Talk:SilkAir Flight 185

Fatalities
104 fatalities -- but only 3 families??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ° (talk • contribs) 21:44, August 21, 2006 (UTC)

Introduction: Suggest to remove last part
In the introduction there is now this paragraph:

''Another potential factor that led to the crash of the 737 aircraft was the power control unit (PCU) that controlled the aircraft's rudder. The cause of some 737 crashes, such as USAir Flight 427, had been attributed to the 737's rudder issues. Although the NTSB and PCU manufacturer Parker Hannifin had already determined that the PCU was properly working, and thus not the cause of the crash, a private investigation into the crash for a civil lawsuit tried by jury in a state court in Los Angeles, which was not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB's and Parker Hannifin's conclusions, decided that the crash was caused by a defective servo valve inside the PCU, based on forensic findings from an electron microscope which determined that minute defects within the PCU had caused the rudder hard-over and a subsequent uncontrollable flight and crash.[5] The manufacturer of the aircraft's rudder controls and the families later reached an out-of-court settlement.[6]''

I think this paragraph does not belong here. It is highly improbable that a rudder issue affected the crash of the aircraft. Therefore I would like to remove it from the introduction of the article.

Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In regards to that it reads: "Regardless of the findings, or lack thereof, the potential factor of a defective Parker-Hannifin-made PCU that controlled the aircraft's rudder is still believed to have possibly led to the crash of the aircraft. ..." I think that this needs to be re-worded or de-emphasized as scientists did not come to that conclusion. The NTSC and NTSB findings should have more weight, and if experts today champion the NTSB over the NTSC, the Due weight should be recognized. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The pilot was reprimanded for disabling the CVR in the past
If you read the NTSC report, it says (around page 42ish) that the pilot was previously caught manually pulling the circuit breaker in order to have a private conversation (while the plane was on the ground.) He apparently lost an "LIP appointment" due to this, whatever this is, and was upset enough by it to try to get it overturned.

He also is noted to have several years of losses in stock trading, though with "marginal" gains in the last year. His multiple life insurance policies are also discussed, though in a weird over-dismissive tone of voice.

The chairman whom the WP article says "overrode the findings of the investigators" was apparently from the Indonesian AAIC. There was also this gem from appendix N:

"A significant amount of pertinent factual information developed during the 3-year investigation is  either  not  discussed  in  the  draft  Final  Report  or  not  fully  considered  in analyzing the cause of the accident.

...

Among other  things,  version  6.0  of  the report  contains  comprehensive  information  about  the  flight  crew members,  including information about their professional, personal, and financial backgrounds. For example, substantial information  was  developed  indicating  that  the  captain’s  professional  and financial situations had undergone negative changes in the months preceding the accident. It is  disappointing  that  much  of  this  information  was  either  omitted  from  the  draft  final report or was not fully analyzed."

The whole appendix a real riot to read. (But to be clear the other stuff I mention was from the main report.)

If someone wants to integrate any of this info into the article, feel free. I'm too old and lazy (and easily annoyed by busybody reverters) to bother. But as it is, the article makes a big deal out of differentiating flipping the switch vs. manually pulling the breaker, apparently without ever mentioning that the pilot under suspicion was caught red-handed manually pulling the CVR breaker in this exact fashion in the past. 184.89.44.198 (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Worlds longest grammar commas ive ever seen
Here Although the NTSB and PCU manufacturer Parker-Hannifin had already determined that the PCU was properly working, and thus not the cause of the crash, a private and independent investigation into the crash for a civil lawsuit tried by jury in Los Angeles County Superior Court, which was not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB's and Parker-Hannifin's conclusions, decided that the crash was caused by a defective servo valve inside the PCU based on forensic findings from an electron microscope, which determined that minute defects within the PCU had caused the rudder hard-over and a subsequent uncontrollable flight and crash

Long sentences always interrupted by commas thus rejecting any possibilities to the verb.(possibly)182.3.46.118 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)