.
No wrap arounds for the above quote because for some reason the click on the icon is not working.
Good point about the hard facts. Presumably that would include the hard fact on the FDR that a few seconds before the dive started the FDR recorded cruise stab trim in normal position for that phase of flight yet the stab trim jackscrew was found among the wreckage in full trim forward position. An in-flight break up would not cause the stab trim screw jack to gradually unwind itself coincidently full forward.
One of the more outlandish statements given to the civil court by the British expert witness (not a pilot) when asked for his opinion why the engines were at high power at impact, was that whoever was in the cockpit at the time of the impact had deliberately pushed open the throttles in the near vertical dive in order to raise the nose. No sane pilot would have ever have tried that trick. Especially as the speed brakes were also retracted. When you read the accident report and then listen to testimony in the subsequent civil court case the series of utterly amazing "coincidences" are difficult to dismiss as just coincidences.
No wrap arounds for the above quote because for some reason the click on the icon is not working.
Good point about the hard facts. Presumably that would include the hard fact on the FDR that a few seconds before the dive started the FDR recorded cruise stab trim in normal position for that phase of flight yet the stab trim jackscrew was found among the wreckage in full trim forward position. An in-flight break up would not cause the stab trim screw jack to gradually unwind itself coincidently full forward.
One of the more outlandish statements given to the civil court by the British expert witness (not a pilot) when asked for his opinion why the engines were at high power at impact, was that whoever was in the cockpit at the time of the impact had deliberately pushed open the throttles in the near vertical dive in order to raise the nose. No sane pilot would have ever have tried that trick. Especially as the speed brakes were also retracted. When you read the accident report and then listen to testimony in the subsequent civil court case the series of utterly amazing "coincidences" are difficult to dismiss as just coincidences.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: N571
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did the CVR also stop?
Could a stabilizer run away(it is electrical) be followed by total electrical failure.
Pilots with milatary/aerobatic background may consider adding power to pitch up the nose.
But then the Capt also had a prior incident where he pulled the FDR/CVR cbs in flight.
The main argument in favour of the sucide theory is that the A/C trajectory as seen on radar, can only be attained if it is intentionally put into a power on dive(a military manoevre) and the stab moved full down.
No failure/other scenerio can quite replicate that same vertical dive trajectory acheived in this case.
Could a stabilizer run away(it is electrical) be followed by total electrical failure.
Pilots with milatary/aerobatic background may consider adding power to pitch up the nose.
But then the Capt also had a prior incident where he pulled the FDR/CVR cbs in flight.
The main argument in favour of the sucide theory is that the A/C trajectory as seen on radar, can only be attained if it is intentionally put into a power on dive(a military manoevre) and the stab moved full down.
No failure/other scenerio can quite replicate that same vertical dive trajectory acheived in this case.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Truth about SilkAir MI 185
Parabellum, with respect, you miss the whole point that, to use Blacksheep's warning against forcing facts into supporting theory, there was no evidence to support what someone else called "Black Rumours" against the captain. There is no valid reason to suggest that SilkAir had any suicidal captain at all.
There is however, evidence that there was a systems failure that put the co-pilot in control of an aircraft beyond his ability to handle the situation.
You resist extending the investigation to the co-pilot yet again abuse the Singaporean captain and both the Singaporean and the Indonesian authorities.
Training wheels, the Flight Safety Australia feature reminding that SilkAir MI 185 was still unresolved after what was then 10 years did not take the debate any further forward.
It simply repeated a page of "Black Rumour" against the captain and blocked off the co-pilot in a paragraph.
This was disappointing as I understand the Australian CASA authority have or had staff who had previously been significantly responsible for the training of the co-pilot in New Zealand and who might have been able to add some more detail to the background of the co-pilot.
There is however, evidence that there was a systems failure that put the co-pilot in control of an aircraft beyond his ability to handle the situation.
You resist extending the investigation to the co-pilot yet again abuse the Singaporean captain and both the Singaporean and the Indonesian authorities.
Training wheels, the Flight Safety Australia feature reminding that SilkAir MI 185 was still unresolved after what was then 10 years did not take the debate any further forward.
It simply repeated a page of "Black Rumour" against the captain and blocked off the co-pilot in a paragraph.
This was disappointing as I understand the Australian CASA authority have or had staff who had previously been significantly responsible for the training of the co-pilot in New Zealand and who might have been able to add some more detail to the background of the co-pilot.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Earth
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are some interesting facts, Parker Hannifin lost the US lawsuit.
Lawsuits and Compensation
The incident led to several lawsuits in Singapore and the US against SilkAir, Boeing and other manufacturers of the aircraft's parts. Many of these cases were eventually settled out of court. The first trial took place in the Singapore high court in 2001, where the families of six victims sued SilkAir for negligence and sought higher damages than what the airline had offered them. The basis of their lawsuit was that the pilot or co-pilot had caused the crash. However the judge dismissed the case; their subsequent appeal was also rejected. Most of the other families had already accepted SilkAir's compensation of between US$140,000 and US$200,000 per victim.
Boeing and several aircraft-part manufacturers were also sued in various US states by some of the victims' families. In 2004, in the first US trial, the jury in the Los Angeles superior court found that defects in the plane's rudder control system were to blame and the court ordered the manufacturer Parker Hannifin to pay US$43.6 million to the families of three victims; neither Boeing nor SilkAir were found to be at fault. Evidence of the faulty rudder had been recovered in 2003. After news of the discovery emerged, Boeing dropped its claim that pilot suicide had caused the crash and withdrew its lawsuit against SilkAir, and SilkAir's insurer likewise dropped its lawsuit against Boeing.
Lawsuits and Compensation
The incident led to several lawsuits in Singapore and the US against SilkAir, Boeing and other manufacturers of the aircraft's parts. Many of these cases were eventually settled out of court. The first trial took place in the Singapore high court in 2001, where the families of six victims sued SilkAir for negligence and sought higher damages than what the airline had offered them. The basis of their lawsuit was that the pilot or co-pilot had caused the crash. However the judge dismissed the case; their subsequent appeal was also rejected. Most of the other families had already accepted SilkAir's compensation of between US$140,000 and US$200,000 per victim.
Boeing and several aircraft-part manufacturers were also sued in various US states by some of the victims' families. In 2004, in the first US trial, the jury in the Los Angeles superior court found that defects in the plane's rudder control system were to blame and the court ordered the manufacturer Parker Hannifin to pay US$43.6 million to the families of three victims; neither Boeing nor SilkAir were found to be at fault. Evidence of the faulty rudder had been recovered in 2003. After news of the discovery emerged, Boeing dropped its claim that pilot suicide had caused the crash and withdrew its lawsuit against SilkAir, and SilkAir's insurer likewise dropped its lawsuit against Boeing.
There is however, evidence that there was a systems failure that put the co-pilot in control of an aircraft beyond his ability to handle the situation.
I am reminded of the old saying "there's none so blind as he who will not see".
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: N571
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another one chalked off to"Rudder Hardover"
i am surprised that the lawyers decided to add this accident to the other 2 Rudder Hardover ones(Colorado Springs and Pittsburg).Because the Flight Safety folks have certainly not gone down that path.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Truth about SilkAir MI 185
Centaurus, Parabellum, you are absolutely correct that there was "evidence" presented in court against the captain - and nothing that suggested that the copilot was not proficient. That is my very point.
However, much of that "evidence" against the captain, and protection of the copilot, was given by another copilot out of the same system as the MI 185 copilot. I believe the other copilot was called a "key witness".
If you do indeed know "far more about this crash than anyone else on this board" would you like to comment upon the Palmerston North newspaper reports of the time, that the copilots' training school was already under investigation by both the New Zealand education and the aviation authorities.
I am sure that if the captain's Asian training school had been under similar investigation by the Singaporean education and aviation authorities then this would have been used in evidence against him.
However, much of that "evidence" against the captain, and protection of the copilot, was given by another copilot out of the same system as the MI 185 copilot. I believe the other copilot was called a "key witness".
If you do indeed know "far more about this crash than anyone else on this board" would you like to comment upon the Palmerston North newspaper reports of the time, that the copilots' training school was already under investigation by both the New Zealand education and the aviation authorities.
I am sure that if the captain's Asian training school had been under similar investigation by the Singaporean education and aviation authorities then this would have been used in evidence against him.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that the copilots' training school was already under investigation by both the New Zealand education and the aviation authorities.
The captain was known to be an excellent pilot when it came to handling an aircraft, with a very sound training and subsequent career in the RSAF under his belt. The deceased captain's ability to fly the aircraft has never been in doubt, but his management of an aircraft and a flight has.
I believe the other copilot was called a "key witness".
It was also instructive to observe how the defence counsel and the beak went real easy on defence expert witnesses. Some could argue there was clear bias. I wonder why? Maybe this thread should be wrapped up now, as there is nothing to be gained by sniping away at a subject which, like the Mount Erebus Air New Zealand accident, will forever arouse emotions on both sides.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UAE
Age: 60
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slander against both the dead pilots serves no purpose. Let it be; there are many accidents where the truth can never be determined. Give it a rest.
For the families of the victims of the tragedy, sue whoever they like to get what they want if they have deep pockets but at the end of the day, the absolute may never surface.
For the families of the victims of the tragedy, sue whoever they like to get what they want if they have deep pockets but at the end of the day, the absolute may never surface.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Truth about SilkAir MI 185
Centaurus, you are happy to talk of "the captain's basic incompetency" yet when I raise the background of a training system failure (which is not a criticism of the co-pilot himself) you suggest that this thread should be wrapped up.
Like Erebus, the SilkAir tragedy will become a case-study not just of the disaster itself but also of the challenges of investigation.
SilkAir has to be kept open and resolved, not just as a matter of justice for those killed, but to publically identify the causes and hopefully inhibit similar disasters in future.
Remember this was mass murder of commercial passengers - not a simple recreational accident, Inderaputra.
Parabellum mentions the NZ CAA. The reality at the time was that it simply rubber-stamped the output of the training school and no one above a clerical worker would have known anything at all about the co-pilot or that he would be going straight into a responsible airline position without the 2-3,000 hours of consolidation experience in general aviation that was the normal standard at that time in New Zealand before competing for entry to the airlines. SilkAir, however, would have been unaware of this and would have accepted him and assessed him on the assumption of an assured background.
Like Erebus, the SilkAir tragedy will become a case-study not just of the disaster itself but also of the challenges of investigation.
SilkAir has to be kept open and resolved, not just as a matter of justice for those killed, but to publically identify the causes and hopefully inhibit similar disasters in future.
Remember this was mass murder of commercial passengers - not a simple recreational accident, Inderaputra.
Parabellum mentions the NZ CAA. The reality at the time was that it simply rubber-stamped the output of the training school and no one above a clerical worker would have known anything at all about the co-pilot or that he would be going straight into a responsible airline position without the 2-3,000 hours of consolidation experience in general aviation that was the normal standard at that time in New Zealand before competing for entry to the airlines. SilkAir, however, would have been unaware of this and would have accepted him and assessed him on the assumption of an assured background.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
nortwinds - stop dancing around the edges and just come out and say what you believe - you have spent 3 pages of this thread making lots and lots of little sinister implications and allegations and vague statements always pointing very slightly towards Duncan, without actually saying what we all know you are trying to say.
I don't know if you're doing this because you are a misguided mate of Tsu, or if you're stirring the pot trying trying get info for a new angle for another lawsuit, or some other reason, but trying to somehow muddy the waters by involving Massey School of Aviation and the NZCAA in your conspiracy theory is the most bizarre thing I've heard about this accident yet. In fact my friend no matter HOW hard you try and smear the FO, I do believe you will find the mud is not going to stick.
It's very clear you have an agenda here so let's have it on the table, then the people who know the FACTS can rip you to ribbons properly. It's only pprune after all not exactly a court of law what are you afraid of.
I don't know if you're doing this because you are a misguided mate of Tsu, or if you're stirring the pot trying trying get info for a new angle for another lawsuit, or some other reason, but trying to somehow muddy the waters by involving Massey School of Aviation and the NZCAA in your conspiracy theory is the most bizarre thing I've heard about this accident yet. In fact my friend no matter HOW hard you try and smear the FO, I do believe you will find the mud is not going to stick.
It's very clear you have an agenda here so let's have it on the table, then the people who know the FACTS can rip you to ribbons properly. It's only pprune after all not exactly a court of law what are you afraid of.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Luke, good post. Nortwinds you have now belittled the NZ commercial pilots licence to nothing more than a piece of paper, stamped by a clerk of the NZ CAA, endorsing the training of any dodgy flying school in NZ, without any consideration of satisfactory levels of competency. Do you really believe that? Your insinuation that Duncan was the product of a dodgy flying school who may have obtained his licence by other than honest hard work and proper competency checks is way, way below the belt and I would hope to see it challenged by many other NZ licence holders.
You seriously under estimate the Singaporean CAAS if you think they don't do a lot of back ground checking before they will issue a reciprocal licence, there are still many countries whose licence they don't accept and require the applicant to sit the Singapore exams.
Now, please, respond to Luke Sky Toddler's post above.
You seriously under estimate the Singaporean CAAS if you think they don't do a lot of back ground checking before they will issue a reciprocal licence, there are still many countries whose licence they don't accept and require the applicant to sit the Singapore exams.
Now, please, respond to Luke Sky Toddler's post above.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Truth about SilkAir MI 185
Luke and Parabellum, I thought my agenda was completely clear - justice for those who died; and the opportunity to learn from the tragedy and improve aviation safety in future.
I appreciate the annominity of PPRUNE - sort of like pulling the CB of the CVR - and will not abuse it. I chose my words carefully and say nothing I would not be prepared to support with written evidence in court.
Yes, I could be blunt and say what I am as sure as it is possible to be, about what the evidence indicates happened in the cockpit. However you have already said in advance that you would rip me to ribbons. To be acceptable, the truth has to be teased out and accepted, however reluctantly, stage by stage.
I have just done a websearch for information on the copilots' flying school and suggest you do the same to see that problems with it are well known. The practical training - the so-called practicum - was then done with Garudu - and again you may wish to consider the current threads on that airline and some pertinant comments.
Between the copilot getting his CPL and the tragedy, the NZ CAA did try to investigate the flying school but again the Singaporean CAAS would have been unaware of this and would have accepted his NZ CPL at its face value.
While checking the website for the training school I was reminded of the other student fatals of ZKMBI, ZKMBD and ZKMBL, and of the fatal of 22 July 2009 in an aircraft from New Plymouth. I also know of one other where an instructor died in PNG with a full load of passengers.
Reading the recent thread on the New Plymouth fatal was instructive in its comments on the pilots' instructors.
In summary, and especially when an agressive examination of one pilot was unsucessful, there is more than enough substance to justify a proper investigation of the other pilot.
I appreciate the annominity of PPRUNE - sort of like pulling the CB of the CVR - and will not abuse it. I chose my words carefully and say nothing I would not be prepared to support with written evidence in court.
Yes, I could be blunt and say what I am as sure as it is possible to be, about what the evidence indicates happened in the cockpit. However you have already said in advance that you would rip me to ribbons. To be acceptable, the truth has to be teased out and accepted, however reluctantly, stage by stage.
I have just done a websearch for information on the copilots' flying school and suggest you do the same to see that problems with it are well known. The practical training - the so-called practicum - was then done with Garudu - and again you may wish to consider the current threads on that airline and some pertinant comments.
Between the copilot getting his CPL and the tragedy, the NZ CAA did try to investigate the flying school but again the Singaporean CAAS would have been unaware of this and would have accepted his NZ CPL at its face value.
While checking the website for the training school I was reminded of the other student fatals of ZKMBI, ZKMBD and ZKMBL, and of the fatal of 22 July 2009 in an aircraft from New Plymouth. I also know of one other where an instructor died in PNG with a full load of passengers.
Reading the recent thread on the New Plymouth fatal was instructive in its comments on the pilots' instructors.
In summary, and especially when an agressive examination of one pilot was unsucessful, there is more than enough substance to justify a proper investigation of the other pilot.
I am very offended by the slanderous implications you are making. Sadly most training schools suffer fatal accidents and certainly have former students who have accidents.
I knew the New Plymouth pilot personally and also know very well his instructors. Everyone was very shocked by what happened, it does not seem cut and dry.
The original MBI accident although certainly still a bit mysterious seems to have fatigue as a central factor.
MBD and MBL had factors including inherent blind spots and poor airspace management. It still took over a year after the accident to establish a dedicated traffic frequency in what has increasingly become a very busy training area.
Are there faults with the organisation? Absolutely! However, that aside being in the pilot workforce for some time now I am proud of the training I received and its clear that it has given me a good platform to build on.
I have met and discussed the the 185 accident with an investigator who was involved with it at the time. What he said very compelling and certainly makes it clear that pilot suicide by the captain was the most likely cause.
I knew the New Plymouth pilot personally and also know very well his instructors. Everyone was very shocked by what happened, it does not seem cut and dry.
The original MBI accident although certainly still a bit mysterious seems to have fatigue as a central factor.
MBD and MBL had factors including inherent blind spots and poor airspace management. It still took over a year after the accident to establish a dedicated traffic frequency in what has increasingly become a very busy training area.
Are there faults with the organisation? Absolutely! However, that aside being in the pilot workforce for some time now I am proud of the training I received and its clear that it has given me a good platform to build on.
I have met and discussed the the 185 accident with an investigator who was involved with it at the time. What he said very compelling and certainly makes it clear that pilot suicide by the captain was the most likely cause.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Truth about SilkAir MI 185
Massey058, as with others, you again seek to perpetuate the "black rumours" against the Singaporean captain, yet are offended by a simple call to investigate the background of the ex-pat copilots.
You say that most training schools have fatal accidents, yet a fatal during the captain's background was argued to be a cause of him supposedly killing every person on board. Those are double standards.
Now, what exactly did your 185 investigator discuss with you that was so compelling and yet outside of what is already claimed and under challenge.
And if I am not back on line before the 19th of December then I am sure all will remember the underlying human tragedy of SilkAir MI 185. RIP
You say that most training schools have fatal accidents, yet a fatal during the captain's background was argued to be a cause of him supposedly killing every person on board. Those are double standards.
Now, what exactly did your 185 investigator discuss with you that was so compelling and yet outside of what is already claimed and under challenge.
And if I am not back on line before the 19th of December then I am sure all will remember the underlying human tragedy of SilkAir MI 185. RIP