The Truth about the SilkAir MI 185 Disaster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Truth about the SilkAir MI 185 Disaster
It is now almost the 10th anniversary of the SilkAir MI 185 disaster and the truth is not yet established. Has anyone any updates on resolving the true causes of this disaster?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Visselhovede. Has anyone now got the technical knowledge and mathematical ability to work out the odds of the cockpit voice recorder failing, and then being followed very shortly by a failure of the rudder mechanism. I could be wrong, but I think the probability of the one failure, times the probability of the other, assuming they are independent events, is so unlikely that a mechanical cause of the disaster is very unlikely.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just having a go at it myself:
Calamatous rudder failure is fortunately very rare, say 1 in 500 aircraft, over eachs' say 20,000 hour life. That's a 1 in 10 million chance per hour, or a 1 in 100 million chance in any few minutes.
A CVR failure is more likely, say once in a thousand hours per aircraft, or a 1 in 10,000 chance in any few minutes.
Assuming they are unrelated, the chances of a CVR failure being followed within minutes by a mechanical rudder malfunction, is the one odds multiplied by the other. I reckon that gives odds against mechanical failure of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 or one in a billion.
I may have made wrong assumptions, or got the zeros wrong, but the point is that the chances of the MI 185 tradgedy being due to a mechanical rudder failure, immediately preceded by CVR failure, is remote.
Calamatous rudder failure is fortunately very rare, say 1 in 500 aircraft, over eachs' say 20,000 hour life. That's a 1 in 10 million chance per hour, or a 1 in 100 million chance in any few minutes.
A CVR failure is more likely, say once in a thousand hours per aircraft, or a 1 in 10,000 chance in any few minutes.
Assuming they are unrelated, the chances of a CVR failure being followed within minutes by a mechanical rudder malfunction, is the one odds multiplied by the other. I reckon that gives odds against mechanical failure of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 or one in a billion.
I may have made wrong assumptions, or got the zeros wrong, but the point is that the chances of the MI 185 tradgedy being due to a mechanical rudder failure, immediately preceded by CVR failure, is remote.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just looking at those video clips and was amazed that the servo valve was "the single remnant of the SilkAir crash" and the "only part still in existance of the SilkAir 737", yet at the same time looked in perfect as-new condition and needed a scanning electron microscope to find the manufacturing flaws. Amazing that it survived the crash in such pristine condition.
Was also interested in the comments on the inspection sheet allowing for second inspection. This is either normal practice and acceptable, or it is not.
If it is normal practice, then it was OK here too.
And if it was not OK here, then it should not be an acceptable option anywhere else.
What we are seeing here is an example of the double standards that were applied throughout the MI 185 investigation.
Also interesting to see that the co-pilot was portrayed as a mature 40 ish pilot; and that both pilots were shown at the controls at the end.
All in all, it seemed more Disney that National Geographic to me.
Was also interested in the comments on the inspection sheet allowing for second inspection. This is either normal practice and acceptable, or it is not.
If it is normal practice, then it was OK here too.
And if it was not OK here, then it should not be an acceptable option anywhere else.
What we are seeing here is an example of the double standards that were applied throughout the MI 185 investigation.
Also interesting to see that the co-pilot was portrayed as a mature 40 ish pilot; and that both pilots were shown at the controls at the end.
All in all, it seemed more Disney that National Geographic to me.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: asia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crazy
Simply put Boeing bailed and left Parker hanging. The pilot flew it into the ground as the authorities said as the EEC data showed max power in - so no sunshine report just a load of crap. NTSB would have clearly shown what happened and the probability is astronomical...............
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Airlinefan and Rockhound - but which pilot flew MI 185 into the ground? The 41, or the 23 year old - or both as in the NG documentary?
The whole point about not resolving the MI 185 disaster is that if the lessons are not learned, then other disasters will follow - possibly such as GA 433
The whole point about not resolving the MI 185 disaster is that if the lessons are not learned, then other disasters will follow - possibly such as GA 433
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nortwinds
your analysis of the probabilities is incorrect
while it is correct to multiply the probabilities of individual independent events that result in a particular outcome, the operative words here are "that results in", hence both events, while being independent of each other, must individually also be a likely cause in the end result
in this accident, the loss of CVR while suspicious, does not in any lead to an aircraft being flown (intentionally or otherwise) into the ground i.e., there are simply no odds available for such an event, so to multiply the probabilities gives of these 2 independent events produces an incorrect answer
your analysis of the probabilities is incorrect
while it is correct to multiply the probabilities of individual independent events that result in a particular outcome, the operative words here are "that results in", hence both events, while being independent of each other, must individually also be a likely cause in the end result
in this accident, the loss of CVR while suspicious, does not in any lead to an aircraft being flown (intentionally or otherwise) into the ground i.e., there are simply no odds available for such an event, so to multiply the probabilities gives of these 2 independent events produces an incorrect answer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Absolutely Fabulous and I can see how you read that and you are absolutely correct.
What I was trying to say was that the remote chance of a control failure, being immediately preceded by a CVR failure that would therefore not record anything about the second failure, regardless of whether it resulted in the tragedy, was 1 in a billion.
In other words, I was trying to say it was extremely unlikely that the MI 185 disaster was due to mechanical causes and that if we wanted to learn from it to avoid other disasters, such as the Garuda one also being currently discussed on this forum, then we had to look at the pilots rather than being distracted by the virtually impossible chance of it having been mechanical.
So having derermined as definitely as it is humanly possible that it was the pilots and not the aircraft, the next question is which pilot?
And we do have to look at both pilots, othewise the disaster will never be explained and nothing will be learnt from it to avoid others.
What I was trying to say was that the remote chance of a control failure, being immediately preceded by a CVR failure that would therefore not record anything about the second failure, regardless of whether it resulted in the tragedy, was 1 in a billion.
In other words, I was trying to say it was extremely unlikely that the MI 185 disaster was due to mechanical causes and that if we wanted to learn from it to avoid other disasters, such as the Garuda one also being currently discussed on this forum, then we had to look at the pilots rather than being distracted by the virtually impossible chance of it having been mechanical.
So having derermined as definitely as it is humanly possible that it was the pilots and not the aircraft, the next question is which pilot?
And we do have to look at both pilots, othewise the disaster will never be explained and nothing will be learnt from it to avoid others.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the aircraft was deliberately flown into the ground (as I believe it was), the probability is high that it was the captain who did so, acting entirely independently, as the FO had no detectable motive to commit suicide.
But surely all these suppositions have already been covered. What we need is more evidence but we're unlikely to get it.
Rockhound
But surely all these suppositions have already been covered. What we need is more evidence but we're unlikely to get it.
Rockhound
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Rockhound and it literally is a billion to one probability that one of the two pilots did deliberately fly MI 185 into the ground.
But why do you say the probability is high that it was the captain? and that the FO had no detectable motive to commit suicide?
It is this automatic presumption against the captain that blocks off the enquiries, and the evidence, that would enable something to be learned from this disaster.
But why do you say the probability is high that it was the captain? and that the FO had no detectable motive to commit suicide?
It is this automatic presumption against the captain that blocks off the enquiries, and the evidence, that would enable something to be learned from this disaster.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nortwinds,
I can see no earthly reason why a young pilot in good health, in the early days of his flying career, such as Duncan Ward, would commit suicide.
It undoubtedly is farfetched to suggest that MI 185 was deliberately flown into the ground but stranger things have happened. Tsu's record as an airman, both in the military and in civilian life, was far from unblemished. So in the suicide scenario, Tsu must be considered the prime, if not the only, suspect.
But surely all this has been rehashed many times over. Without new evidence, I see no point in further speculation.
Rockhound
I can see no earthly reason why a young pilot in good health, in the early days of his flying career, such as Duncan Ward, would commit suicide.
It undoubtedly is farfetched to suggest that MI 185 was deliberately flown into the ground but stranger things have happened. Tsu's record as an airman, both in the military and in civilian life, was far from unblemished. So in the suicide scenario, Tsu must be considered the prime, if not the only, suspect.
But surely all this has been rehashed many times over. Without new evidence, I see no point in further speculation.
Rockhound
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Rockhound and I note your head bashing. However the facts are that one could equally say that there was no earthly reason for a 41 year old (whom many would say was also young) in good health (as an active pilot) and at the prime of a flying careeer, to commit suicide.
I thought the Captain had a distinguished flying career in both the military and in the airlines. If it was blemished, I would ask just how serious those blemishes really were, and how they compared with other career pilots. If those blemishes were serious enough to justify suicide then why was he, and all the other pilots with blemishes, not stopped from flying.
It always comes back to this same (head-bashing) point that one pilot has every possible bit of circumstance argued against him, while the other pilot is automatically free from the enquiry that would show up the very evidence you seek.
I thought the Captain had a distinguished flying career in both the military and in the airlines. If it was blemished, I would ask just how serious those blemishes really were, and how they compared with other career pilots. If those blemishes were serious enough to justify suicide then why was he, and all the other pilots with blemishes, not stopped from flying.
It always comes back to this same (head-bashing) point that one pilot has every possible bit of circumstance argued against him, while the other pilot is automatically free from the enquiry that would show up the very evidence you seek.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nortwinds
You clearly know nothing about the background of the Captain involved in this incident.
If indeed it was a Pilot induced incident ie suicide and mass murder then the finger would point 100% towards the Captain for the followng reasons.
1) He was deep in debt and had huge " loss of face" because of this.
2) He had recently been demoted from Line Training Pilot because of a dive bomb approach into an airfield and where he tried to cover it up by pulling the very same CB's behind his seat that could have been pulled again thus destroying any evidence.
Again this was a huge loss of face and probably screwed his chances of ever getting over to Mainline SQ
3) It was the 10th anniversary of an A4 formation he was leading back in his RSAF days and he turned back due to a technical problem and his mates all flew into a hillside and were killed.
Opinion is divided as to the causes of this incident and the Indonesian authorities were ill equipped to deal with this enquiry and at the time Indonesia were being bankrolled by Singapore so some people reckon the Singapore Government were leaning on Indonesia.
We will never know for sure and as I said opinion is divided although the aircraft descended with maximum power on!! Nobody seems to able to explain that.
You clearly know nothing about the background of the Captain involved in this incident.
If indeed it was a Pilot induced incident ie suicide and mass murder then the finger would point 100% towards the Captain for the followng reasons.
1) He was deep in debt and had huge " loss of face" because of this.
2) He had recently been demoted from Line Training Pilot because of a dive bomb approach into an airfield and where he tried to cover it up by pulling the very same CB's behind his seat that could have been pulled again thus destroying any evidence.
Again this was a huge loss of face and probably screwed his chances of ever getting over to Mainline SQ
3) It was the 10th anniversary of an A4 formation he was leading back in his RSAF days and he turned back due to a technical problem and his mates all flew into a hillside and were killed.
Opinion is divided as to the causes of this incident and the Indonesian authorities were ill equipped to deal with this enquiry and at the time Indonesia were being bankrolled by Singapore so some people reckon the Singapore Government were leaning on Indonesia.
We will never know for sure and as I said opinion is divided although the aircraft descended with maximum power on!! Nobody seems to able to explain that.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nortwinds,
Millerscourt has it about right. What I believe to be an accurate summary of the story, written by Michael Richardson, appeared in the International Herald Tribune of 19 December 2000.
Until more evidence comes to light, there seems little point in continuing this discussion.
Rockhound
Millerscourt has it about right. What I believe to be an accurate summary of the story, written by Michael Richardson, appeared in the International Herald Tribune of 19 December 2000.
Until more evidence comes to light, there seems little point in continuing this discussion.
Rockhound
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As always, Rockhound, thank you for your responses. I still believe, however, that the evidence is already there and just needs worked through objectively and logically.
Millerscourt, thank you too. I agree with you that there is no feasible alternative to the captain having pulled the CBs - as it was a billion to one that it was a double mechanical failure. This gives us another line in the sand.
So we know:
- the disaster was not due to mechanical failure;
- the captain switched off the cockpit recorders; and
- the aircraft descended with maximum power on.
However,
1) the captain was no more in debt than the average pilot - and pilots are not automatically grounded for normal debt;
2) demotions do happen - and again pilots are not automatically grounded as part of every demotion; and
3) every disaster has a 10th anniversary, including MI 185 - and the survivors again are not automatically grounded as part of having survived.
If these aspects, individually, or combined, or in the character of this particular captain, were not important enough before the accident, then why are they argued to be so crucial after it.
It was, however, useful to be reminded that MI 185 was not just suicide, but also mass murder - and my understanding is that unresolved murder cases are never closed.
Millerscourt, thank you too. I agree with you that there is no feasible alternative to the captain having pulled the CBs - as it was a billion to one that it was a double mechanical failure. This gives us another line in the sand.
So we know:
- the disaster was not due to mechanical failure;
- the captain switched off the cockpit recorders; and
- the aircraft descended with maximum power on.
However,
1) the captain was no more in debt than the average pilot - and pilots are not automatically grounded for normal debt;
2) demotions do happen - and again pilots are not automatically grounded as part of every demotion; and
3) every disaster has a 10th anniversary, including MI 185 - and the survivors again are not automatically grounded as part of having survived.
If these aspects, individually, or combined, or in the character of this particular captain, were not important enough before the accident, then why are they argued to be so crucial after it.
It was, however, useful to be reminded that MI 185 was not just suicide, but also mass murder - and my understanding is that unresolved murder cases are never closed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All has been quiet on this topic for a couple of weeks so I'm wondering if this forum has run out out thoughts and whether we should ask the moderator to transfer it over to the wider Rumours and News forum.
It is important to keep discussion of this tragedy alive as otherwise what should be the text book example of systems' failures will fade into obscurity and the lessons never be heeded.
Bottom line is that we are dealing here with suicide/mass murder, or vice versa, that was relatively unknown 10 years ago. And interestingly, none of the present security measures could have prevented it.
It is important to keep discussion of this tragedy alive as otherwise what should be the text book example of systems' failures will fade into obscurity and the lessons never be heeded.
Bottom line is that we are dealing here with suicide/mass murder, or vice versa, that was relatively unknown 10 years ago. And interestingly, none of the present security measures could have prevented it.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC USA
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you think there was a JI/Abu Syaif/Al Qaida connection? 
Maybe it was Tommy Suharto or someone from the family preventing a passanger from telling where they all hid the money?
Maybe it was the future owners of Adam Air trying to pre-spin things so their operation wouldn't look so bad compared with a Singapore operation?
Anybody else got an explaination?
Cubs2Jets
Maybe it was Tommy Suharto or someone from the family preventing a passanger from telling where they all hid the money?
Maybe it was the future owners of Adam Air trying to pre-spin things so their operation wouldn't look so bad compared with a Singapore operation?
Anybody else got an explaination?
Cubs2Jets
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australasia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cubs2jets thank you for your open mind. If you want to focus those thoughts a bit more please have a look at the facts first and then think outside the official boundary fence.