Talk:SilkAir Flight 185/Archive 1

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)

Mayday figures
The people speaking in the Mayday episode are: WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Derek Ward, father of copilot Duncan Ward
 * Peter Macmillan, SilkAir trainer
 * Santoso Sayogo, NTSC investigator

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinhu12 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should get rid of it as it was part of the investigation and was seriously considered to be the cause of the crash. FonEengIneeR7  talk 15:26, 11 January 2014 (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)

The findings of this investigation were subsequently overturned in the courts. (See www.wisner-law.com/experience.html) Los Angeles Superior Court jury says defects in rudder control system caused the crash (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profpilot (talk • contribs) 18:26, December 2, 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 :) 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;


 * 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)

I completely agree that the NTSB report should be quoted as a source - but can anyone find it? (I can't, including at the NTSB website, or by doing a web search - but that could just be my own inexperience at these things.) Professor alacarte (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

PA announcement
Why would we want to reproduce the bland PA announcement in full? --John (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't; you were right to remove it. This is undue weight in the extreme. Thank you for also reverting the attempt to insert the other smaller issues. Prhartcom (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"concocted a pretence for"
In good English this should surely have read "concocted a pretext for", i.e. made up a plausible excuse for Ward to leave the flight deck. Obviously there would have been pretence involved, but pretence is concocted by definition. "Concocted a pretence" is therefore a duplication, like "made up an invention" would be. Also, you would never say "a pretence for" someone to do something. I think whoever wrote this simply couldn't remember the right word, or really did think "pretence" and "pretext" are synonyms.188.230.248.85 (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have tweaked the paragraph to remove the fluffed up English. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cause/summary
In the infobox, there are three possible causes listed: "pilot suicide" (found by the US NTSB); "inconclusive evidence to determine cause" (found by the Indonesia (NTSC); and "rudder malfunction" (found in a Los Angeles Superior Court civil trial).

An IP editor is changing this to just "pilot suicide"; first with no explanation; then with the summary "Overwhelming evidence was found in the way of pilot suicide."; and a third time with "Overwhelming evidence".

Although I certainly believe it's pilot suicide, the fact is, there were three different conflicting findings, and it's WP:OR for us to come to our own conclusion when three different documented conclusions have been delivered by government proceedings.

After the second revert, I requested the editor bring it to the talk page ("take to talk per WP:BRD; the fact is, there were three different conclusions by three different government entities; that enough is worth retaining"). He hasn't done so, and has reverted again (User:Acroterion reverted him this time); so I'm starting the discussion.

My position is that all three explanations should stay, and it's up to the reader to determine the weight to give each. To the extent that any particular finding has been criticized, that should be in the text.

I will point out that I did remove the text "Exact cause unknown". I think listing the three findings pretty much says that, and it doesn't add anything. TJRC (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I semi-protected the article to make the IP discuss it here if they've got an actual rationale.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Old Channel News Asia sources
Found these: WhisperToMe (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20010124090600/http://www.channelnewsasia.com.sg/articles/2000/12/14/singaporenews23414.htm
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20010125041400/http://www.channelnewsasia.com.sg/articles/2000/12/14/singaporenews23407.htm

California court: "not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB's conclusions about the accident"?
Is there any support for the statement that the jury in the civil trial was not permitted to hear as evidence the NTSB report, or the Parker Hannifan findings?

The article states " a civil lawsuit tried by jury in a California state court in Los Angeles, which was not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB's and Parker Hannifin's conclusions..."; and "a Los Angeles Superior Court jury in the United States, which was not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB's conclusions about the accident..."

The first statement's reference is a TV show, Mayday (Canadian TV series). That's a valid source, but it's pretty close to impossible to verify.

The second statement's reference is a Straits Times article with no link to the article.

The only other source related to the civil trial is a post from the OverLawyered blog, which is likely not a WP:RS anyway, but in any event does not mention any exclusion of evidence. ("overlawyered" is typoed as "oulawyered"; I'll fix that.) TJRC (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not impossible to verify the TV show source as they're distributed around and libraries may have a copy. However, it would help if there were minute marks to make it easier to find the information. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know to what extent US law is the same as UK law, but if the NTSB published its findings while the L.A. court was hearing the civil suit then the NTSB findings would come under sub judice and be inadmissible, as a result the jury would be prevented from hearing the NTSB result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.144 (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW I believe the NTSB findings are inadmissible by design because the NTSB doesn't want to be interfered with on political grounds, so by making it inadmissible in a court of law (which is about blame) and only allowing it to be used for accident prevention, the NTSB protects itself as an agency. Other accident investigation bodies do the same things. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The admissibility into a California state court would be governed by the California Evidence Code, not the rules of the body producing the report. I'm not aware of anything in the Cal. Evidence Code that would prohibit it (although I've not made a very detailed search). The report would qualify as hearsay, of course, but would seem to fall within the hearsay exception for official records and other official writings.
 * That being said, this is all speculation. Is anyone aware of any source saying the report was in fact excluded? TJRC (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I searched some key words on Google and found some forum posts referring to an article ... One of them had a URL and I found this on the Wayback Machine http://web.archive.org/web/20040710183746/http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/story/0,4567,122025,00.html "SilkAir crash: US firm told to pay US$44m" from the Business Times of Singapore: "NTSB reports can't be used as evidence at trial under federal law, Ms Crum said." WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "§1154. Discovery and use of cockpit and surface vehicle recordings and transcripts" states: "(b) Reports.-No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report." // There is a Stack Exchange post about this law WhisperToMe (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I found that statute, too (but not the stackexchange post, thanks). But that's federal law, and would not be controlling in a state court, where state evidence code controls.
 * At first I wondered if it was sloppy reporting, that perhaps the trial was in a federal district court; but I also found some reporting that identified it as a state Superior Court. So I still dunno. TJRC (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! (I am not a lawyer, but...) I don't know if this particular law is truly only designed to be applied in federal court, or if it's designed to apply under both, and if it's the second, I don't know if that applicability under state law has been tested. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW Crum was Parker-Hannafin's spokesperson. I think that if the company's lawyers felt they could evade the federal law in California court, they would have done so, possibly? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW since the lawyer for the plaintiffs Walter Lack, also stated the conclusions of the NTSB report are not admissible, this would sulpport the statement "which was not allowed to hear or consider the NTSB's and Parker Hannifin's conclusions," in regards to the NTSB (I do not know whether Parker Hannafin's are still supported. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)