Talk:SilkAir Flight 185

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SilkAir Flight 185 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

This article is written in Singaporean English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, centre, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 19, 2012, December 19, 2017, and December 19, 2023.

Aviation: Accidents

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Singapore Mid‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Indonesia Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Fatalities

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

Actually there was one survivor who made it out over the over wing exit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.46.119 (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

jurisdiction

The state where the crash occurred usually has jurisdiction over accident investigation. In the event that it occurs in international waters, then the state of registration has jurisdiction. State of manufacture does not have any sway in this Guinness2702 (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These days, the state of manufacture is entitled to an associated representative + advisers: https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Aftermath-of-an-Aircraft-Accident-ICAOs-role-in-accident-investigation-.aspx. Although I suppose that might not be "jurisdiction" over the investigation itself per se, so I've updated the article. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]