Talk:SilkAir Flight 185

104 fatalities -- but only 3 families???

cleanup

so why does this article require cleanup Chensiyuan 15:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article says that there were three families involved in the US court case, it does not say all fatalities were from only three families. I see no problem with the way it's currently written.--203.54.102.202 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cause

I am really not sure that the causes listed are 100% correct. For anyone who watched the episode of MayDay (Air Crash Investigation) about this incident, I believe it was eventually discovered that there was a fault in the servo valve that could have been severe enough to have caused the rudder to jam or malfunction, in fact IIRC Parker-Hannifin where taken to court and the inditement against them was pretty damning. From what I can remember the court did indeed agree that the servo valve was defective, and the company eventially settled out of court with all 91 families. Whilst they denied responsibility for the crash, that sounds to me like enough probable cause to change the probable cause of this accident. Sk8er boi7000 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The probable cause should really come from a citable accident investigation team (or in this article more than one) I am not sure that entertainment programs are a reliable source on the subject. That said if you have a reliable source that agrees with their conclusions then it could be added as another probable scenario. MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider using National Geographic as a source for the article? Wait. I'll answer that.

Yes.

The Air Crash Investigation program is a critical look at air incidents and accidents that includes analysis and commentary that is the best that exists. The show is produced by National Geographic. So there is absolutely a few great reasons why this is one of the best sources for our articles. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 00:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of using the "cite video" template that could be used to cite this TV series. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

But the show does not say that! It presents convincing evidence that it was the captain!!!89.168.179.202 (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

{{cite video| people = Al-Issawi, Omar …| title = [http://www.imdb…]| medium = TV-Series| publisher = Al-Issawi, Om…| location = Lebanon | year2 = 2001 }}

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The findings of this investigation were subsequently overturned in the courts. == '

After an extensive independent investigation and an extremely difficult 8 year battle with the defendants, the plaintiffs’ attorneys were able to establish that the crash was caused, not by an intentional act by the pilot, but by a defect in the aircraft’s power control unit. The case resulted in confidential multi-million dollar settlements for Singaporean, Japanese, and Austrian clients. These settlements are believed to be the highest ever paid to non-Americans in the crash of a foreign airline. (See www.wisner-law.com/experience.html)

________________________________

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 (See www.airmech.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=2599)

______________________________________________________________

As I understand it the eventual finding that the accident was caused by a technical defect did nit result in the original report being withdrawn or amended.

===============================

Unfortunately, the findings of juries in our US trial courts are all too often little more than emotional decisions, which are based on nothing more than junk science. The OJ Simpson trial was one of the best (worst?) examples of that sad situation.

The courts allow so-called "expert" testimony, which often is nothing but opinion, that cannot be backed up by solid, scientific fact. Attorneys can usually find just about any kind of "expert" to testify any way they want him to testify, if they are willing to pay a very large fee to that expert.

The evidence and research by the NTSB is far more convincing. Their investigation proved that the only way that the plane could have followed the downward profile that it did, was if a pilot deliberately pushed forward on the yoke and held it in that position, until the plane's crashing was assured. It was a case of pilot suicide. Any awards given in our junk science courts, against any other defendants, aside from the pilot and his airline, is a great travesty. EditorASC (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I second EditorASC, who is the only one on this thread who knows what he's talking about. For all the good it will do. Oh, wikipedia, where the truth is decided by a majority vote among nitwits.89.168.179.202 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget we have WP:NOT#Vote :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely the courts cannot be disputed though - I propose that the faulty servo be added to the infobox alongside the findings of the NTSB and NTSC. --Thelostlibertine (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the civil/criminal charges and the technical investigation are separate spheres. In terms of what happened, aviation editors put more stock into the technical investigation. We can say "the civil courts debated X, and then it was settled" (which is often what happens) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely, you jest... Are there any other Wiki airliner accident articles, where the probable cause is determined (and then listed in the info box), by a jury of non-expert lay persons, who were denied the right to know what the NTSB concluded, after their very thorough investigation?

When the pockets are deep and the potential damage judgment is in the multi-millions, our courts routinely allow all kinds of "junk science" evidence to influence jurors, who usually do not know an aileron from a rudder.

Do you remember the huge rewards that were rendered against the breast implant companies, on the grounds that the leaking silicon caused immune diseases in those unfortunate women? Almost entirely on Post Hoc logic. The problem was though, that the population of women who had never had any breast implants, had a slightly higher incident of that kind of disease, than did those who had the implants. THAT, is how our court system works, when big bucks glaze over the eyes of the Fortune Cookie lawyers. EditorASC (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case we can't say that the lawsuit cancelled the NTSB. Nor can we explicitly say that the NTSB result was better than the court case. We can give more importance to the NTSB result, however. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting programme on the accident on YouTube here; [1]

The official Indonesian NTSC accident report brought in a verdict of an unknown cause. The NTSB conclusion was that of deliberate action by the pilot. The NTSB report was not the official report as they had actually only been involved as a courtesy, the US being the place-of-manufacture of the aeroplane - air accident investigations traditionally involve the investigation organisation of the country over/in-which the accident occurred, and the country of manufacture is also invited to send a team as a courtesy, as they may have specialised knowledge relating to the accident aircraft type. The brand new SilkAir 737 (actually ten months old at the time of the accident) had had the supplied solid state Flight Data Recorder replaced at some time with a used tape-based one that on examination, had had a history of intermittent running, often with periods of not running for several minutes at a time. The accused pilot had not taken out a life insurance policy beforehand (one of the mis-reported factors that threw suspicion onto him) and the policy had, in fact, been a normal policy taken out when transferring property that he had recently sold. The accused pilot had also, contrary to news reports, been solvent at the time of the accident. He had also arranged for his wife to pick him up from the airport half an hour after the scheduled time of arrival.

FWIW, considering the resemblance of the final flight path to the two previous 737 accidents involving rudder hard-overs it is strange that the 'suicide' theory was even considered, and even stranger that it was clung to by some long after the majority of the 'evidence' against the accused pilot was apparently discredited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Mayday episode specifically addresses the questions of flight path compared to the 737 rudder incidents, as well as the captain's financial situation. Now, I agree that an entertainment program should not be considered a fully reliable source, however the NTSB report these conclusions were drawn from definitely should. Someone definitely needs to read through that report, determine the information actually present in it, and cite it as such. Furthermore, there also need to be some citations for most of the evidence against the captain supposedly being refuted. In any case, this article needs to be cleaned up so that all of the "according to Mayday" sentences are, at the very least, replaced with correct citation (Mayday isn't even listed as a source at the moment). 198.202.68.212 (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• "Parker Headlines." - Company reaction to trial verdict about Silkair
• Archive
• Parry, Richard Lloyd. "Death crash pilot 'unfit to command a plane'." The Independent. Wednesday 4 July 2001.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mayday figures

The people speaking in the Mayday episode are:

• Derek Ward, father of copilot Duncan Ward
• Peter Macmillan, SilkAir trainer
• Santoso Sayogo, NTSC investigator

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Chinese name

Duncan Ward seems to have used the Chinese name 邓肯 Dèng Kěn based on the Lianhe Zaobao articles WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of the Servo Valve?

Should we get rid of the servo valve section it seems unnecessary. Considering the cause seems certain of suicide.

There's Too Many Assumed Pilot Suicides And Not Enough Investigation Of Unknown Biological Entities (EBANI)

http://ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/jellyfish-ebani-biological-entity-ufo.html

Commercial airline pilots don't commit suicide, lizard-birds act on their minds to force them to dive as fast as possible. After all, the aircraft is a bird and the pilot descended from a lizard brain. Strange but true. There's been cases like Silkair 185 in the past which don't stack-up and unfortunately there'll be more to come. 176.24.226.120 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.

There's Too Many Assumed Pilot Suicides And Not Enough Investigation Of Unknown Biological Entities (EBANI)

http://ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/jellyfish-ebani-biological-entity-ufo.html

Commercial airline pilots don't commit suicide, lizard-birds act on their minds to force them to dive as fast as possible. After all, the aircraft is a bird and the pilot descended from a lizard brain. Strange but true. There's been cases like Silkair 185 in the past which don't stack-up and unfortunately there'll be more to come. 176.24.226.120 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.